IamJoseph

Certainly - the rake and sword are positively christian and islamic, representing the very antithesis of 'by example only' [being a light unto others]. In the final count these means come to nought: the backlash against religions stem from Europe; islam upholds itself today only via closed doors and the sword factor.

However, my point that Europe abandoned its European Hellenism for the Hebrew bible - is also a valid factor here, notwithstanding it was an agenda to retain its fatally defunct past beliefs via grotesque manipulation of the Hebrew bible - and then came islam emulating the same with still different manipulations again. You say this was perpertrated via the sword - no contest. The heresy factor of Rome - which the Jews singularly rejected and stood against in 70 CE - was fully absorbed by Christianity, implementing this device even more intensely then did Rome.

The Jews won. European Christianity and Islam are so enraged they cannot forgive Israel for it. Israel is charged with occupying Israel - how dare Israel do such and refuse to go die silently! We'll get you with our Pretend Pals and serial 2-states in the same land. Howzat!? :huh:

fatpie42

Yes we are discussing a new species. Any 'firsts' of humanity would be a new species. If we were discussing something non-human then we might be discussing a first member, but if we are discussing humans, the idea of a 'first' human is scientifically impossible.

So what do the red marbles represent exactly? I'm sorry, but this analogy has no relevance to the topic at hand.

So you are saying that there's a huge conspiracy not accept the possibility of a first human? Just checking. I'm sorry, but a basic understanding of evolutionary processes is enough to realise that a first human is impossible. If you are saying that the process of adaptation at a basic level is a mistake which the scientific community won't admit to, that can't be anything but a hyper-paranoid conspiracy theory.

I wonder whether you have similar views of history, archaeology and bible scholarship.

What are you talking about? Apes are becoming all sorts of things. Both apes and humans are developing and adapting all the time. This is like saying that insects haven't turned into ladybirds for billions of years or wolves haven't turned into dogs for billions of years. It's a nonsense and shows a complete lack of understanding of the science.

That's what mutation is. Mutation is something genetically new appearing where it did not exist before. That's where we get genetic changes which are beneficial and that's also where we get genetic diseases. If genes could not alter not only would there not be this vast diversity of creatures and we would all have died out billions of years ago, but there would also be no genetic diseases appearing on the scene.


What utter rubbish. The arrival of speech survives because the person posessing speech survives. It's that simple. Speech doesn't decide it is beneficial any more than genetic diseases decide they are beneficial. The only thing that decides what carries on is whether the person posessing that gene survives and has children. That means that any genes which do not enable survival are no passed on (and genetic diseases which kill people too quickly or which do not have unaffected carriers are not passed on either).

All this says to me is that there was the potential for animals to have two sexes and there was potential for one strand of apes to become humans. Yes. We know this. - So what has it got to do with any 'first human' precisely?

As in one couple? That would lead to years and years of incest and be completely unsustainable. So no. Wrong.

avi

You are probably correct, however, here is a description of
cloning experiments with mammoths, which, while supporting your thesis, leaves open the door for future inquiry.
I think we need to be a tad more conservative in making claims about what folks in the future will or will not be able to accomplish....I doubt, in other words, your expression, "completely implausible". For example, I continue to hope (?pray for?) that the badly charred papyrus manuscripts from Herculaneum, buried under volcanic lava, in the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, will be reconstructed by newer imaging methods, to reveal some version of any "Christian" text, or reference to a historical Jesus.

IamJoseph

Of coz it has critical relevence. The red marbles represent your 'heap' - an accumulative conglomeration. Now you say a 'first' human or a 'first' bull dog is impossible. I hear you - but from which scientific/math principle does this come from? Is there such a thing as a first drop of rain - or only a downpour? - I mean technically, precise measuring equipment not being the issue? It appears that a 'first' in a heap appears to cause damage to whatever you see as an absolute scientific premise, and I wonder why this is so, when it is a simple non-disputable premise I put forth. We see trillions of space bodies - and the BBT assumes a first entity in the universe: what's the dif here?



No - because in those faculties, a first is not a problem.



I never said what you write.

The change to new is not disputed; the source of that change is the issue. I say the source is NOT the result of a mutation making something new of and by itself: it is manifestly and blatantly IMPOSSIBLE. If a person is in a vacuum - can he produce a new marble in his palm? How can a gene produce what is not contained in itself? Here, we cannot confuse growth [which is again caused by external input] - with change. Growth needs external input of the same matter [or it does not occur]; change needs an addition which was not present. How does an ape become a human - when a human exhibits what was never contained in the ape? - explain your understanding of this without quoting ToE terms, but as with the red marbes turning to green - or a man in a vacuum producing a new marble in his hand? To prempt, the ape is not the changer - the human is: the new does not come from the ape. The mutation represents an effect - not a cause.




