Tree of Life: What Creature Was at the Fork?

[Loudmouth]

@LM and mzunga: Thank you for your additional comments that were aimed at helping me understand why there could be no first human.

What you keep missing is that the line between first human and the parents of the first human is an entirely fictitious one just as there is no hard line between chihuahua and wolf. There is a continuum of morphological and genomic features, and where we draw the line is entirely arbitrary.

 

[mzungu]

@LM and mzunga: Thank you for your additional comments that were aimed at helping me understand why there could be no first human. I appreciate you trying, but unfortunately for me I've not been able to reach coherency using dogs, language, cranial volume, future events, and other examples you provided. If I may, the following is a repost of what does represent my internal coherent thought. I realize my post is not coherent to either of you, but it is to me. I realize you are trying to help me see a different coherent position, but we've all had our say and it hasn't happened. I look forward to fresh perspectives and appreciate the perspectives you've provided.

REPOST (because there were a lot of posts that didn't help me):

I think we agree that humans once did not exist, now they do, they birth one at a time as did the ancestor immediately prior to human.

There are many parameters that define human. One most important parameter is the ability for a human to procreate. It's important because without that ability, humans could not exist. It's also important for coherency for our topic.

All humans of opposite sex can procreate. Conversely, if a human cannot procreate with another living entity, that other entity is not human.

Referring to the purple-to-green illustration, different degrees of human-like is depicted in the area where the initial purple began to change to final green. So, the initial purple and final green is excluded as the initial purple is non-human while the final green is completely human. The very first pixel that wasn't initial purple had some change. That first changed pixel may ultimately represent multiple generations, but the first change must have initiated with an individual. Every adjacent pixel, moving from initial purple to final green, that is not the same color as its prior neighbor, represents another change towards human initiated by an individual. Again, that new color may represent multiple generations, but the actual color change must be attributed to a single birth. This paragraph now generally describes every change in color between initial purple and final green.

Let's focus on the color change events. The color change represents only the change towards human and it must be the result of a birth. The color may not change again for a long time and there may be numerous individuals of the same color, but the only concern is the individual born of the new color as all others of the same color are offspring of the one born of the new color. Let's start at the first color change from initial purple or said another way, let's start at the first individual born with that first human element and ask a question. Can this first non-initial purple reproduce with a final green? Or asked another way, can this first individual born with the first human element reproduce with a human? The answer must be either yes or no. If the answer is no, then we can advance to the next color change represented by a single birth and repeat the question. There will be a new color when the answer must be yes. The precise color is not relevant.

We have identified the first color that can reproduce with green. Said another way, we have identified the first living entity that can reproduce with human. Because this first living entity can reproduce with humans, we can call it human, or more specifically we can call it the first human.

Let me express it this way. With evolution being an ongoing process then the colour pixels are infinite. Thus every time a child is born one or more pixels change shade of colour compared to its parents. The change is extremely subtle but it is there. Do not expect a leap or bound change in colour.

The language analogy is an excellent analogy.

 

[Papias]

Wow, this thread is still going!

Kylie, mzungu, loudmouth, and others have been extremely patient and helpful.

However, rush, I was starting to wonder by page 5 if you were really still not getting this, or were intentionally being difficult. After another half-dozen pages, it's gotten very hard to still give you the benefit of the doubt. This is especially true after the color diagram and the chihuahua example made this whole issue even more clear than before.

here's what I post on post #41. It still applies, as I'll show below:

*********************************************

You are using two different and incompatible definitions of "human" here.

They are:

Human1:

rush wrote: Humans can't reproduce with non-humans (at least as far as we can tell amongst the current living creatures).

(In other words, "Human" is defined as not being able to reproduce with things that don't look like modern humans. To say "non-humans" is to create a circular definition. A circular definition says nothing, such as "squares are things that are square.", or "A micyescethys is somethat that has the properties of a micyescethys .")

Human2:

rush wrote: Obviously, there had to be a first human.

(in other words, "Human" is defined as the first to cross some line, which you will not give - because as shown, the "conception" line is not a sharp line.)

*******************************
Now, look back at how you have switched back and forth between these. Take your statement:

Humans can't reproduce with non-humans (at least as far as we can tell amongst the current living creatures).
​

If using definition #1, then this is true, because it simply repeats the circular definition.

However, using definition #2, then that same statement is clearly false - the first "human" over some imaginary line would of course be able to reproduce with it's opposite sex parent, they are practically identical.


