How did sex start?

[YoursTrue]

Feel free to demonstrate that.

I killed a few ants today on my counter. They apparently didn't "think ahead," ya think? Anyway, have a real good day. Bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

By definition we are Animals.

Maybe by your definition and the definitions of others. But not everybody agrees with that. Anyway, have a good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

No study was mentioned. I gave you the scientific definition of an animal and why human grandmothers meet that description. They're multicellular, right? Grandmothers must eat other living things to survive. Their cells contain no cellulose or cell walls. Grandmothers can't photosynthesize. Grandmothers are generally motile. So, they're animals.

It's not a theory or the result of a study. It's a definition. And it's the one educated people use.

Whatever definition of animal one is using that does not include human grandmothers is of no value to academia.



No, I can't be more clear than I have been. You have asked this question twice before and it has been answered twice already, although I question whether you know that.

I mentioned that teaching is a cooperative effort. All a teacher can do is to clearly and methodically present evidence and valid arguments applied to it taking one to sound conclusions. If the would-be student can't see the argument, then there is no chance for dialectic, by which I mean the discussion of ideas by two or more parties using critical thinking to exchange ideas and resolve differences in them. I provided you with the genetic and paleontological evidence for human evolution from non-human ape ancestors, and explained to you the nature of continuous transformations and why there was no first human, since there was never a human being born to a non-human mother, and never a non-human mother delivering a human being. But here you are asking again as if you never saw that.

I can't make you understand that. That's your job. If you're not up to it, the answers are unavailable to you.

Yes, maybe I missed it, btw. So can you VERY BRIEFLY explain why there were no "first humans"? Thank you! That is, if you have the kindness to do so, since I evidently did not see your answer. And thanks in advance. I will not post any more to you in case I miss your answer (which I hope you will not simply say you've answered it before, without giving the answer again - thanks btw..) because I'm busy reading other responses from you or others. Thanks again. And, of course, looking forward to your brief, uncomplicated answer as to why you say there were no "first humans." (Thanks again.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

I killed a few ants today on my counter. They apparently didn't "think ahead," ya think? Anyway, have a real good day. Bye for now.

Oh okay, so you're just going to make a joke.

That's what I will consider all of your posts from now on. Since you can't even give me the courtesy of actually responding to my questions.
Also, you expect other people to prove science to you but you can't even be bothered to back up any of your god claims with anything other than a joke, yet you cling to those beliefs for dear life while pushing aside demonstrable science. I hope you see how hypocritical you're being.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, maybe I missed it, btw. So can you VERY BRIEFLY explain why there were no "first humans"? Thank you! That is, if you have the kindness to do so, since I evidently did not see your answer. And thanks in advance. I will not post any more to you in case I miss your answer (which I hope you will not simply say you've answered it before, without giving the answer again - thanks btw..) because I'm busy reading other responses from you or others. Thanks again. And, of course, looking forward to your brief, uncomplicated answer as to why you say there were no "first humans." (Thanks again.)

If you want answers, you need to take some responsibility for your own education. I tell you that you've asked the question twice and it's been answered twice, and your reply is that you didn't read it, so could I please write it out again. As I told you, education is a cooperative effort. You need to do your part for me to be able to teach you. You ought to investigate yourself on the Internet. There is no reason you couldn't have found the following yourself using Google

.

You also need to at least look at the answers given you, and make a sincere effort to understand them. Or you could follow our discussion back to the two posts where I answered your question and read that.

But you do none of that. You just keep asking questions, ignoring the answers, and making no effort to learn. I told you that I can't do this alone. You need to make some effort to learn.

So no, I have nothing more for you other than that video. It gives the same answer that I did.

Or maybe you can just take it on faith that there was no first human being as you do that there was, if that's the only method you have for acquiring new opinions. I gave you evidence and argument in vain.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh okay, so you're just going to make a joke.

That's what I will consider all of your posts from now on. Since you can't even give me the courtesy of actually responding to my questions.
Also, you expect other people to prove science to you but you can't even be bothered to back up any of your god claims with anything other than a joke, yet you cling to those beliefs for dear life while pushing aside demonstrable science. I hope you see how hypocritical you're being.

It was really not a joke, it was reality. You just don't want to get the point. The ants didn't have the brain power to think ahead. But you say it was because of evolution. Ok. I'm sure many agree with you. Bye for now, take care. Oh before I go, though, what about that "no first human" business that another poster presented? So an organism didn't evolve eventually somehow into the "first human?" No? Of course from the unknown common ancestor maybe I suppose. Right? No? Yes? Maybe?

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh okay, so you're just going to make a joke.

That's what I will consider all of your posts from now on. Since you can't even give me the courtesy of actually responding to my questions.
Also, you expect other people to prove science to you but you can't even be bothered to back up any of your god claims with anything other than a joke, yet you cling to those beliefs for dear life while pushing aside demonstrable science. I hope you see how hypocritical you're being.

You can't prove science, can you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It was really not a joke, it was reality. You just don't want to get the point. The ants didn't have the brain power to think ahead. But you say it was because of evolution. Ok. I'm sure many agree with you. Bye for now, take care. Oh before I go, though, what about that "no first human" business that another poster presented? So an organism didn't evolve eventually somehow into the "first human?" No? Of course from the unknown common ancestor maybe I suppose. Right? No? Yes? Maybe?

I think that poster thoroughly explained to you across multiple posts why there was no "first human."

 

[tas8831]

We are in Creationism forum!

Concession accepted.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It was really not a joke, it was reality. You just don't want to get the point. The ants didn't have the brain power to think ahead. But you say it was because of evolution. Ok. I'm sure many agree with you. Bye for now, take care. Oh before I go, though, what about that "no first human" business that another poster presented? So an organism didn't evolve eventually somehow into the "first human?" No? Of course from the unknown common ancestor maybe I suppose. Right? No? Yes? Maybe?

