Galaxie, Cliff and Coma,
So as not to derail cofty's thread I would like to adress your comments on a more appropriate thread here
Kate xx
There Was No First Human
by cofty 266 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
snare&racket
Here is a good way to explain it....
There was not a first englishman, there was not a first english speaker..... there was not one day, where the first french speaker suddenly was born & appeared. Language is comparable to genes and populations.
For the exact same reasons as evolution, it is all progressive, tiny changes over time.
-
Apognophos
You are trying to make the case for a first of a species and then prop it up by describing a population evolving. As you said, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
I suppose you're right. I was trying to find a solution to the problem by describing the process of evolution and suggesting a line be drawn based on the ability of one group's individuals to interbreed with another. This much is in line with the "biological species concept" according to Wikipedia, so it shouldn't be controversial. What I want to know is, how can organisms be classified into species if every animal's offspring is its own species? This is a paradox because it means that we are all the same species as the first living cell.
may I humbly suggest a little humility. Is there not a teeny weeny bit of your mind saying maybe you are not fully aware of all the facts and variables? This is how the experts do it... what exactly is at fault here?
The article I linked to earlier, "Species problem", describes the exact same paradox that I arrived at on my own. It turns out that scientists have been arguing over what a species is since Darwin's time. The nice, neat classification system you posted, which we all learned in school, is actually just one way of looking at things and has its flaws. There's the phylogenetic method, and other ways of defining species. And the traditional method, if not others as well, suffer from this paradox. Therefore it was not a lack of humility to make a suggestion for defining a species which allows us to say when the species starts.
Granted, not being a scientist, I am unlikely to be able to solve this problem, but why can't I make suggestions and get responses? I am actually trying to learn here, believe it or not. I just find this topic's premise to be fundamentally flawed and am trying to articulate why that is. Essentially what you guys are telling me is that lines can be drawn defining species, but when it comes to crossing the line during the process of evolution, passing from one species to another, no one individual got there first. That's illogical no matter how many times you repeat it.
Let me try another tack: why is it that I see references to "anatomically modern humans" which first appeared in a certain era? How can scientists suggest that there were humans who were anatomically modern and also say that there was no first human? The only answer I can come up with is that no one has adequately defined "human". A lack of definition does not mean that it is impossible to define; it simply requires drawing a line in the sand and saying things like, "A prefrontal cortex with this percentage of brain mass and a voicebox with this range and [etc.] make a human."
I think the OP video is a good starting point for people who are new to evolution, because some people do not understand the gradual variation of evolution and how groups slowly diverge from each other. However, my question (and atrapado's) was on a deeper level and I feel like you guys only have two settings in your brains when you read posts which contradict what you believe. Setting 1 is "Agrees with us completely" and setting 2 is "Has no idea what he's talking about". This causes you to give elementary replies to advanced questions. I'm sorry that you can't meet my posts on more respectful terms. I suppose I'm wasting my time here and should move on, but I may reply again if I hear anything new in response to this post. Thanks anyway.
-
Viviane
What I want to know is, how can organisms be classified into species if every animal's offspring is its own species? This is a paradox because it means that we are all the same species as the first living cell.
No, it doesn't. Same doesn't mean exactly equal. There is variation in a population, from ancestor to descendant, from brother to sister, etc. Accumulating those changes over multiple generations means that, while each generation is the same species as the previous, over time generation 1000 can be a different species than generation 0.
Granted, not being a scientist, I am unlikely to be able to solve this problem, but why can't I make suggestions and get responses?
You are getting responses!
Let me try another tack: why is it that I see references to "anatomically modern humans" which first appeared in a certain era? How can scientists suggest that there were humans who were anatomically modern and also say that there was no first human? The only answer I can come up with is that no one has adequately defined "human". A lack of definition does not mean that it is impossible to define; it simply requires drawing a line in the sand and saying things like, "A prefrontal cortex with this percentage of brain mass and a voicebox with this range and [etc.] make a human."
It's also largely arbitrary, hence the debates!
-
KateWild
Setting 1 is "Agrees with us completely" and setting 2 is "Has no idea what he's talking about".-Apogs
Some posters can debate like this I agree. Their motives for being here are to win a debate, not teach something to someone who has genuine questions. It's unfortunate that posters on an xJW site are like this. We all come here to chat and interact and have a laugh.