What as transpired so far on this thread has been a textbook case of the fallacy of equivocation, the switching back and forth between two definitions. That's why we've answered "yes" and "no" - because those are alternately correct depending on which of your definitions we are trying to use.

Up to now, I hope this equivocation has been accidental. However, equivocation is often used dishonestly, just like quotemining, appeals to popularity, false authority, and many other fallacies. I hope you will stop equivocating.

At the start of this thread, your "forks" request seemed like a fair question, and answers (including an example on forks) were given. After that, Kaylie especially, as well as others, expended a lot of effort to help you on this point. Thanks to all of them for their knowledge!

In Christ-

Papias
​

rush wrote:

) 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.

un-equivocating that, as pointed out before:


If using definition #1, then statement #4 is true, because it simply repeats the circular definition.

However, using definition #2, then that same statement (#4) is clearly false - the first "human" over some imaginary line would of course be able to reproduce with it's opposite sex parent, they are practically identical.


Using two different definitions in a circular defintion, as if it constituted a proof instead of a word game, is exactly why mzungu replied by pointing out that you were going in circles.

When a creationists uses these kinds of word games to pretend they actually have a point, I generally favor explaining it carefully with them, because then if they are truly that confused, then it's the right thing to do, and if they are not (and are just being dishonest), then that still works out OK because it helps explain to lurkers why their "point" is a PRATT.

In this case, the level of patience and effort by those listed earlier exceeds even what I would advocate. Wow.


rush, if you are going to maintain that you still don't get it, you'll have to explain why you understand the chihuahua example, but not the human one, when the two are identical cases using different names.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[rush1169]

Wow, this thread is still going!

Kylie, mzungu, loudmouth, and others have been extremely patient and helpful.

However, rush, I was starting to wonder by page 5. . .

rush, if you are going to maintain that you still don't get it, you'll have to explain why you understand the chihuahua example, but not the human one, when the two are identical cases using different names.

In Christ-

Papias

Hi Papias - Hopefully you find appropriate my most recent post and with it you will disregard my prior posts as those should be an viewed as an evolution of the clarification of what I don't understand. When something is not understood, it may require several iterations to explain the reasoning behind the misunderstanding to the reader so that the misunderstanding can be resolved. I cannot guarantee another clarification or reiteration with adjustments will not be warranted, but I hope you will find my most recent post to be not violating any debate rules.

My most recent, and I hope only stated or implied topic of interest is sexual compatibility between a living creature and another living creature. To avoid excessive wording and minimize ambiguity, I'm using the term 'human' to refer to a creature that can mate with any other living creature and produce a fertile, viable offspring as a result of gamete compatibility.

When I did use the statement: "Humans can't reproduce with non-humans", it was used as a source for my misunderstanding and not a statement from me as fact. Rather, that statement was taught to me and represented as fact and I presented it as fact. I'm reaching the conclusion that it's not fact, because there are two ideas that I have in my head as fact that contradict. Those two ideas are "There was a first human" or "Humans cannot reproduce with non-humans".

In my latest iteration explaining my internal contradiction, I reached a logical conclusion that "There was a first human" as being, well, logical. Therefore, "Humans cannot reproduce with non-humans" must be false. However, so far, everyone in the forum is explaining why the former is false rather than the latter. I tried diligently to articulate my logic that I applied to reach my "first human" conclusion in my most recent post. That post consists of a logical composition that may be as such that removing context can create a loss of logical coherency.

Although this may be too simple, it's accurate: If you take a human living today and mated it with every birthed creature of reproductive age, going backwards, you would reach a creature with gamete incompatibility. It can't be any other way. The posts in this thread disagree but resort to analogies that disregard sexual gamete compatibility. For example, the wolf and Chihuahua.

You say the wolf/Chihuahua analogy is "identical cases using different names." That analogy is different. The wolf-Chihuahua is analogous to two humans, one of large proportions and one of small proportions unable to mate due to physical incompatibilities rather than zygote production incompatibilities.

I hope that helps you understand my misunderstanding a little better.

 

[Loudmouth]

In my latest iteration explaining my internal contradiction, I reached a logical conclusion that "There was a first human" as being, well, logical. Therefore, "Humans cannot reproduce with non-humans" must be false. However, so far, everyone in the forum is explaining why the former is false rather than the latter. I tried diligently to articulate my logic that I applied to reach my "first human" conclusion in my most recent post. That post consists of a logical composition that may be as such that removing context can create a loss of logical coherency.