The survival factor does not rule - a new entity can arrive, and not survive; equally it can be new and survive. The point is the new is not a subsequence of the old - namely not its NEW aspect. Its impossible. Allign the process with the red marble becoming green anew; or that a a change represents an external, not an internal, impact; or that two cannot come from one - here a mutation only begets two halves of itself - nothing new possible here. The math!



A lot. By default you have arrived at a 'duality' factor [potential of the duality is wrong; actual is correct] - being the first entity.

Of coz as in one couple - the first human had to be a dual gendered entity - no alternative here!

Now you have deflected at another effectation, while that does not effect the primal factor as you claim, namely incest and unsustainable renders the duality not applying. FYI, incest is only a proof that I am right here: incest is also a repro of a duality factor! Give it to the most scientific dcument - its called Genesis - and you will be sacked from your faculty and never land another job again - you are interfearing with Govenment grants. The Galeleo syndrome. :wave:

aa5874

Galileo did not use your Genesis, he used a telescope., mathematics, geometry and astronomy.

This is an excerpt of Galileo in his letter to the Grand Duchess.

fatpie42

Okay, perhaps not completely implausible. Nevertheless, it's a great deal more implausible than Roger Pearse seemed to imply.

Dream on. :grin:

fatpie42

Yes, there probably is such thing as a first drop of rain. But, as I said before, that is irrelevant to the issue of a 'first human' since a first human is scientifically impossible while a first drop of rain is not...

Why do you keep talking about red marbles turning into green marbles? It's an especially confusing analogy since marbles do not normally change colour.

The difference is that a first human is scientifically impossible. This has been explained to you before. A population bottleneck would lead to years of incest and, within human populations, such a population would be unsustainable. Bacteria does not need a large existing group to multiply successfully, but humans do. That's why the development of life most likely began with bacteria and branched out from there.

By the time humans turn up they are developing from mammals which already have two sexes and whose development would be irrevocably stunted if they tried to reproduce through incest. Fortunately, since what we have is a group gradually developing into humans and not a population bottleneck at all, there is no problem. However, this means that there was no first human. Like I said, the human race could not have successfully developed from a singular couple so the whole idea of a 'first human' is scientifically impossible.

Sorry. It sounded like you were telling me that my view was undermined because modern apes are not developing into humans.

That's how mutation works. Mutation has been observed in nature. Far from being impossible, it is undeniable fact.

If you wish to say that mutation is often caused by outside influences then I would absolutely agree. Then again, sometimes mutation can be caused by men having children when they are older, so since that is an influence on the sperm while it is still part of the father, is that really an 'external' influence?

I hardly see how any of this is relevant to the complete impossibility of a 'first human'.


If the new entity does not survive, it does not pass on its genes and we never see it again. Of course, I'm not sure what you mean by 'entity'. I am talking more about traits in individuals. For example, a polar bear is born a thicker fur coat. If it breeds it passes on its genes, but if it doesn't breed it doesn't pass on its genes. However, its coat makes it more likely that it will survive to pass on those genes and, once it has done so, all its thick-furred offspring also have a greater likelihood of survival and passing on their genes too. On the other hand if a polar bear is born with a much thinner coat it is less likely to survive and any thin-furred offspring will be in a similarly poor situation making it likely that the number of thin-furred offspring will dwindle very quickly.

What survives, survives. What does not have the necessary traits for survival will not survive and those with the best traits for survival will live and breed and mulitply. However, a single human couple isolated from any others will die off due to years and years of incest. It's that simple.

Years and years off incest would cause the human race to die out, but for some reason you think that supports your view. Okay fair enough, you win. There was years and years of incest and the human race died out. Oh wait a minute, the human race didn't die out because we're alive today and the fossil record points to our development from earlier species of mammal (just like all other mammals on the planet!).

spamandham

No there wasn't. Sexual reproduction evolved long long long before there were any species we would consider to be 'dog'.

Of course there's an alternative. It's called speciation. New species emerge from isolated populations of pre-existing ancestor species. This experiment is performed endless times a year in labs around the world. "species" is a concept we invented to categorize things. Such hard line categories do not actually exist in nature. In nature, it's all shades of gray.

IamJoseph

U miss the point: Galeleo was subjected to the same scenario many scientists find themselves in today - only the church is replaced with a dictator called ToE. Woe be anyone who argues with them - it is heresy.

IamJoseph

It does not matter what example is used - inanimate examples bring it down to math. Now I find your arguement is not based on math but the consequences of incest - which I explained to you is in favor of my premise and contradicts yours. If incenst occurs - it does not mean there was no 'first human' - it means only that there was, and that it can also have adverse effects! Incest is the same as any other union, in the sense there is a mating and an offspring - nothing more than that in the context of the debate.


