Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think I know what you are saying, but for clarity see if I rewrite what you said correctly:
The conclusion we are disagreeing with is that the first human compatible individual could not have come from human incompatible parents.
Whether we label them as human or not is irrelevant to the whole question.
andLoudmouth said:The conclusion we are disagreeing with is that this first compatible individual could not have come from incompatible parents.
Rewritten with irrelevant label said:The conclusion we are disagreeing with is that the first human compatible individual could not have come from human incompatible parents.
Since the 'human' label is irrelevant, then it doesn't matter if we use the label. So, can I assume that you affirm that the two quotes are interchangeable?
If the first human gamete compatible individual born could not have been the offspring of parents that are not human gamete compatible,
I'm not sure I understand. You are asking for evidence that a human gamete began to exist?You have yet to show any evidence to support this "if", or why your if should even be considered.
I'm not sure I understand. You are asking for evidence that a human gamete began to exist?
When that first individual was born that was sexually compatible with humans, given the infinite gradations between species, would it be appropriate in layman terms to call that individual the first human? Would it be scientifically appropriate?
I don't think there is a genetic mechanism that would stop a human compatible gamete to arise from a pair that do not produce human compatible gametes. I think it's necessary for humans to exist. I guess I don't understand what evidence you're looking for.I am asking for the genetic mechanism that would prevent an indivudal who is incompatible with modern humans from giving birth to an individual that is compatible with modern humans.
From a scientific standpoint a creature that can mate with two different species is what is termed the 'intermediate species'?No, it would not be scientifically accurate because this first individual would also be 100% compatible with every individual living at the same time as he was (and according to your own definition, those individuals would not be human). Scientifically, he would be an intermediate between us and what came before, and would be compatible with both.
So maybe the human-gamete compatibility came after the morphological transition had taken place or maybe the human-gamete compatibility came first while the individual still looked not human. But does it matter? It's my understanding that gamete compatibility is the 'gauntlet', so-to-speak, that gives substantial credence in determining what kind of animal is being discussed, regardless of physical appearance.CabVet said:There is no such thing as a first individual of a species. Yes, at some point a single individual became compatible with us, but morphologically he was identical in every way to our ancestors. Trying to identify the first human is equivalent to trying to find out whether the egg or chicken came first.
From a scientific standpoint a creature that can mate with two different species is what is termed the 'intermediate species'?
It's my understanding that gamete compatibility is the 'gauntlet', so-to-speak, that gives substantial credence in determining what kind of animal is being discussed, regardless of physical appearance.
Rush1169 said:From a scientific standpoint a creature that can mate with two different species is what is termed the 'intermediate species'?
What do scientists call a creature B that can mate with creature A and creature C such that creature A and C cannot mate?No, that's not it at all. An intermediate species is a species that has a mixture of features from two divergent taxa.
Rush1169 said:It's my understanding that gamete compatibility is the 'gauntlet', so-to-speak, that gives substantial credence in determining what kind of animal is being discussed, regardless of physical appearance.
LOL, duh!LoudMouth said:Your understanding is wrong.
No one tries to mate modern human gametes with H. erectus fossils.
What do scientists call a creature B that can mate with creature A and creature C such that creature A and C cannot mate?
Sexual compatibility is not used to identify animals with certainty? Just what they look like?
Does DNA matching correlate to sexual compatibility?Sexual compatibility is not used. Most of the time, DNA samples are taken back to the lab and compared with DNA databases.
Does DNA matching correlate to sexual compatibility?
Not in any specific sense. There isn't a set percentage of homology that indicates compatibility in each and every case.
So matching DNA does not correlate to sexual compatibility. Weird. Seems like the closer two DNA strands are to matching, the more likely to have come from sexually compatible creatures.
You don't know much about DNA, do you? You can have two species that have been separated for millions of years, those species could be 20% different in their DNA, yet, if brought back together they could mate and produce offspring. The opposite is also true, you can have two populations of the same species that have been separated for just a couple of generations, but if a mutation spreads in the right gene, those species can have a 99.9% identical DNA but not be able to produce viable offspring. Biology is not black and white.
I can give you examples of both if you want.
Please and thank you!
Seems like the closer two DNA strands are to matching, the more likely to have come from sexually compatible creatures.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?