The problem you are having is that what is and isn't human is arbitrary. To use another analogy, sometime during a person's life they go from being shorter to taller. However, there is no agreed upon, exact moment of a person's life where they go from being short to being tall. It is a sliding scale, and there is a range where one spot is as good as another. That is what the transition from not modern human to modern human was like.

If you take a human living today and mated it with every birthed creature of reproductive age, going backwards, you would reach a creature with gamete incompatibility. It can't be any other way.

Why is this a problem? Our ancestors from 1 million years ago did not have to mate with modern humans in order to keep the species going. You are going back to wolves having to directly give birth to an entire population of chihuahuas in order for chihuahuas to be descendants of ancestral wolves.

You say the wolf/Chihuahua analogy is "identical cases using different names." That analogy is different. The wolf-Chihuahua is analogous to two humans, one of large proportions and one of small proportions unable to mate due to physical incompatibilities rather than zygote production incompatibilities.

How are physical incompabilities any less of a barrier than genetic incompatabilities as it relates to the discussion? A better question for you to think about is why we have chihuahuas and wolves to begin with instead of a population of dogs that are nearly indistinguishable from one another.

 

[rush1169]

The problem you are having is that what is and isn't human is arbitrary.

This is where we disagree and maybe that's that. I disagree. A gamete from a human alive today is compatible with a certain, fixed, enumerable number of creatures that exists and has ever existed. There is nothing arbitrary about that. I know you disagree and that's OK but this is an impasse between us, no big deal.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is where we disagree and maybe that's that. I disagree. A gamete from a human alive today is compatible with a certain, fixed, enumerable number of creatures that exists and has ever existed. There is nothing arbitrary about that.

Why would that exclude them from being human? If we pick a living mammal species we can go back in time to where they are incompatible with one of their ancestors, but they are still a mammal. We can still include genetically incompatible ancestor/descendant pairs in the same category. There is nothing stopping us from doing so.

 

[Kylie]

Here's a real life example, Rush.

Pug dogs have changed a lot throughout the ages. Back a few hundred years ago, they looked quite different to the pugs we see today.

That's a pug as they looked back in the time of Jane Austin. That was painted in 1850. [SOURCE]

This, however, is a modern pug.

[SOURCE]

You can clearly see the difference in the shape of the face.

Now, there was never a point where an early pug gave birth to a modern pug. Rather, the changes took place gradually, with the face becoming shorter in each generation. Now, if you could watch it happen over the lasy 160 years or so, then you would see that each puppy looked much the same as the adult that gave birth to it (I suspect the word B**** would be censored, even though it's a valid use here). But over the many generations all the changes add up, and when we compare the early pugs to modern pugs, the differences are quite noticeable. But, if you looked at each generation you'd be hard pressed to see any changes. There's no line where we can say, "Early pugs are all before this point and modern pugs are all after this point." The changes was a gradual one.

And it's the same with Humans. There was no time when a non-human gave birth to a human in exactly the same way that there was no time when an early pug gave birth to a modern, squashed nose pug.

 

[Kylie]

Here's a real life example, Rush.

Pug dogs have changed a lot throughout the ages. Back a few hundred years ago, they looked quite different to the pugs we see today.

That's a pug as they looked back in the time of Jane Austin. That was painted in 1850. [SOURCE]

This, however, is a modern pug.

[SOURCE]

You can clearly see the difference in the shape of the face.

Now, there was never a point where an early pug gave birth to a modern pug. Rather, the changes took place gradually, with the face becoming shorter in each generation. Now, if you could watch it happen over the lasy 160 years or so, then you would see that each puppy looked much the same as the adult that gave birth to it (I suspect the word B**** would be censored, even though it's a valid use here). But over the many generations all the changes add up, and when we compare the early pugs to modern pugs, the differences are quite noticeable. But, if you looked at each generation you'd be hard pressed to see any changes. There's no line where we can say, "Early pugs are all before this point and modern pugs are all after this point." The changes was a gradual one.

And it's the same with Humans. There was no time when a non-human gave birth to a human in exactly the same way that there was no time when an early pug gave birth to a modern, squashed nose pug.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Ignore.
https://www.google.ca/#q=archeopteryx

 

[rush1169]

Hi KTS,

You've crafted a wonderful illustration using colors to show the overview of a gradual transition of a creature that we all agree produces a gamete that is not compatible with a gamete produced by a creature we refer to as human.