A bottleneck is the result of many 'ONES' multiplied. Reduce that to a town growing because gold was discovered. Growth and expansion totally depend on bottlenecks resulting - nothng to do with no 'first' in that bottleneck result.

Incest: this proves it began this way. The effects of incest repro does not negate; here, the results of incest is a diminishing one - we are all related, and it is only relative. Eventually, the incestous effects become thinner - they never disappear - because we all eventually come not from the first retrovirus [which again proves we are all incestual!] - but that we come from a first duality of both male and female. Otherwise even incest is not possible or impacting.

The incest factor is not just irrelevent here, but it only affirms Genesis's position. And for your info - the premise of incest, its forbiddence and the exacting biological limits where it applies - was introduced in the Hebrew bible. Many pages are devoted to this biology: did you know a man can marry his neice and not violate incest laws - while a woman cannot marry her nephew - it does violate when the dots are connected? This tells you that the incest effects are not negatable - only its impact reducable. Ultimately, we all all conducting incest - whether via one first human - or one first retrovirus - the effect is a relative and reducing one only - it is never an eliminating one. Do you see the contradiction of humans reproducing as humans from one another [parents and offspring]- and also that it is bad because it is encestual? FYI, gay effects humanity more than incest - if the world pops attained 20% gay, humanity would be destroyed in a few generations, making this an existential more than a moral issue.

Incorrect, but irrelevent here.



Incorrect. Its not gradual - humans appeared in the last nano period of life. Like one hour ago, relatively. Gradual means there are such imprints all along the thread; there is not a single imprint - the similarities of 'life' per se has been confused with the unique new markings of 'individual life form groups', is all that has happened. Skeletal structures, cells, genes, blood, growth, dna design, individual group communication traits - these are common factors for all life forms and unrelated to particular traits seen only in the new species. Speech is NOT a graduation but a runaway variance not seen in trillions of life forms, and not seen in billions of years. Genesis wins here: only the basic group imprints are declared and vindicated; speech is an anomoly not a common graduation - this is provable by a ratio of 1: trillions of life; over all recorded time for life. This antithises gradual development - it does not support it.

The two reasons you put are incest and bottleneck. Both affirm my premise and contradict yours: all life, even non-life, are incestuos - varied only by relative degrees; all bottlenecks are impossible unless they multiplied from ONE. And Genesis says that the first ONE was a duality. ToE says the gene selects something from inside it, or mixes with something outside it, and produced something new - something which never existed before any place and in any time. In contrast, genesis is saying the new thing is not new - it was contained in the gene to start with: a male or female offspring cannot be a result of mutation - unless both parts were already self contained in a gene - aka a duality of male and female. By extension, this must also apply to a new species. This also extends to the successful co-operation with the evironment to re-produce traits which help survival: if the results show a new addition - it is not from internal mutation! Genesis is right - the new could only come if the gene possessed the new!



This so-called 'fact' is limited to a splitting of a cell only; it does not account for any new input whatsoever. That is why I presented a red marble example: why does it not turn into red and green halves when splitting - what happened to your 'NATURE' here? Any other example works the same: the new input could NOT have come from within the cell which mutated - it was not contained therein! Basically, you are saying and accepting, that a value of 1 can be split into two hallves of that one [no arguuements here!]; only you are NOT saying this - in fact you are saying the 1 splits into two halves plus a pineapple on each half. I ask you - where did the extra pineapples come from - how did they jump onto each half which came from only a '1' which did NOT contain any pineapples? No answer!

Its not a choice or multi-option thing!

Its not that an external impact applies. More impacting is that it cannot be an INTERNAL one - because that new output was not contained in the internal. IOW, the mutation does NOT cause new results - this is impossible. The new bit comes from elsewhere - totally negating the ToE premise of mutation readings. Humans are not from apes - life is from life - two different things. New kinds of life are an EXTERNALLY impacting result - no options here. Add to this that there is no such thing as NATURE or ECO-SYSTEMS - placebos to explain the inexplicable - and the whole premise of ToE becomes belly up. Genesis wins - be aghast and throw your tomatoes at me.


What you call impossible is in fact not possible any other way. Only the reverse applies.



The passing of genes has nothing to do with the survival factor - its a mechanical, math engineering issue. Whatever a gene passes, whether it survived or not, is limited to what that gene possesses. A gene cannot pass on marbles or pc chips - whether the offspring survives or not. If the offspring contains a marble or a chip - it does not mean this was inherited from the genes - whether that offspring survived or not is irrelevent here. But it suits ToE - that is why this premise is taken on board, and whitewashed with such casino logic: do you understand the impact on ToE here if the impact is EXTERNAL - it means ToE becomes superfluous, negated and poofed out! Here, incest and bottlenecks have no impact - other than proving my premise and disproving yours as well!

The earth is not flat - and genes cannot produce what they do not contain, even if they mutate. Genesis wins. :wave: