Posts by atrapado

posted

266
There Was No First Human
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
atrapado

I am sorry cofty I didn't see I was hijacking the thread thank you for pointing out my wrong ways how I could I become better. And I suck at sarcasm as well.

#1 I agree that we don't have a good or accepted definition of Homo sapien. Maybe I am to ignorant on the subject but I don't see why we couldn't arrive at one. If we claim we are clearly humans(in the video he makes this claim) and that his resent ancestors are clearly humans what makes them so clearly humans. Couldn't that criteria be used to test the rest of the ancestors.

#2 Again I might just be ignorant but I don't see why evolution cannot be applied to individuals as well.
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
atrapado

Viviane the test would be applied to all ancestors of every human living today and the ancestors of last X(10,000) years. Since you would test all you would find the first human not just A human.
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
atrapado

cofty first I though we agreed so if you really want me to answer you question please elavorate. Also what is thinking? Can you please show me the way. Can you please please please teach me how to think. I am sorry am just an idiot that writes stupid things excluse my ignorance please.
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
atrapado

Yes 10,000 is arbitrary it was a suggestion just go far back enough where you and I agreed they are still humans and used that sample to create a criteria that includes all humans and everyone that has died in the last X years. Where X is a number we agree they are still humans.
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
atrapado

Viviane we never said analyze why some could mate with others. The point was that if you can define human you can find the first human. Mate was just one example it might not work or prove accurate.

So what if population A evolved faster than B. Even if B produced humans eventually if A produced humans first thats the winner. It doesn't matter if they lived on the same timeline that was not the problem presented. For my example tests between population A and B are irrelevant, the test would be from current population and a few thousand years to the rest.
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
atrapado

OnTheWayOut the timeline might not be linear so 17,000 might be the oldest but you might not be able to mate with 16,999. So 17,000 would be human and 16,999 would not. But if you could test for that why not test for any other characteristic.

Even if 16,000 could mate with 17,000 in your example and we cannot mate wit 17,000 it doesn't mean 17,000 is human. We never said all humans are equal that was I originally suggested a set of parameters with ranges that would include all current humans and from the last 10,000.
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
atrapado

Viviane like I said we need to need to find out if you can mate with your neighbor in order to answer that question. (j/k)

On a serious note we couldn't just go by one test we would need to make more of those tests. If your entire neighbord hood could mate with a hominid from 30K but you couldn't then yes I would say you are differet(maybe something wrong with you). However I would consider that 30k hominid human if he could mate with any human of today.
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
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.
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
atrapado

cofty I agree that we might not agree with a human definition or it might not exist. So how then can we say there was not first human? That part is what makes no sence to me.
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
atrapado

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.