Tree of Life: What Creature Was at the Fork?

[rush1169]

Let's say you did go back and found the first generation that was incompatible with modern humans. What would you find if you tested the compatibility of that generation with the generation immediately after and before them? They would be 100% compatible, would they not?

How do you explain this?

Yes, when you travel back with a human gamete and find the first non-compatible gamete producer, you should also find that it's gamete is compatible with it's parents and children. Along the same lines, when you travel back with a human gamete and find the first compatible gamete producer, you should find that it's gamete is also compatible with it's parents and children.

The latter is more fascinating as the first human compatible producer's gamete would also have to be compatible with an individual whose gametes are not human compatible.

I can't explain how a creature can produce two different gametes such that one is compatible with it's peers and another is compatible with humans. That's why this discussion is taking place. The quandary arises out of the necessity of a first human gamete producer to have existed and the implications.

The difficulties are obvious, at least to me. I still cannot fathom a logical, reasonable, neutral explanation as to how humans went from a population of zero to the first to now billions without the first occurrence of a human compatible gamete. Even so, this thread continues to be supremely educational in other ways.

 

[Loudmouth]

The latter is more fascinating as the first human compatible producer's gamete would also have to be compatible with an individual whose gametes are not human compatible.

I wouldn't call it fascinating. I would call it obvious.

I can't explain how a creature can produce two different gametes such that one is compatible with it's peers and another is compatible with humans.

The same gamete is compatible with both. No need to produce two.

The quandary arises out of the necessity of a first human gamete producer to have existed and the implications.

No such quandary exists to begin with. That's the whole point. The quandary is nothing more than human bias. You are trying to force a cotinuum into a dichotomy.

The difficulties are obvious, at least to me. I still cannot fathom a logical, reasonable, neutral explanation as to how humans went from a population of zero to the first to now billions without the first occurrence of a human compatible gamete. Even so, this thread continues to be supremely educational in other ways.

I already gave you a logical, reasonable, and neutral explanation.

 

[rush1169]

The reason why, if you take a human gamete back in time that you will never find the first producer of a gamete that is compatible is because. . .

The same gamete is compatible with both. No need to produce two.

Oh, so you will find the first producer of a human compatible gamete and it's gamete will be compatible with future humans and it's peers.

So this individual produces a human compatible gamete for the first time and that same gamete is compatible with it's peers, but it's peers gametes are not compatible with the human gamete?

 

[Loudmouth]

The reason why, if you take a human gamete back in time that you will never find the first producer of a gamete that is compatible is because. . .



Oh, so you will find the first producer of a human compatible gamete and it's gamete will be compatible with future humans and it's peers.

You are arbitrarily labeling the modern population as human. You are trying to force a continuum into a dichotomy. Your problem lies in the fact that nature is different than what you think it is.

So this individual produces a human compatible gamete for the first time and that same gamete is compatible with it's peers, but it's peers gametes are not compatible with the human gamete?

There are human couples living today that are not fertile, but those same people are fertile with other people. Does that mean that some people alive today are not human, even though their parents were human?

 

[rush1169]

The reason why, if you take a human gamete back in time that you will never find the first producer of a gamete that is compatible is because. . .

The same gamete is compatible with both. No need to produce two.

Oh, so you will find the first producer of a human compatible gamete and it's gamete will be compatible with future humans and it's peers?

You are arbitrarily labeling the modern population as human. You are trying to force a continuum into a dichotomy. Your problem lies in the fact that nature is different than what you think it is.

So you won't find the first producer of a human compatible gamete?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you won't find the first producer of a human compatible gamete?

Define human.

 

[rush1169]

So you won't find the first producer of a human compatible gamete?

Define human.

noun: 1. a human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

The reason why, if you take a human gamete back in time that you may or may not find the first producer of a gamete that is compatible is because. . .
. . .it depends on the definition of human?

 

[Loudmouth]

The reason why, if you take a human gamete back in time that you may or may not find the first producer of a gamete that is compatible is because. . .
. . .it depends on the definition of human?

Yes. If you rely strictly on compatibility, then all of our ancestors are human clear back to the very single celled life.

 

[rush1169]

Yes. If you rely strictly on compatibility, then all of our ancestors are human clear back to the very single celled life.

So if one were to take a human gamete back in time and test it for it's ability to produce an offspring, one would never find it not compatible or always find it compatible clear back to the very single celled life?

