cofty if we cannot define what human is how can we say there was no first human? So what is the definition of human that way we can tell if under that definition we can find a first human or not. I think my DNA sequence plus enough variables to include all current humans could work.
There Was No First Human
by cofty 266 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Viviane
I think my DNA sequence plus enough variables to include all current humans could work.
Your definition of human is basically "my DNA plus everyone thast is currently human"!
-
cofty
if we cannot define what human is how can we say there was no first human?
That is precisely why we can't draw lines. You are saying one thing and arguing the opposite.
Your DNA test is obviously impossible. How do you compare almost identical genomes and understand what the phenotypical differences would be?
-
-
cofty
It's precisely the opposite of arbitrary.
-
Viviane
No, because populations evolve into different species, not individual members of that population. Every child is the same species as it's parent.
-
atrapado
cofty that is the same reason you cannot claim there is no first human. If you agree in a definition then you should be able to test that definition and find the first human. That was the reason I say we might not agree on the same human definition.
About the DNA test you don't have to undestand the phenotypical differences would be. That is why you would have parameters and ranges so include all humans. The impossible thing is that we don't have the DNA sequence from all of our ancestors but if we did this test might prove valid.
-
cofty
If you agree in a definition then you should be able to test that definition and find the first human.
But who says any such definition could ever exist?
You need to take on board Viviane's point about evolution acting on populations over long periods of time, not on individuals.
-
Viviane
That is why you would have parameters and ranges so include all humans.
Again, that definition is a tautology. "Humans are defined as human". It doesn't tell us anything.
that is the same reason you cannot claim there is no first human.
Populations change species over time, not individuals members of that population!
-
Apognophos
It seems like you guys (cofty and Viviane) are not hearing what the ones asking the questions are actually saying. Was anything wrong with atrapado's suggestion?:
Here is another theoretical test take a current human and see the oldest ancestor he/she can reproduce with and that will be the first human
Why do we bother assigning names to species at all unless we're saying that there is a certain range of organisms which are distinct, absolutely demarcated, from other life forms? So you can't dodge the question by insinuating that there is no such thing as a species. The question being asked is, "What constitutes a species?"