Tree of Life: What Creature Was at the Fork?

[Kylie]

Correction noted. I was going to get picky about pixels but found out that they are the minimum group that defines a color. Rats!

lol, I was actually replying to Rush's post above yours!

You said the same thng as me: "...an almost all green can give birth to a green." is the same as when I said, " If you take any green pixel in my graphic and go to the pixel immediately underneath it, you will find it is a colour that is still what you would call green. Not quite as green, perhaps, but still green nonetheless."

 

[rush1169]

Not quite as green, perhaps, but still green nonetheless.

Applying the word substitution: Not quite as human, but human none-the-less? Can we also say: Not quite human, but human none-the-less? or Not human, but human?


If a parent and a child both are not detectable as being non-human by all the measurements we can apply, then they should, regardless of being green or not-quite-green, be declared human. But, as we continue back, there will be a 'shade of green' in which one measurement (not all, but at least one) fails the 'human test' and it's child does not. To be any other way requires infinite steps.

 

[Kylie]

Applying the word substitution: Not quite as human, but human none-the-less? Can we also say: Not quite human, but human none-the-less? or Not human, but human?

More like not quite as human-like, but human-like none-the-less.

If a parent and a child both are not detectable as being non-human by all the measurements we can apply, then they should, regardless of being green or not-quite-green, be declared human. But, as we continue back, there will be a 'shade of green' in which one measurement (not all, but at least one) fails the 'human test' and it's child does not. To be any other way requires infinite steps.

It doesn't matter if we can measure the difference. It only matters if they are different.

Have a look at this rectangle. It's green, yes?

It's actually made of two squares. However, the square on the right hand side is slightly redder than that on the left. If I hadn't told you, you would say that the two squares are the same colour, wouldn't you?. If you want, save the image and check the red/green/blue values of each side. You'll see that the red values are different but the smallest possible amount. But you can see that the two squares are so close to the same colour that they are indistinguishable. This is like the difference between parent and offspring. There has been a change, but the change is so small it can't be noticed in one generation. However, if I kept doing this again and again, then you would begin to see a difference as the amount of red in each square kept getting higher.

 

[mzungu]

Applying the word substitution: Not quite as human, but human none-the-less? Can we also say: Not quite human, but human none-the-less? or Not human, but human?


If a parent and a child both are not detectable as being non-human by all the measurements we can apply, then they should, regardless of being green or not-quite-green, be declared human. But, as we continue back, there will be a 'shade of green' in which one measurement (not all, but at least one) fails the 'human test' and it's child does not. To be any other way requires infinite steps.

Your problem is that you think in black and white. Evolution has no black and white. If you can understand this then you have made a step forward.
You are mixing Adam and Eve with science and this is a no go. Science does not deal with the supernatural. If you really want to learn then perhaps you should read ToE.

By the way ToE has progressed way beyond Charles Darwin.

 

[rush1169]

More like not quite as human-like, but human-like none-the-less

OK - check my work:

1) Human population was zero.
2) Humans birth one at a time.
3) Human population is > zero.
4) A pair of non-humans cannot birth a human.

Since the above 4 statements are true, for humans to exist:
A pair of not quite as human-like, but human-like none-the-less gave birth to a human.

Is that right?

 

[mzungu]

OK - check my work:

1) Human population was zero.
2) Humans birth one at a time.
3) Human population is > zero.
4) A pair of non-humans cannot birth a human.

Since the above 4 statements are true, for humans to exist:
A pair of not quite as human-like, but human-like none-the-less gave birth to a human.

Is that right?

Still running around in circles? Why do you keep on when it has been explained to you and your claim has been shown to be wrong?

 

[rush1169]

Still running around in circles? Why do you keep on when it has been explained to you and your claim has been shown to be wrong?

Hi Mzungu

If it appears that I'm 'still running around in circles', all I'm doing is repeating what the teachers are telling me. When I'm the 'listener', what I'm begin told is right, but when I repeat it, and the teachers become the listeners, I'm wrong. If that gives the appearance of running around in circles, I agree. But I think you've ascribed the reason for the appearance incorrectly.

I'd rather stay-the-course until I gain understanding, if that's OK?

 

[Loudmouth]

Applying the word substitution: Not quite as human, but human none-the-less? Can we also say: Not quite human, but human none-the-less? or Not human, but human?


If a parent and a child both are not detectable as being non-human by all the measurements we can apply, then they should, regardless of being green or not-quite-green, be declared human. But, as we continue back, there will be a 'shade of green' in which one measurement (not all, but at least one) fails the 'human test' and it's child does not. To be any other way requires infinite steps.