 

[mzungu]

So if one were to take a human gamete back in time and test it for it's ability to produce an offspring, one would never find it not compatible or always find it compatible clear back to the very single celled life?

Why are you insisting on this in an indirect way? Why don't you just say what you really want to say instead of asking the same things over and over? Just say it out loud that you want to use science to prove genesis. Say that and we can take it from there.

 

[Loudmouth]

So if one were to take a human gamete back in time and test it for it's ability to produce an offspring, one would never find it not compatible or always find it compatible clear back to the very single celled life?

If you are using compatibility as a criterion then you will find that every generation was compatible with the one before them. Since the last generation is human, that makes every ancestor a human before that.

 

[rush1169]

If you are using compatibility as a criterion then you will find that every generation was compatible with the one before them. Since the last generation is human, that makes every ancestor a human before that.

For a generation of anything to have existed there had to have been sexually compatibility between the opposite sex members.

What I'm asking/saying is that if you take a human gamete from someone alive today and test it for homologous chromosomes/gamete compatibility against every human or human-like creature to have lived, going backwards, would you arrive at the first producer of a compatible gamete/homologous chromosomes? It seems a necessity.

 

[CabVet]

For a generation of anything to have existed there had to have been sexually compatibility between the opposite sex members.

The existence of bacteria disproves your statement.

What I'm asking/saying is that if you take a human gamete from someone alive today and test it for homologous chromosomes/gamete compatibility against every human or human-like creature to have lived, going backwards, would you arrive at the first producer of a compatible gamete/homologous chromosomes? It seems a necessity.

Based on the lack of fertility between us and chimps, I would say you could probably use today's gametes to fertilize people going back to about half a million years.

 

[Loudmouth]

For a generation of anything to have existed there had to have been sexually compatibility between the opposite sex members.

I guess you never heard of a hermaphroditic species? There are species that have sexual reproduction but not opposite sexes, such as your garden variety earthworm.

What I'm asking/saying is that if you take a human gamete from someone alive today and test it for homologous chromosomes/gamete compatibility against every human or human-like creature to have lived, going backwards, would you arrive at the first producer of a compatible gamete/homologous chromosomes? It seems a necessity.

So if I take that gamete back in time and it is compatible it would define that past generation as human. I can then take a gamete from that past generation, and go back furhter in time and find another compatible generation. They are also human because you have defined compatibility as a criteria for being human. I can repeat this all the way back through life.

 

[rush1169]

Based on the lack of fertility between us and chimps, I would say you could probably use today's gametes to fertilize people going back to about half a million years.

Probably a good hunch. So you'd say about half a million years ago the first creature was born as the first producer of human compatible gamete/homologous chromosomes?

 

[CabVet]

Probably a good hunch. So you'd say about half a million years ago the first creature was born as the first producer of human compatible gamete/homologous chromosomes?

Yes.

 

[rush1169]

So if I take that gamete back in time and it is compatible it would define that past generation as human. I can then take a gamete from that past generation, and go back furhter in time and find another compatible generation. They are also human because you have defined compatibility as a criteria for being human. I can repeat this all the way back through life.

Yeah, but I'm asking if you take a human gamete from someone alive today and test it for homologous chromosomes/gamete compatibility against every human or human-like creature to have lived, going backwards, would you arrive at the first producer of a compatible gamete/homologous chromosomes?

 

[rush1169]

So you'd say about half a million years ago the first creature was born as the first producer of human compatible gamete/homologous chromosomes?

Yes.

Yeah, that would necessarily be the case.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah, but I'm asking if you take a human gamete from someone alive today and test it for homologous chromosomes/gamete compatibility against every human or human-like creature to have lived, going backwards, would you arrive at the first producer of a compatible gamete/homologous chromosomes?

I am showing you why it would be silly to call that first producer a human while calling the generation before that non-human.

Also, your experiment is not scientific since it tries to prove a negative. How many attempts per person? How many individuals do you test?

 

[mzungu]

Yeah, that would necessarily be the case.

No it would not! You have not defined at what percentage success rate that copulation will result in a fertile offspring!

You are still making the same mistake. By your logic then a human will be traced all the way back to the single celled ancestor because every generation is compatible with the next and previous generation.

What is your point? I know you are avoiding me but I ask in earnest!