Viviane if Populations change species over time, aren't individuals part of the populations? therefore individuals changing species over time as well? I understand any notiable changes happen over a long period of time. But just because we cannot pinpoint a change that cause a species change doesn't mean is not there.
There Was No First Human
by cofty 266 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
-
Viviane
Was anything wrong with atrapado's suggestion?:
Yes. That in no way would prove that we have found the first human, just two primates that can mate. What if I could mate with a hominid from 30K years ago but my neighbor can't? And what if she could made with a different hominid from 40K years ago but I couldn't? Does that mean my neighbor and I are different species?
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?"
No one is dogding anything. Cofty already pointed out that the definitions are often arbitrarty and that debates go on about what makes a species.
-
Viviane
I understand any notiable changes happen over a long period of time. But just because we cannot pinpoint a change that cause a species change doesn't mean is not there.
We can, in a population over time, not in an individual. Every child is the same species as it's parent.
-
Viviane
I have to go put my plants in the ground. Later tater!
-
atrapado
I'll agree with this.
If we cannot define what humans are then there was not first human. However if we have a definition we should be able to test that definition and find the first human.
Viviane you miss the test if you can mate with your neighbor. Why couldn't we have overlapping species that way a single organism might be part of more thatn 1 specie. The point with the primates that can mate is that if we could test that why couldn't we test all the other characteristics of your definition of human and arrive at the first human? Assuming you have such a definition.
-
cofty
If we cannot define what humans - OR ANY OTHER SPECIES - are then there was not first human. - OR RABBIT
Then we are agreed.
-
Viviane
Viviane you miss the test if you can mate with your neighbor.
Ignoring the obvious gender issues, what test? If there is a hominid from 30K years ago that only one of us can mate with, what does that tell you?
-
ballistic
There is definately the first human to wear a fig leaf? We call her Eve.
-
OnTheWayOut
These things often break down into people playing silly games of semantics.
We cannot specifically define what being human means at all points. That really is the main point of the posted video. But just as Cantleave's Blue-to-Red post at the top of page 2 demonstrates, there is a point on the extreme right that we know for a fact is very red, (Don't even start arguing the semantics of what "red" means or under what light we are talking and according to whose visions/definitions of color.) there is a point where we know we are clearly human. But somewhere in all the points prior to "clearly human," we are not so sure. Some of you want to say you are so sure, but even at the DNA level, there is a point where the definition is not so clear from one set of slightly different chromosomes to the next and the next and the next....
It is also sad that we can have a serious discussion about evolution and first humans and get sidetracked with "Dawkins is an ass." (Maybe "fundie" doesn't fit him, but "ass" might.) The man sells books and gets paid for lectures. I get why extreme points of view are used. I happen to agree with him, but also understand how he comes off as smug and bashes believers kind of hard.
"Uneducated Church Goers" If you are going to confuse "fundamentalist" with "extreme atheist" then I can understand that you will also confuse "uneducated church goers" with "people that did not go to school." Dawkins, in his own way of being an ass, is trying to say that people who deny evolution and accept church beliefs are not educating themselves on evolution. As far as the reality of evolution goes, they are uneducated. He tends to insult them, but is not saying that they didn't go to college or at least primary school. It is as simple as saying that a doctor is uneducated in the field of law or a lawyer is uneducated in the field of medicine.
And while I might give way to some of the church-goers having looked into the field of evolution and rejecting it because of the anecdotal evidence before them about faith, people like Dawkins do not give as much ground. But notice that most church-going "fundamentalists" are also not giving ground to ideas about the nonexistence of God. They are often just like Dawkins in their insistance that people are denying reality. I only point that one out when believers wonder why nonbelievers get so much like Dawkins and act like asses. We are dealing with asses, so sometimes we stoop to their level.
Now I will probably be sorry I stated my opinion so straightforwardly, just like an ass of the level of Dawkins. But sometimes, reading these silly semantics arguments causes me to do just that.
I start reading these comments and, this time the argument goes like this:
1. There was no first human because......
2. Well, Dawkins was a fundie.
3. What do you mean?
Right there at step 2, there was no salvaging this thread from going deeper and deeper off point. At least some tried-
4. But back onto the main point, what is "human" ?