What is and isn't human is really a contrived and arbitrary determination as we look back through time. Every human is born with a genome that has never been seen before in any previous generation. Are they still human? Are chihuahuas still wolves? If we showed you every generation of chihuahua that led back their common ancestor with wolves, would there be an obvious point where one generation is wolf and the next is chihuahua? Probably not. It will be based on your arbitrary decision of what is and isn't chihuahua.

If you go back through time tracing the English language there is probably not a precise second in history where everyone stopped speaking one language and began speaking modern English. Everyone will have a different opinion of the moment when modern English emerged, but everyone will agree that Middle English is very different from modern English even to the point of modern people not being able to understand someone speaking Middle English. And yet, each generation was able to talk to the next as it transitioned from Middle English to modern English. How could that happen?

 

[Loudmouth]

Hi Mzungu

If it appears that I'm 'still running around in circles', all I'm doing is repeating what the teachers are telling me. When I'm the 'listener', what I'm begin told is right, but when I repeat it, and the teachers become the listeners, I'm wrong. If that gives the appearance of running around in circles, I agree. But I think you've ascribed the reason for the appearance incorrectly.

I'd rather stay-the-course until I gain understanding, if that's OK?

You could have bad teachers, or you aren't repeating what they are saying.

 

[Kylie]

OK - check my work:

1) Human population was zero.
2) Humans birth one at a time.
3) Human population is > zero.
4) A pair of non-humans cannot birth a human.

Since the above 4 statements are true, for humans to exist:
A pair of not quite as human-like, but human-like none-the-less gave birth to a human.

Is that right?

Kinda.

You gotta remember though...

If we go back to my diagram, we can see that from the Human ancestor at the bottom to Humans in the top right, it goes from purple to green.

The difference between any parent and the offspring they produce is so small that calling them the same species is justified. You've gotta remember to consider it a slow change. The change from non-human to human doesn't happen in one generation. It happens over many many years.

So your chain of events would be more like this.

• Human population is zero.
• Non-Human ancestor gives birth to an individual that is slightly more Human like than itself. We'll call this individual A.
• A gives birth to an individual that is slightly more Human like than itself. We'll call this individual B.
• B gives birth to an individual that is slightly more Human like than itself. We'll call this individual C.
• C gives birth to an individual that is slightly more Human like than itself. We'll call this individual D.
• Dgives birth to an individual that is slightly more Human like than itself. We'll call this individual E.

Continue on...

• X gives birth to an individual that is slightly more Human like than itself. We'll call this individual Y.
• Y gives birth to an individual that is slightly more Human like than itself. We'll call this individual Z.
• Z lives today and is what we would call a human.

So each offspring will be the same species as its parents. Z is the same species as Y, who is the same species as X. And X is the same species as W. We can call them the same species because the changes in any one generation are not enough to justify calling them a different species.

Remember my diagram? If you pick any pixel and go to the pixel immediately underneath it, you can call them the same colour. It's the same thing.

But because over MANY generations, all those little changes add up, then you can't call Z the same species as A.

 

[rush1169]

Kinda.
X gives birth to an individual that is slightly more Human like than itself. We'll call this individual Y.

So Y is not human, but more human like than what birthed it. I'm good with that.

Y gives birth to an individual that is slightly more Human like than itself. We'll call this individual Z.

Y is not human and it gives birth to Z. Z is also not human, but more human like than Y.

Z lives today and is what we would call a human.

Now Z is human, but Y birthed a human like individual called Z. In your example, Z was birthed more human like but then changed to human.

I truly understand what is being taught. I don't understand the coherency. What I'm reading is that non-humans become nearly, if not, infinitesimally more human like until something is born that is so human like that it should be called human because it actually is human.

But then you say that now we have arrived at 'human proper', it's parents must also be so close to being human, that while not 'human proper', for all intents and purposes is human. Now, following that backwards, there is never a time when it's parents were not humans.

For the scenario described to be coherent, there must be a birth it which every known parameter that defines human is met and, because it cannot be any other way, it's parents must have at least one parameter that defines human as not met.

Although it's parents fail at least one parameter that defines humans, we still call them human in spite of them not meeting the full set of parameters that make human, human - OK, I'll accept that. But, if you keep going back, there will be at least one of two parents that fail at least two parameter that define humans. Maybe we still call them human, but again in spite of them not meeting the full set of parameters. Continue backwards and eventually there must be a parent that simply cannot be considered human as it fails too many parameters. Conversely, it's child is considered human because it doesn't fail too many parameters. It must fit the scenario because we birth one at a time, not populations or generations at a time.