In my latest response, I've attempted through words to direct our metal imagery to a more specific area of that illustration and apply some finite, non-arbitrary, real life terms to that illustration for discussion. I attempted to minimize ambiguity, opinion, conjecture, or assumptions to maintain clarity of coherency for the reader. I tried to minimize the potential for misunderstanding by the reader and provide readers with a clear picture what must be based on what is known.

Based on the collective responses so far, it seems that even with my diligent efforts toward clarity, the responders seem to not understand what I write. So, I rewrite my internal conflict so as to address what has been misunderstood in my prior writing. Then a new lack of clarity is proposed in a response. I rewrite my internal conflict to address what has been misunderstood. Then a new lack of clarity is proposed. The process continues and it gives some the appearance of going in circles. It's a good thing as it helps all of us narrow down and focus in on the topic.

I have thought of a way to rewrite my internal dilemma eliminating the terms human and non-human and simply talk in terms of gamete compatibility. I introduced those terms as a substitution in my response to Papias. That clarification was necessary because of the numerous responses focused on visual differences between generations and creatures and ambiguity of what is and isn't human. Visual differences are not relevant to the conflict.

Your most recent response presented a conclusion:

There was no time when a non-human gave birth to a human in exactly the same way that there was no time when an early pug gave birth to a modern, squashed nose pug.

The presented conclusion was prefaced with the fact that a specific pug from 200 years ago doesn't look like a specific pug alive today. Your conclusion is based on visual differences. The conflict of discussion cannot be resolved through the presentation of visual differences. In other words, because pugs look different today than they did some years ago, non-humans cannot give birth to a human. Or, a pug from 200 years ago wasn't a modern pug and didn't have a non-squashed nose, therefore it cannot birth a modern pug with a squashed nose so it follows that a non-human cannot birth a human. The premise is based on visual, physical differences while the conclusion is based on gamete compatibility. However, that's not coherent. So, either the premise should be based on gamete compatibility or the conclusion should be based on visual differences to maintain coherency in the analogy.

So, the analogy would have to be, if sticking to gametes: Because a pug from 200 years ago does not produce a gamete that is compatible with a pug today, a non-human gamete from some time ago is not compatible with a human gamete today. Or the analogy would have to be, if sticking with visual differences: Because a pug from 200 years ago does not look like a pug today, a non-human in appearance creature from some time ago does not look like a human today. You can see that both cases are just odd.

I've posted under the premise that I have an element of faulty logic in my search for understanding of the apparent conflict between: "There must have been a first human" and "Non-humans cannot birth humans". I've used your color diagram and remained very specific on the topic. With each iteration of the topic, I've tried very hard to write specifically and unambiguously and avoid presenting alternate analogies that aren't coherent or applicable to the topic. I think it would be most helpful if you would stay with the color chart, carefully read and consider my latest iteration of my internal conflict, and respond specifically to what I wrote, consider clarity when using pronouns, and avoid supporting analogies that aren't applicable.

That being said, it may be that you still consider your pug analogy to be an adequate substitution for the conflict presented. If that is the case, then we will just have to agree to disagree because, to me, if I accept the pug analogy as an adequate substitution, then I've two conflicts: The human conflict and the conflict of pugs looking different therefore first human/non-human. . .so, if it is the case, we too have reached an impasse and that's no big deal, it just is.

Regardless, thank you for your response.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hi KTS,

You've crafted a wonderful illustration using colors to show the overview of a gradual transition of a creature that we all agree produces a gamete that is not compatible with a gamete produced by a creature we refer to as human.

Here is what I don't understand. We have individuals A, B, C, and D separated by the number of years listed between them in this chart (not to scale) where D is a modern human living in the year 2013. A is not a modern human.

A---200 years---B--------------2 million years-----------C---200 years---D

We have C and D that are separated by 200 years. I think we all agree that they could produce a child. Then we take D in a time machine back to A. They can not produce a child.

Are you telling us that this also means that A and B could not produce a child, even though they are separated by the same number of years as C and D? Are you also telling me that if I filled in every 200 year gap between B and C that somewhere along that way there would be two ancestor and descendant pairs that could not produce an offspring?

If so, why?

