First born

[tevans9129]

Can anyone provide physical evidence of the first mammal that was born? What was the mother (species) and what was the father (species) Not interested in speculation, conjecture, beliefs, I am looking for something that can stand up to a challenge?

Up front, I do not believe anyone can provide such evidence but I have been wrong before and this may be one of those times, time will tell.

 

[pitabread]

Can anyone provide physical evidence of the first mammal that was born? What was the mother (species) and what was the father (species)

Just the way you've worded these questions confirms what I said in the other thread: I'm not sure you have a conceptual grasp on how evolution works, and specifically how populations evolve.

Or to put it another way, these questions seem inherently nonsensical.

Based on the biological species concept, the 'mother' and 'father' would be the same species as the offspring. Species don't change immediately in a single generation; it happens over numerous generations and specifically (in the case of sexual reproduction) where there is typically some sort of isolating mechanism leading to reproductive isolation of a sub-group from the parent group. But it takes more than a single generation.

 

[tevans9129]

Just the way you've worded these questions confirms what I said in the other thread: I'm not sure you have a conceptual grasp on how evolution works, and specifically how populations evolve.

Or to put it another way, these questions seem inherently nonsensical.

I take that as a "no", you cannot answer the questions, thanks.

 

[pitabread]

I take that as a "no", you cannot answer the questions, thanks.

I edited and expanded on my answer to explain how populations evolve. In short, your questions are inherently nonsensical. They appear to be based on an incorrect understanding of how populations evolve.

To re-iterate, based on the biological species concept, the 'mother' and 'father' would be the same species as the offspring. Species don't change immediately in a single generation; it happens over numerous generations and specifically (in the case of sexual reproduction) where there is typically some sort of isolating mechanism leading to reproductive isolation of a sub-group from the parent group. But it takes more than a single generation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I take that as a "no", you cannot answer the questions, thanks.

Mammal evolution is fairly well understood. The problem is how do you define a "mammal"? Different traits appeared at different times. Look at the duckbill platypus. That mammal still lays eggs. It did not lose the trait of laying eggs.

 

[JIMINZ]

Can anyone provide physical evidence of the first mammal that was born? What was the mother (species) and what was the father (species) Not interested in speculation, conjecture, beliefs, I am looking for something that can stand up to a challenge?

Up front, I do not believe anyone can provide such evidence but I have been wrong before and this may be one of those times, time will tell.

.
I know this probably isn't the answer your looking for but, the way you asked the question this is the only one I could think of.

Definition
Mammal:
1) All mammals have hair of some sort, as well as mammary glands.

2) In female mammals, the mammary glands produce milk that they use to feed their young.

3) Mammals are also warm-blooded, which means they regulate their own body temperature via a region in the brain called the
neo-cortex.

Therefore the answer to you question is.
Gen. 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Father - - Adam
Mother - - Eve
First born Mammal offspring by Pro-Creation - - Cain
Species - - Human

 

[pitabread]

Mammal evolution is fairly well understood. The problem is how do you define a "mammal"? Different traits appeared at different times. Look at the duckbill platypus. That mammal still lays eggs. It did not lose the trait of laying eggs.

I think this goes back to the issue of the conceptualization of evolution and biological forms. The OP appears to be viewing things in extremely discrete, defined categories. Whereas with real life species, the boundaries are much fuzzier and less discrete. Mammal evolution took place over a period of 100+ million years. Trying to draw a singular line as to what was the "first" mammal is a bit like looking at a color gradient and trying to identify the exact spot where green becomes blue:

The Talkorigins FAQ had this to say on that subject:

The decision as to which was the first mammal is somewhat subjective. We are placing an inflexible classification system on a gradational series. What happened was that an intermediate group evolved from the 'true' reptiles, which gradually acquired mammalian characters until a point was reached where we have artificially drawn a line between reptiles and mammals.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Can anyone provide physical evidence of the first mammal that was born? What was the mother (species) and what was the father (species) Not interested in speculation, conjecture, beliefs, I am looking for something that can stand up to a challenge?

Up front, I do not believe anyone can provide such evidence but I have been wrong before and this may be one of those times, time will tell.

Putting the Bible account of creation aside, no one actually knows. Evolutionists have theories which they have cooked up, but there has been no scientific evidence to show that there was a first mammal on earth.

The Genesis account is the only clear account of how the animals appeared on the earth. They were created as adult animals in their respective species. When Adam came on the scene, he was given the job of naming them all. Adam must have been the most intelligent and capable human being to have been able to do that. To have been able to name all the animals, these animals must have existed as full-grown and animal population increased by reproduction.

I believe that any other theory just has to be guesswork, based on fantasy by deluded people who have adopted the religion of Evolution. I think that it is a religion based on blind, guesswork faith, whereas the Bible account is based on faith in an Almighty, Creator God.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Mammal evolution is fairly well understood. The problem is how do you define a "mammal"? Different traits appeared at different times. Look at the duckbill platypus. That mammal still lays eggs. It did not lose the trait of laying eggs.

It's all based on guesswork. There is not a shred of actual scientific evidence to prove any of it. The guesswork comes from a deliberate delusion placed on evolutionists to block them from understanding what the gospel of Christ is all about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's all based on guesswork. There is not a shred of actual scientific evidence to prove any of it. The guesswork comes from a deliberate delusion placed on evolutionists to block them from understanding what the gospel of Christ is all about.