Thusly, when you use the term human-like, you are saying these creatures fail at least one parameter that defines human, but not enough to be considered other-than-human.

So, we have generations of very human-like creatures that fail one or more human parameters, but not enough to deem them anything other than human. But you must arrive, going backwards, at a generation that failed enough human parameters that they cannot be deemed human.

Because birthing is an individual thing, somewhere in the fuzzy-human-era, a human-like creature had to birth a human.

Is that right?

 

[Kylie]

So Y is not human, but more human like than what birthed it. I'm good with that.

Well, we would call Y a human for all intents and purposes.

Y is not human and it gives birth to Z. Z is also not human, but more human like than Y.

I don't think you get this. Any letter is the same species as the letter before it and after it. The differences between them are not enough to call them a different species. But as you start to get letters further and further apart, then the differences become greater and greater. If the differences are two great, then they can't interbreed and they are different species.

Now Z is human, but Y birthed a human like individual called Z. In your example, Z was birthed more human like but then changed to human.

No. Once an individual is conceived, it can not change its species.

I truly understand what is being taught. I don't understand the coherency. What I'm reading is that non-humans become nearly, if not, infinitesimally more human like until something is born that is so human like that it should be called human because it actually is human.

Pretty much. Look back at my diagram. Humans are the green pixels at the top of the left hand side. If you go down a row of pixels, then the pixels are still green, aren't they? But they are a tiny bit more purple than the top row.

But then you say that now we have arrived at 'human proper', it's parents must also be so close to being human, that while not 'human proper', for all intents and purposes is human. Now, following that backwards, there is never a time when it's parents were not humans.

The problem is that you think of "human" as being a specific thing. There's no such thing as a default human. We're all different. I'm different to you, you are different to any other person. You have to stop thinking of HUMAN as a lightswitch. Lightswitches are on/off things. It's on or it's not. That's easy to understand. But humans are more like colours. We are all green, but some of us have a bit of blue in there. Some of us have a bit of orange, and others might have red. They are the differences that make each of us unique. Evolution is when those colours all change in the same direction throughout the whole population. Evolution is what changes us from being green and slowly, over many generations, changes us to orange.

For the scenario described to be coherent, there must be a birth it which every known parameter that defines human is met and, because it cannot be any other way, it's parents must have at least one parameter that defines human as not met.

That's lightswitch thinking again. Being human is not a Yes/No thing. It's a colour, not a lightswitch. You can say, "Yes, it's green, but there's also some magenta in here as well."

Although it's parents fail at least one parameter that defines humans, we still call them human in spite of them not meeting the full set of parameters that make human, human - OK, I'll accept that.

Sounds like you're starting to see it as a colour thing, not a lightswitch thing.

But, if you keep going back, there will be at least one of two parents that fail at least two parameter that define humans. Maybe we still call them human, but again in spite of them not meeting the full set of parameters.

Yes, that's right, but they don't have to be human. They just need to be the same species as their offspring - which they are.

Continue backwards and eventually there must be a parent that simply cannot be considered human as it fails too many parameters.

That's right. And if you followed your family tree back, from you, to your parent, to their parent, to their parent and so on, all the way back 70 million years, your great great great.... great great grandparent would look something like a shrew. And it would also be in my family tree as well.

Conversely, it's child is considered human because it doesn't fail too many parameters. It must fit the scenario because we birth one at a time, not populations or generations at a time.

No, not quite. The change in any one generation is always going to be very small. It will never be enough for a child to be a different species than the parent.

Thusly, when you use the term human-like, you are saying these creatures fail at least one parameter that defines human, but not enough to be considered other-than-human.

Remember the green rectangle I posted? The right hand side is slightly redder than the left hand side. It fails the parameter to be called the same colour as the left hand side, but you;d still say the right hand side is the same colour.

So, we have generations of very human-like creatures that fail one or more human parameters, but not enough to deem them anything other than human. But you must arrive, going backwards, at a generation that failed enough human parameters that they cannot be deemed human.

Stop thinking about parameters. That's lightswitch thinking. It's not a tick-a-box thing where something either is or isn't.

Because birthing is an individual thing, somewhere in the fuzzy-human-era, a human-like creature had to birth a human.

No. As I;ve said, each generation becomes a tiny bit more human. But each child is the same species as its parents.

Is that right?

Not quite. But you;'re getting there.

 

[mzungu]

Rush, either you have a problem understanding the colour analogy or as I suspect you do understand it but are dismissing it and continue on running around circles.

