At what point did humans become Human?

[Gharib]

That's nice.
But it is hardly an accurate description of what happens during embryonic development.

what happens during embryonic development, i have never found a good source to read about it from the scientific perspective.

 

[Valjean]

Your reference isn't based on any testable evidence, Moegypt. You could find a dozen different versions from various other religious writings.

 

[Valjean]

what happens during embryonic development, i have never found a good source to read about it from the scientific perspective.

You must never have looked then. Embryology is pretty well understood and documented, even in popular literature.

 

[Gharib]

You must never have looked then. Embryology is pretty well understood and documented, even in popular literature.

so pretty much most of the sites would be correct in what they say about it?

 

[jarofthoughts]

what happens during embryonic development, i have never found a good source to read about it from the scientific perspective.

Although it these explanations are somewhat technical you could start here:
Embryogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prenatal development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, Shubin's book 'Your Inner Fish' has a good explanation that is easily understood without having tons of education in the subject:
Amazon.com: Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (Vintage) (9780307277459): Neil Shubin: Books

 

[moegypt]

Your reference isn't based on any testable evidence, Moegypt. You could find a dozen different versions from various other religious writings.

This is my reference from Quran.., If you have reference show me..it will be good.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no such thing as a "first human." This is why. Consider the following spectrum of colors:

Where does blue begin?

It's not really possible to point at a spot and say "This is where blue begins." There's a point where blue definitely doesn't exist (moving left to right), and a point where it definitely does, but you can't point and say "This is where the first blue begins." (Yes, you can find the first blue pixel but I think you understand what I mean)

Species change over time, and categories like "species" and "human" are fuzzy categories.

It's even worse than the Roy G Biv continuum. We had multiple different humanish types existing simultaneously.
One could've been "human" earlier than others. Tis a quite blurry continuum....except for those who think man
evolved from a hunk'o clay, a rib & some magic.

 

[doppelganger]

Whenever a taxonomic purpose arises to recognize "human." :slap:

 

[Valjean]

My assessment of your reference stands, then, moegypt?

Here's a source with some empirical backing: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

 

[jarofthoughts]

Whenever a taxonomic purpose arises to recognize "human." :slap:

Humans can be taxonomically defined as belonging to the Domain Eucarya, the Kingdom Animalia, the Phylum Chordata, the Class Mammalia, the Order Primate, the Family Hominidae and the Genus Homo, and is so far counting among it’s species Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo Sapiens, further divided into the now extinct subspecies Homo sapiens idaltu and the currently living Homo sapiens sapiens.

And while the exact point when humans became 'humans' is a question that is difficult to pin down, and may not even make much sense in the first place, it is important to note that the distinctions and classifications are not in any sense 'wishy-washy'.

 

[doppelganger]

And while the exact point when humans became 'humans' is a question that is difficult to pin down, and may not even make much sense in the first place, it is important to note that the distinctions and classifications are not in any sense 'wishy-washy'.

Correct. They are more or less useful (depending on how they are being used) and therefore as malleable as the purposes to which various systems of organized information put them.

The question - posed as an ontological query - is nonsense.

 

[Sleeppy]

How many kilograms of evidence would you like me to cite?

As much as you'd like.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The question - posed as an ontological query - is nonsense.

Indeed.
Nature cares nothing for the human need to box and classify everything, a process that is in place mainly to make things cognitively manageable and systematic because our minds, while impressive, are still limited and didn't evolve to understand things like millions or billions of years, things smaller than atoms, bigger than solar systems, or, the painstakingly gradual change that takes place on an evolutionary scale.

 

[Valjean]

"Human" is not a clade or genus. It's a psycho-social concept.

 

[moegypt]

My assessment of your reference stands, then, moegypt?

Here's a source with some empirical backing: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

I am not getting what you mean.

 

[Student of X]

So at what point did these different species of Hominina become "human" and gain the attention of God? At what point did we achieve sentience and cognition sufficient enough to be considered special by God?

Could ancient campfire rituals have separated us from Neanderthals?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

opcorn:

 

[Marble]

However before our time there existed a plethora of pre-sapiens sapiens anthropoids, such as Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalis, Homo habilis, and Homo antecessor.

Which of them burried their deads?

 

[Plato]

At what point did humans become human?
I guess from a religious standpoint it doesn't matter, since we know it happened at some point and for believers according to God's plan and input.
From a scientific viewpoint it's an interesting question, but since no human witness was there and there's no recorded human history 'before' we were human, no one really knows.
Modren science provides us with some clues though....As I understand it modern genetic and DNA tests have proved that all existing humans are the descendants of 1 woman who lived 150,000 years ago, and also the descendants of 1 man who lived about 100,000 years ago. So, science has proved an 'Adam' and Eve', although they didn't live at the same time, never met, and didn't live in a garden.
Science also now knows 'humans' left Africa and moved to what's now Arabia c.58,000BC and from there and the Mideast spread to every part of the world by 16,000BC.
Religion and Jewish legend from the Mideast (Genisis chp. 6) talks of the 'Nephilim' (mis-translated by the Greeks as 'giants') who lived in some parts of the Mideast after humans were created, and who were like humans, stronger, but not human....and now thought to refer to the Mideast Neanderthals of c.40,000- 30,000BC. According to legend and Genesis these people lacked human souls or had limited human souls and were not 'God's' humans.
So, I guess humans became human 150,000-100,000 years ago, finishing up being totally human after a little interbreeding with the Neanderthals about 35,000 years ago.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

godlikemadman;2829706]
At what point did humans become Human?

Well Evolution can answer that question, can it?

So at what point did these different species of Hominina become "human" and gain the attention of God? At what point did we achieve sentience and cognition sufficient enough to be considered special by God?

This is my personal opinion.
It took hundreds of thousands of years, until we started to convey some intellectuality, when the first group decided to live in a civilized society, or when we were able to convey our experiences verbally. maybe when we were able to understand our existence and to question it.