You could not be more wrong. I can see that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence.

Let's take the discussion away from evolution and cover scientific evidence. What do you say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Putting the Bible account of creation aside, no one actually knows. Evolutionists have theories which they have cooked up, but there has been no scientific evidence to show that there was a first mammal on earth.

The Genesis account is the only clear account of how the animals appeared on the earth. They were created as adult animals in their respective species. When Adam came on the scene, he was given the job of naming them all. Adam must have been the most intelligent and capable human being to have been able to do that. To have been able to name all the animals, these animals must have existed as full-grown and animal population increased by reproduction.

I believe that any other theory just has to be guesswork, based on fantasy by deluded people who have adopted the religion of Evolution. I think that it is a religion based on blind, guesswork faith, whereas the Bible account is based on faith in an Almighty, Creator God.

No, just because you do not understand science does not make it guesswork. You could still learn.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You could not be more wrong. I can see that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence.

Let's take the discussion away from evolution and cover scientific evidence. What do you say?

It would be a waste of time. The only message for you, as an athiest, is to believe the Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[pitabread]

I believe that any other theory just has to be guesswork, based on fantasy by deluded people who have adopted the religion of Evolution. I think that it is a religion based on blind, guesswork faith, whereas the Bible account is based on faith in an Almighty, Creator God.

Well, let's look at the score shall we:

Evolutionary biology is a cornerstone of modern biology, backed by mainstream scientific organizations and taught in universities around the world, and boasts real-world application in various fields from agriculture to pharmacology to conservation biology and so on.

And meanwhile, Biblical creationism has... um... well they built a theme park, so I suppose they have tourism as a thing? Best of luck with that.

 

[pitabread]

It would be a waste of time. The only message for you, as an athiest, is to believe the Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Of course it would be a waste of time. You can't argue against science with religion. History has borne out how well that typically goes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would be a waste of time. The only message for you, as an athiest, is to believe the Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You do not seem to realize that you are constantly bearing false witness against others. Why should I believe something that clearly appears to be wrong from start to finish?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can anyone provide physical evidence of the first mammal that was born? What was the mother (species) and what was the father (species) Not interested in speculation, conjecture, beliefs, I am looking for something that can stand up to a challenge?

Up front, I do not believe anyone can provide such evidence but I have been wrong before and this may be one of those times, time will tell.

If you can find the first person in your family with your surname, then sure. Alternatively, all you have to do is tell us the name of your most direct ancestor on your mother's side from the year 1,302 BC.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can anyone provide physical evidence of the first mammal that was born? What was the mother (species) and what was the father (species) Not interested in speculation, conjecture, beliefs, I am looking for something that can stand up to a challenge?

Up front, I do not believe anyone can provide such evidence but I have been wrong before and this may be one of those times, time will tell.

Pita bread gave a nice green to blue picture. I like words better. Tell me, in the sequence where red changes to blue, what is the first blue word:

There was no "first mammal" anymore than there was a "first man". The changes in man would be even more subtle than the change from red to blue in the above image. If you can't find the first "blue word" then you could never spot the first man or the first mammal.

 

[Jimmy D]

Can anyone provide physical evidence of the first mammal that was born? What was the mother (species) and what was the father (species) Not interested in speculation, conjecture, beliefs, I am looking for something that can stand up to a challenge?

Up front, I do not believe anyone can provide such evidence but I have been wrong before and this may be one of those times, time will tell.

If your concerned that the fossil record is incomplete I suggest that you get out your trowel and keep digging until you've found examples of every species that ever lived. It seems you won't be satisfied until then. A more realistic alternative might be a course in palaeontology if you're interested in learning more.

Maybe you should focus on what we do see in the fossil record though. Although we might not have examples of every species that ever lived, we do have enough to build up a comprehensive picture that leads to an inescapable conclusion - that life has evolved over time.

On a final note, it's not the 19 century any more. The evidence in our DNA provides compelling and indisputable evidence for common descent.

 

[JIMINZ]

Pita bread gave a nice green to blue picture. I like words better. Tell me, in the sequence where red changes to blue, what is the first blue word:

There was no "first mammal" anymore than there was a "first man". The changes in man would be even more subtle than the change from red to blue in the above image. If you can't find the first "blue word" then you could never spot the first man or the first mammal.

.
Interesting, the only thing Evolutionists can come up with to prove the THEORY is a color chart, I think Darwin would be embarrassed by such foolishness.

I have already given you the Name of the first Mammal born. (Cain)
I gave you his parentage. (Adam and Eve)
I gave you his specie. (Human)

 

[Jimmy D]

.
Interesting, the only thing Evolutionists can come up with to prove the THEORY is a color chart, I think Darwin would be embarrassed by such foolishness.

I have already given you the Name of the first Mammal born. (Cain)
I gave you his parentage. (Adam and Eve)
I gave you his specie. (Human)

The only thing? I can only assume that this statement is based on ignorance of the subject, why not educate yourself about modern biology before making such statements? After all, you seem to take the bible quite seriously and I believe it has a few things to say about lying, I'm not sure if your ignorance is sufficient mitigation.