Is there a point you are trying to make

 

[madaz]

Rush, do you understand and acknowledge this point by KTS?

You have to stop thinking in terms of "Human" and "Not Human." There's no boundary point. There's no point where it goes from being not human to being human. It gradually happens over many generations. It's a gradual change, not an instant one.

 

[Heissonear]

There's no way we can ever know if a particular animal was the actual species that was split into two. Also, given that the split takes place over a period of time, it gets even harder. After all, it's not like there's one parent creature who gives birth to two offspring and one offspring is Species A and the other is Species B. it's more like there are two populations of Species A that are divided somehow. It could be a river that is redirected after a flood, or a small group that is isolated (a number of insects washed to an island on a tree, for example). Now we have two populations of the same species living in two different environments. With different environmental pressures acting on them, the two populations will diverge. So you can see, the split itself is one that takes place over many generations.

You, like many others, do not get it about Evolution and the fossil record.

Above your clarify how "divergence" can occur and state over a VERY LONG TIME PERIOD.

However, the fossil record would show both, the Ancestral with the normal environmental pressure and the Evolving creatures.

The fossil record shows no such thing. Sorry mate. We see no slow change from the Ancestral.

Why are these "environmental pressure" changing creatures along with the baseline not BOTH found, only gaps - no transitional creatures?

Because they are none - for all life forms found! Zero "environmental pressured" finely-graduated transitional creatures.


.

 

[mzungu]

You, like many others, do not get it about Evolution and the fossil record.

Above your clarify how "divergence" can occur and state over a VERY LONG TIME PERIOD.

However, the fossil record would show both, the Ancestral with the normal environmental pressure and the Evolving creatures.

The fossil record shows no such thing. Sorry mate. We see no slow change from the Ancestral.

Why are these "environmental pressure" changing creatures along with the baseline not BOTH found, only gaps - no transitional creatures?

Because they are none - for all life forms found! Zero "environmental pressured" finely-graduated transitional creatures.


.

Really now! Must you continue with this childish line of argument? Instead of bringing forth evidence to support your claims you simply just attack science. It has been pointed out to you so many times that attacking something does not prove yours is correct.

Why don't you present to us one single bit of evidence for creationism? So far all you do is attack. We ask for evidence and you reply by attacking science. What on earth are you doing using a computer if you hate science so much?

 

[Kylie]

You, like many others, do not get it about Evolution and the fossil record.

Above your clarify how "divergence" can occur and state over a VERY LONG TIME PERIOD.

However, the fossil record would show both, the Ancestral with the normal environmental pressure and the Evolving creatures.

The fossil record shows no such thing. Sorry mate. We see no slow change from the Ancestral.

Why are these "environmental pressure" changing creatures along with the baseline not BOTH found, only gaps - no transitional creatures?

Because they are none - for all life forms found! Zero "environmental pressured" finely-graduated transitional creatures.


.

Look, I don't want to be rude, but I'm trying to have a discussion with Rush about this, not you. You're already discussing this exact topic in at least one other thread, so don't try and derail the honest questioning of someone else, okay?

If you are so determined to speak specifically to ME about this, go start a thread for it and I will post there, but don't derail this one, okay?

 

[mzungu]

Look, I don't want to be rude, but I'm trying to have a discussion with Rush about this, not you. You're already discussing this exact topic in at least one other thread, so don't try and derail the honest questioning of someone else, okay?

If you are so determined to speak specifically to ME about this, go start a thread for it and I will post there, but don't derail this one, okay?

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned

 

[Loudmouth]

Y is not human and it gives birth to Z. Z is also not human, but more human like than Y.

Each and everyone one of is a Z. Each of us are born with a genome that no other human has ever had. We are unlike any human that has ever come before us.

I truly understand what is being taught. I don't understand the coherency. What I'm reading is that non-humans become nearly, if not, infinitesimally more human like until something is born that is so human like that it should be called human because it actually is human.

What is and isn't human is completely arbitrary in a temporal sense.

For the scenario described to be coherent, there must be a birth it which every known parameter that defines human is met and, because it cannot be any other way, it's parents must have at least one parameter that defines human as not met.

No two humans are identical, so using your strict definitions there can only be one human alive in each generation. Anyone who varies just one base from that human is not human.

Because birthing is an individual thing, somewhere in the fuzzy-human-era, a human-like creature had to birth a human.

Using your strict defintions, if we define human as someone who existed in your parent's generation then you are not human.

 

[Loudmouth]

You, like many others, do not get it about Evolution and the fossil record.

Massive projection.