Based on the collective responses so far, it seems that even with my diligent efforts toward clarity, the responders seem to not understand what I write. So, I rewrite my internal conflict so as to address what has been misunderstood in my prior writing. Then a new lack of clarity is proposed in a response. I rewrite my internal conflict to address what has been misunderstood. Then a new lack of clarity is proposed. The process continues and it gives some the appearance of going in circles. It's a good thing as it helps all of us narrow down and focus in on the topic.

The premise is based on visual, physical differences while the conclusion is based on gamete compatibility.

If evolution is true, then we would expect gamete incompatibility, so I don't understand why this is a problem. If we went back 200 million years to a very real, and true ancestor of the pug it would not be compatible. This is not a problem for evolution.

I've posted under the premise that I have an element of faulty logic in my search for understanding of the apparent conflict between: "There must have been a first human" and "Non-humans cannot birth humans".

Non-humans can birth humans. Neanderthals were able to mate with anatomically modern humans and produce offspring. Neanderthals are not anatomically modern humans. We already know that if non-human and human are close enough to each other that they can produce fertile offspring.

 

[Kylie]

The presented conclusion was prefaced with the fact that a specific pug from 200 years ago doesn't look like a specific pug alive today. Your conclusion is based on visual differences. The conflict of discussion cannot be resolved through the presentation of visual differences. In other words, because pugs look different today than they did some years ago, non-humans cannot give birth to a human. Or, a pug from 200 years ago wasn't a modern pug and didn't have a non-squashed nose, therefore it cannot birth a modern pug with a squashed nose so it follows that a non-human cannot birth a human. The premise is based on visual, physical differences while the conclusion is based on gamete compatibility. However, that's not coherent. So, either the premise should be based on gamete compatibility or the conclusion should be based on visual differences to maintain coherency in the analogy.

It was an illustration of how a large number of small changes (each so small as to be indistinguishable) can add together over many generations to result in a very large change. Just as an early pug never gave birth directly to a squashed-nose pug, there was no human ancestor that gave birth directly to a human. It was instead a series of ever-more-human individuals, just as in the pugs it was a series of ever-more-squashed-nose pugs.

So, the analogy would have to be, if sticking to gametes: Because a pug from 200 years ago does not produce a gamete that is compatible with a pug today, a non-human gamete from some time ago is not compatible with a human gamete today. Or the analogy would have to be, if sticking with visual differences: Because a pug from 200 years ago does not look like a pug today, a non-human in appearance creature from some time ago does not look like a human today. You can see that both cases are just odd.

Actually, a pug from back then would still be compatible. All dogs are the same species. But that's beside the point. It was an illustration of the concept of how a large change can occur over many generations while the changes themselves are unnoticeable if you just look at consecutive generations.

I've posted under the premise that I have an element of faulty logic in my search for understanding of the apparent conflict between: "There must have been a first human" and "Non-humans cannot birth humans".

Your second premise is correct. A non-human ancestor can't give birth to a human, in just the same way that long nosed pug can't give birth to a squash nosed pug.

What happened with the dogs was that the breeders selected the pugs that had the squashiest noses and bred them together. Since only the squash nosed pugs got to breed, the genes for squashed noses were spread throughout the population. Any pug that had the long nose genes weren't able to pass those genes on because they weren't allowed to breed.

But the change from long nose to squash nose didn't happen in one generation. It took many generations of this artificial selection for it to happen.

The same thing happened with humans. The only difference is that it wasn't a breeder choosing which individuals could breed (like it was with the dogs). It was natural pressures, like a harsh climate, that chose which individuals could breed, by killing those who didn't have the traits to keep them alive long enough to reproduce.

That being said, it may be that you still consider your pug analogy to be an adequate substitution for the conflict presented. If that is the case, then we will just have to agree to disagree because, to me, if I accept the pug analogy as an adequate substitution, then I've two conflicts: The human conflict and the conflict of pugs looking different therefore first human/non-human. . .so, if it is the case, we too have reached an impasse and that's no big deal, it just is.

As I've said, the pug analogy was to demonstrate that large differences do not occur in a single generation. If A and Z are very different, then A will not be able to give birth directly to Z. But A can give birth to B (which is a lot like A but with a little bit of Z-ness). B can then give birth to C, which has a little bit more Z-ness. C then gives birth to D, who gives birth to E, then F, G, H and so on, each becoming a little bit more like Z and a little bit less like A, until they are finally Z, which is not A like at all.

