Someone had to be First

[Thief]

Why would you expect there to be a first? I'm sure he looked around and saw a lot of people very similar to himself.

and in the same moment .......was aware his difference

it might be like watching your peers struggle an effort
and then you come along with a technique
and everyone else stands back

they grunt their approval

and you go your own way......because you know
you are not really......one of them

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

and in the same moment .......was aware his difference

it might be like watching your peers struggle an effort
and then you come along with a technique
and everyone else stands back

they grunt their approval

and you go your own way......because you know
you are not really......one of them

I think you underestimate our interdependence on each other Thief, how we tend to "blend" as communities. It is no coincidence that people from the same geographic location tend to form distinct cultural behaviour, distinct cultural beliefs, even distinct cultural ways of dressing that might be considered odd or offensive in another culture. To ask "who was the first Homosapien?" is a bit like asking "who was the first Spanish speaker to evolve from the Latin speakers?". It doesn't work like that, there are tiny changes in the language over time, nuances that barely registered in the communities at that time, there are multiple "intermediates" but there is no black line to say after which "Ah, now we are something else". Homosapien is just a label to describe an animal with particular characteristics after all (just like Spanish is a label to describe a language with particular characteristics), but we know that they still come in all shapes and sizes physically and mentally. 99% of our DNA is the same of that of Chimpanzees, common ancestors, very small genetic differences, two very different animals.

There is an obstacle for a human, who is lucky to live to be 100 years old, to visualise the passing of thousands of years, let alone millions of years and all the multiple tiny changes that go on in a population. I think this is possibly why evolution is a sticking point for some people. It is not intuitive and we have evolved to be highly intuitive animals, we need to be in order to survive. However, we are also capable of a good level of reason and logic, and the fossil evidence and genetic evidence points to evolution being true. No scientist went looking for fossils to prove something, no biologist went looking for DNA. They are what we found, and the best explanation for them is evolution.

 

[Thief]

I think you underestimate our interdependence on each other Thief, how we tend to "blend" as communities. It is no coincidence that people from the same geographic location tend to form distinct cultural behaviour, distinct cultural beliefs, even distinct cultural ways of dressing that might be considered odd or offensive in another culture. To ask "who was the first Homosapien?" is a bit like asking "who was the first Spanish speaker to evolve from the Latin speakers?". It doesn't work like that, there are tiny changes in the language over time, nuances that barely registered in the communities at that time, there are multiple "intermediates" but there is no black line to say after which "Ah, now we are something else". Homosapien is just a label to describe an animal with particular characteristics after all (just like Spanish is a label to describe a language with particular characteristics), but we know that they still come in all shapes and sizes physically and mentally. 99% of our DNA is the same of that of Chimpanzees, common ancestors, very small genetic differences, two very different animals.

There is an obstacle for a human, who is lucky to live to be 100 years old, to visualise the passing of thousands of years, let alone millions of years and all the multiple tiny changes that go on in a population. I think this is possibly why evolution is a sticking point for some people. It is not intuitive and we have evolved to be highly intuitive animals, we need to be in order to survive. However, we are also capable of a good level of reason and logic, and the fossil evidence and genetic evidence points to evolution being true. No scientist went looking for fossils to prove something, no biologist went looking for DNA. They are what we found, and the best explanation for them is evolution.

even in family sets.....someone can suddenly develop beyond his siblings

I suspect Adam may have known many other people
family and friends
and known them as well as we know our own

the New testament calls Adam a chosen son of God

indication......Adam did stand alone in some way or manner

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

even in family sets.....someone can suddenly develop beyond his siblings

I suspect Adam may have known many other people
family and friends
and known them as well as we know our own

the New testament calls Adam a chosen son of God

indication......Adam did stand alone in some way or manner

Ah well, there's the crunch, I don't take the bible as an authoritative source for our origin, so while we have that major difference in opinion we will never see eye to eye on evolution. The exchange is a bit pointless.

I'm not sure what you mean "someone can develop beyond his siblings", if you mean some people are more academically gifted than others then sure. I'm the only graduate among my siblings, but to say I "developed beyond them" is just putting an arbitrary label of superiority on academic achievement. If I was living in the middle of a forest, having a higher IQ than my siblings might be seen as a weakness. Physical strength and dexterity might be highly valued in that culture, so my 6.5 foot younger brother would be said to have "developed beyond" me. My extra "intelligence" might make me more curious than my siblings, so I end up getting killed early because I'm poking a snake with a stick while they chill out. Natural selection!
Whatever, just because I might have a higher IQ that doesn't make me a different animal, a different species does it?

 

[Thief]

Ah well, there's the crunch, I don't take the bible as an authoritative source for our origin, so while we have that major difference in opinion we will never see eye to eye on evolution. The exchange is a bit pointless.

I'm not sure what you mean "someone can develop beyond his siblings", if you mean some people are more academically gifted than others then sure. I'm the only graduate among my siblings, but to say I "developed beyond them" is just putting an arbitrary label of superiority on academic achievement. If I was living in the middle of a forest, having a higher IQ than my siblings might be seen as a weakness. Physical strength and dexterity might be highly valued in that culture, so my 6.5 foot younger brother would be said to have "developed beyond" me. My extra "intelligence" might make me more curious than my siblings, so I end up getting killed early because I'm poking a snake with a stick while they chill out. Natural selection!
Whatever, just because I might have a higher IQ that doesn't make me a different animal, a different species does it?

are you sure about that last line?

intelligent parents tend to beget intelligent offspring

and as you have pointed out.....
you know when you are not one of the crowd
if your differences are great.....you go to seek others like yourself

change can be dramatic....
all at once
in one individual

and if God were seeking to alter the course of Man
why choose mediocrity?

it is written.....Adam is a chosen son of God

 

[McBell]

It is also written that one ring shall bind them all

Just saying