How can there be a 'first human' when we were continually evolving, so as such to be meaningless, apart from academics who might want to place a cut-off point as to who were and who weren't?

 

[YoursTrue]

How can there be a 'first human' when we were continually evolving, so as such to be meaningless, apart from academics who might want to place a cut-off point as to who were and who weren't?

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying there was no first homo sapien because the movement from non homo sapien type hominem into homo sapien hominem was gradual, is that right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying there was no first homo sapien because the movement from non homo sapien type hominem into homo sapien hominem was gradual, is that right?

Can you pinpoint the exact moment when the "first human" emerged?

Fossils
Human Evolution Interactive Timeline

 

[Mock Turtle]

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying there was no first homo sapien because the movement from non homo sapien type hominem into homo sapien hominem was gradual, is that right?

Yes, and hence why we have a lineage going back millions of years. Where would we place the Homo sapien marker, apart from some arbitrary position when we gradually changed over time - like most other species? Homo sapien has been defined but basically because at some point we were sufficiently different from other species to make such sensible. But then I am no expert in such.

It all makes a lot more sense than Adam and Eve, which was likely just an invention, by humans, to mark us as different from all other creatures - and which was a bit obvious by just looking around. But then these humans writing this didn't have the benefit of our knowledge as to the long history of primates and hence on to humans showing that we were all part of evolution.

 

[Moonjuice]

Ever notice how boring the evolution story is?
Compared to a perfect garden and the two naked firstborn of creation having perfect love making.
God's story is so much more appealing.

If you believe the creation myth told in Genesis, then sex started with Adam and Eve. After having children, Eve had incestual sex with at least one of her sons. Since they were the only humans on earth.

You're right...God's story is more appealing to those who find having sex with your own children appealing. We usually call them psychopaths, I suppose others simply call it fundamental Christianity.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and hence why we have a lineage going back millions of years. Where would we place the Homo sapien marker, apart from some arbitrary position when we gradually changed over time - like most other species? Homo sapien has been defined but basically because at some point we were sufficiently different from other species to make such sensible. But then I am no expert in such.

It all makes a lot more sense than Adam and Eve, which was likely just an invention, by humans, to mark us as different from all other creatures - and which was a bit obvious by just looking around. But then these humans writing this didn't have the benefit of our knowledge as to the long history of primates and hence on to humans showing that we were all part of evolution.

So as I understand what you mean, this brings up a question. Humans in the form of homo sapiens as described about you and me are here for how long do scientists say?
So no matter though, you are saying as the crossover (evolving from one type of hominid to another) occurred, there was no 'first' homo sapien. Evolving from whatever is surmised to have come before. Hmm ok, I wonder if the firm believers in the theory here would agree with that. But honest, at this point, I don't think I will discuss it much with any types of conjectural assertions offered by believers in evolution (evidence or proof) about that idea. Ok no proof just evidence maybe of that whatever. Ok thanks and have a nice evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you believe the creation myth told in Genesis, then sex started with Adam and Eve. After having children, Eve had incestual sex with at least one of her sons. Since they were the only humans on earth.

You're right...God's story is more appealing to those who find having sex with your own children appealing. We usually call them psychopaths, I suppose others simply call it fundamental Christianity.

Eve did not have to have sexual relations with any of her sons. Just so you know. Meantime go figure about the idea that there were no 'first' homo sapiens, according to some or all believers in evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you pinpoint the exact moment when the "first human" emerged?

Fossils
Human Evolution Interactive Timeline

So if I understand you correctly, you say there were no first homo sapiens, right? They just continued evolving into the homo sapien type from, uh, that "Unknown Common Ancestor." Chimps, gorillas, no first in their model either, although they are still producing chimps and gorilla types, right among themselves, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if I understand you correctly, you say there were no first homo sapiens, right? They just continued evolving into the homo sapien type from, uh, that "Unknown Common Ancestor." Chimps, gorillas, no first in their model either, although they are still producing chimps and gorilla types, right among themselves, right?

Correct. Fixed species do not really exist. The names are just a convenient place holder.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So if I understand you correctly, you say there were no first homo sapiens, right? They just continued evolving into the homo sapien type from, uh, that "Unknown Common Ancestor." Chimps, gorillas, no first in their model either, although they are still producing chimps and gorilla types, right among themselves, right?

This is correct. The idea of a fixed species is an illusion, a convenience of thought for a snapshot in time. All forms are transitional forms. We are still evolving even now.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So as I understand what you mean, this brings up a question. Humans in the form of homo sapiens as described about you and me are here for how long do scientists say?
So no matter though, you are saying as the crossover (evolving from one type of hominid to another) occurred, there was no 'first' homo sapien. Evolving from whatever is surmised to have come before. Hmm ok, I wonder if the firm believers in the theory here would agree with that. But honest, at this point, I don't think I will discuss it much with any types of conjectural assertions offered by believers in evolution (evidence or proof) about that idea. Ok no proof just evidence maybe of that whatever. Ok thanks and have a nice evening.

Modern humans are probably regarded as such to be in the vicinity of 200,000 to 300,000 years old (could be a lot earlier though), as to all the requirements being in place - intelligence, language ability, social behaviour, etc., but I don't tend to follow the specifics that much, given that it often changes in little ways when new evidence is discovered. But the nature of evolution and our history seems pretty solidly described given all the evidence available. I suppose the definition of Homo sapien is such that how far back can we go before there is a distinct difference shown so as to make any prior to this not being a Homo sapien.