It makes no difference if A is a long nosed pug or a human ancestor or the colour purple, and it makes no difference if Z is a squash nosed pug, a modern human or the colour green. The process is the same. A series of very small changes that add up over many generations

Regardless, thank you for your response.

No worries, I hope this has helped to clear it up for you.

 

[Kylie]

Double post. Oops.

 

[Kylie]

Non-humans can birth humans. Neanderthals were able to mate with anatomically modern humans and produce offspring. Neanderthals are not anatomically modern humans. We already know that if non-human and human are close enough to each other that they can produce fertile offspring.

To me, that suggests that we would be the same species. As different as a German Shepherd and a labrador, perhaps, but still the same species. Isn't a species generally defined as a number of animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me, that suggests that we would be the same species. As different as a German Shepherd and a labrador, perhaps, but still the same species. Isn't a species generally defined as a number of animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring?

Yes, that is one working definition. Of course it is not perfect because of evolution. As species start to separate they begin to have offspring of limited fertility. The further apart they are the more problems have with breeding. For example the offspring of Lions and Tigers have very limited fertility. Since they cannot breed freely they are definitely different species. Horse and donkeys have an even greater separation and mules are almost always sterile. There has been at least one exception. Even more different species. After that the next step is limited fertility between the two different species until no breeding at all occurs.

 

[Loudmouth]

To me, that suggests that we would be the same species.

The species concept has never been a black and white affair, being that evolution is not a quantum-like process where a population becomes completely infertile with another related population in a single generation. What you look for is restricted gene flow between the populations which was the case between contemporaneous modern humans and neanderthals. For example, we do not find any neanderthal mitochondrial lineages in today's human population which we should see if there was unrestricted gene flow. What we see today is small portions of neanderthal DNA in select populations which shows that there was very limited gene flow.

Isn't a species generally defined as a number of animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring?

That is close, but not quite it. It is the number of animals that DO interbreed when given the chance. What the species concept is trying to relate is divergence. In order to be separate species you need population specific mutations to accumulate and cause the two populations to diverge over time. That was certainly the case for anatomically modern humans and neanderthals.

 

[rush1169]

As I've said, the pug analogy was to demonstrate that large differences do not occur in a single generation.

Oh, that you would re-illustrate that idea caught me off guard. I thought we are all on the same page with the gradual change. I assumed you were responding to my latest iteration describing what must have happened when a pair of non-humans birthed a human creating the first human. I'm way past the gradual change concept (sorry if I caused you to think I didn't understand that idea) and am drilling down with tighter focus. I hope that maybe you can refer to my post #100 and disregard everything else so we can talk about that subject.

 

[Kylie]

Oh, that you would re-illustrate that idea caught me off guard. I thought we are all on the same page with the gradual change. I assumed you were responding to my latest iteration describing what must have happened when a pair of non-humans birthed a human creating the first human. I'm way past the gradual change concept (sorry if I caused you to think I didn't understand that idea) and am drilling down with tighter focus. I hope that maybe you can refer to my post #100 and disregard everything else so we can talk about that subject.

I don't think you get it, because you are still on the idea that some non-humans gave birth to a human. It didn't happen.

There was never a non human that gave birth to a human. There was a long period of time during which non-humans developed gradually to be more and more human-like over many generations.

There was never a long nosed pug that gave birth to a squash nosed pug. There was a long period of time during which long nosed pugs developed gradually to be more and more squash-nosed over many generations.

There was never a purple pixel that was next to a green pixel. There was a transition period in which the pixels became less and less purple and more and more green.

You need to get this, and you never will as long as you are thinking in terms of non-humans giving birth to humans.

 

[rush1169]

I don't think you get it, because you are still on the idea that some non-humans gave birth to a human. It didn't happen.

There was never a non human that gave birth to a human.

The first human had to arrive via a zygote created by two living entities. Humans would not exist today unless a pair of non-humans birthed a human. I already know your response. . .

There was a long period of time during which non-humans developed gradually to be more and more human-like over many generations.

For brevity, I'd like to restate in fewer words:

There was a period of time when non-humans gradually became more human-like.

Now, I'd like to complete the thought:

There was a period of time when non-humans gradually became more human-like until they became human.

If they became human, the becoming of human had to occur with a birth or it had to occur after birth. Which is it?

But really, I'm way ahead of you in the conversation which may be the source of our circular discussion. Please see post #100 and let's talk specifically about that post and it's incorrect assumptions.