C
Curious11
Guest
That makes no sense, there has never been a first human period. Genesis has nothing to do with it
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
phil19034
Guest
First: I’m not quoting Genesis. I’m debating you solely within the theory of evolution.Genesis has nothing to do with it
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that one day we had zero homo sapiens, and the next day we had several?That makes no sense, there has never been a first human period.
Logic dictates that someone had to be the first homo sapien, even if the first by only seconds. It is logically impossible to go from zero homo sapiens one day to several the next, with all of them being born at the exact same moment in time. Even Genesis doesn’t suggest that.
According to evolution, someone was eventually born with the genome of modern homo sapiens. Someone came first and spread his/her genes until the homo sapien species was able to grow and expand of Africa.
So, I’m sorry. But yes, there was a first homo sapien.
God bless.
C
Curious11
Guest
TL;DR. There is no clear cut point in time where a human is born from almost-human-but-not-quite parents, because there is no clear rule to say what is a human and what is almost-but-not-yet
You’re conceiving the Homo sapiens species as an unmovable and unchangeable block of genes that came about and that was the end of history.
Very wrong. Do you realize that all humans today carry Neanderthal genes except subsaharan Africans? Would you say you’re (unless you’re subsaharan) less human than they are? I think not. So the issue is that we first have to define what is a human, and that’s not at easy as we think.
We came from hominid non-human ancestors. As they evolved through natural selection, genetic mutations (that always happen, even you and me, we were born with mutations in our genes) that were advantageous to survival were passed down. Little by little, small beneficial mutations consolidated in our ancestors that slowly started resembling us little by little, their genes looking increasingly similar. But the thing is, Humans all have individual differences in genes, so the frontier between what constitutes a human and what doesn’t isn’t always clear.
At what point do our ancestors resemble us enough to become modern humans? Nobody knows, and hence there has never been a first human. It’s a continuous progression that evolves even today through sexual selection and genetic drift, although in some parts of the world still natural selection.
You’re conceiving the Homo sapiens species as an unmovable and unchangeable block of genes that came about and that was the end of history.
Very wrong. Do you realize that all humans today carry Neanderthal genes except subsaharan Africans? Would you say you’re (unless you’re subsaharan) less human than they are? I think not. So the issue is that we first have to define what is a human, and that’s not at easy as we think.
We came from hominid non-human ancestors. As they evolved through natural selection, genetic mutations (that always happen, even you and me, we were born with mutations in our genes) that were advantageous to survival were passed down. Little by little, small beneficial mutations consolidated in our ancestors that slowly started resembling us little by little, their genes looking increasingly similar. But the thing is, Humans all have individual differences in genes, so the frontier between what constitutes a human and what doesn’t isn’t always clear.
At what point do our ancestors resemble us enough to become modern humans? Nobody knows, and hence there has never been a first human. It’s a continuous progression that evolves even today through sexual selection and genetic drift, although in some parts of the world still natural selection.
Last edited:
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Any society that has to place armed guards and barbed wire or gun-boats along the borders to stop their citizens trying to escape is nothing more than a glorified prison camp. Yet we still see people in the West glorifying the October Revolution or Cuban revolutionaries.I’m always amazed at how long the commies are bad evil people indoctrination has lasted.
Last edited:
C
Curious11
Guest
Very true.
P
phil19034
Guest
I know everything you just said. However, the idea that there was never a first human is philosophical & logically WRONG.TL;DR. There is no clear cut point in time where a human is born from almost-human-but-not-quite parents, because there is no clear rule to say what is a human and what is almost-but-not-yet
You’re conceiving the Homo sapiens species as an unmovable and unchangeable block of genes that came about and that was the end of history.
Very wrong. Do you realize that all humans today carry Neanderthal genes except subsaharan Africans? Would you say you’re (unless you’re subsaharan) less human than they are? I think not. So the issue is that we first have to define what is a human, and that’s not at easy as we think.
We came from hominid non-human ancestors. As they evolved through natural selection, genetic mutations (that always happen, even you and me, we were born with mutations in our genes) that were advantageous to survival were passed down. Little by little, small beneficial mutations consolidated in our ancestors that slowly started resembling us little by little, their genes looking increasingly similar. But the thing is, Humans all have individual differences in genes, so the frontier between what constitutes a human and what doesn’t isn’t always clear.
At what point do our ancestors resemble us enough to become modern humans? Nobody knows, and hence there has never been a first human. It’s a continuous progression that evolves even today through sexual selection and genetic drift, although in some parts of the world still natural selection.
Yes, I know that all homo-sapiens except sub-Saharan Africans humans carry genes from the Neanderthal genome. But did you know (according to some scientists) that only 20% of the Neanderthal genome still exists? The remaining 80% is lost.
Did you also know that some scientists believe (based on the DNA record) that Homo Sapiens women couldn’t have healthy children with Neanderthal men?
All homo sapiens have genes which come from non-homo sapiens (some even from bacteria, etc). Having genes from other species doesn’t make you a different species.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150619-there-is-alien-dna-inside-you
Yes, there was interbreeding. But either Interbreeding could only result in children from homo sapien men and Neanderthal women, or the Neanderthals were a subspecies of homo sapien, not a seperate species.
After all, two organisms that can interbreed and create healthy children are the same species.
Anyway, my point is this… one day the past, the first homo sapiens walked the earth. One of them was born first.
God Bless
C
Curious11
Guest
Have it your way. You’re wrong, as usually happens when you rely on philosophy instead of science
P
phil19034
Guest
I’m not wrong. I might not be expressing myself using the best scientific THEORIES and HYPOTHESISES but I’m not 100% wrong either.Have it your way. You’re wrong, as usually happens when you rely on philosophy instead of science
And you are not 100% either. The fact that you think we can go from zero homo sapien sapiens one day and multiple the next without ever having a first defies basic logic.
When people people use science without CLASSICAL Philosophy, then it causes the to be book smart but lack all common sense.
You cannot totally divorce science from real philosophy. Logic & the Natural Law are the root of true philosophy.
When “scientism” people do this, they remove logic from their arguments. That’s why we have some scientists coming us with some really crazy theories regarding the nature of the universe. For example: scientists who say our universe is actually just a computer simulation from a more advanced species in another dimension/universe.
Ideas like that defy logic and defy philosophy; and are frankly totally unscientific and 100% science fiction.
While I believe that science can be inspired by GOOD science fiction, too many scientists today allow science fiction to replace classical philosophy in regards to what is logically possible.
God bless
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.