Viviane

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 4,484 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Viviane

• 
  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.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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?
• 
  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.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  I have to go put my plants in the ground. Later tater!
• 
  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.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  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.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  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.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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!
• 
  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.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  No, because populations evolve into different species, not individual members of that population. Every child is the same species as it's parent.
• 
  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.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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"!
• 
  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.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Well theoretically is possible. But I rather say we cannot do it than claim there was no first human.

  My bigger point is that when you decide that, at some point, a population was human, you are still making an arbitrary distinction. Populations evolve into different species, not individual members of that population.
• 
  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.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  So basically you're suggesting building a criteria set such that the DNA of every modern human would fit through the DNA sifter and look backwards to find the first DNA that would ALSO fit through the sifter?

  First, we don't have DNA from a population in the past to do that, secondly, that's an arbitrary line in the sand, that individual would still be the same species as it's most recent ancestors and descendants.
• 
  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.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  I didn't, I said 'I doubt' not that 'I know', though you did just confirm I was right. I also think you're being deliberately obtuse, but I don't know that either, nor do I know what you're trying to achieve here. I guess I can argue semantics with the best of them.

  It's good to see you admit what you are posting about me has no basis in reality. I appreciate the honesty.