On this thread, I actually agree completely with the science. But I understand your point that there must be a point where a species is identified. The way I see it as posted ealier is that a number of offspirng are born, so there is no first and only one in the species. Personally I don't see how only one single offsring would be different.
But the point is interesting when did cats stop being rabbits if the rabbit is the common ancestor? How do we define the new species?
Kate xx
-
Viviane
Their motives for being here are to win a debate, not teach something to someone who has genuine questions. It's unfortunate that posters on an xJW site are like this. We all come here to chat and interact and have a laugh.
There you go again, trying to claim to know what the motives of others are when you are completely ignorant of such. Please stop claiming to know things about other people that you cannot possibly know.
But the point is interesting when did cats stop being rabbits if the rabbit is the common ancestor? How do we define the new species?
Cats did not descend from rabbits.
-
Apognophos
It's also largely arbitrary, hence the debates!
Yes, I fully acknowledge that I was suggesting an arbitrary line being drawn. I just see arbitrary lines all around me to start with, so I figured suggesting one more would be okay. (For instance, whether two kinds of organisms are the same species, different species, or different subspecies is somewhat arbitrary, as shown by debates over whether Neanderthals are H. neanderthalensis or H. sapiens neanderthalensis.)
Anyway, I will think some more about this issue. It still seems to me at the moment that it is a logical paradox arising from the conflicting goals described by Jody Hey -- the desire to categorize but also to describe a continual process which confounds attempts at categorization -- but maybe it will make more sense to me after I ponder it for a while.
Viviane, you might be right that you are not entering into conversations with the conscious intention of winning a debate, but your tendency to be argumentative and deny any possibility of others being right strongly resembles that nonetheless. You've made over 700 posts and haven't started a single thread of any substance. Thus, it gives the appearance that you are interested primarily in waiting for someone to give you an opening and then jumping into a discussion and sniping at them.
You sometimes resort to logical fallacies to do this, such as (willfully? I can't tell) missing the point just to have something to argue over. You turn statements of people's perceptions (e.g., someone feels that someone else's motive is to win a debate) into claims of absolute fact and then point out that they cannot prove they are right since no one can read another person's mind. This 'denial of absolute certainty' approach can be used for anything, but it's a lousy way to hold a conversation. Naturally someone can come to a correct conclusion about someone else's state of mind based on that person's actions. The fact that we cannot know anything for sure is a red herring argument. Please do not deny common sense in order to "win" a debate, it's not effective at anything but irritating other people.
-
Vidiot
snare&racket -
Bagel... croissant.
-
Viviane
Viviane, you might be right that you are not entering into conversations with the conscious intention of winning a debate, but your tendency to be argumentative and deny any possibility of others being right strongly resembles that nonetheless. You've made over 700 posts and haven't started a single thread of any substance. Thus, it gives the appearance that you are interested primarily in waiting for someone to give you an opening and then jumping into a discussion and sniping at them.
And? If I am insulting someone, you might have a case. If I was being nasty, you might have a case. I am just engaging in science discussion and debate. If people don't like facts and a discussion of the hard sciences, they shouldn't post on threads about those subjects.
If you or anyone else has an argument or point to make about the topic at hand, make it. Talking about me is resolving the issues under debate.
You sometimes resort to logical fallacies to do this, such as (willfully? I can't tell) missing the point just to have something to argue over. You turn statements of people's perceptions (e.g., someone feels that someone else's motive is to win a debate) into claims of absolute fact and then point out that they cannot prove they are right since no one can read another person's mind. This 'denial of absolute certainty' approach can be used for anything, but it's a lousy way to hold a conversation. Naturally someone can come to a correct conclusion about someone else's state of mind based on that person's actions. The fact that we cannot know anything for sure is a red herring argument. Please do not deny common sense in order to "win" a debate, it's not effective at anything but irritating other people.
You are now assigning intent to me, intent that you can't possibly know. Kate has made plenty of claims and been insulting over and over with none of it returned. Please don't pretend to know things you can't know and I won't have to deal with it.
-
Apognophos
I didn't assign any intent to you, though I suggested the possibility of intent. I acknowledge my lack of knowledge about your inner mind and am fully prepared to accept the possibility that you are unintentionally lousy at participating in discussions.
