Tree of Life: What Creature Was at the Fork?

[madaz]

Massive projection.

Absolutely!

 

[rush1169]

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.

 

[mzungu]

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.

Neanderthals did reproduce with humans yet they were not as "Human" as we are today. Secondly every child born is slightly different to his parents. There is no clear distinction as to what is a proper human. Thirdly what of the ability to reproduce but the offspring is sterile (mule)?.

In 1,000,000 years in the future humans will not be able to reproduce with present day humans were it be made possible by artificial insemination of preserved sperm. We would be considered an ancestor just like we consider Australopithecenes as ancestors.

 

[Loudmouth]

This picture may be helpful:

Although there is not a perfect comparison between a family tree and a cladogram, they are close. It may help those who are having difficulty picturing what cladograms mean. You can find more discussion on this picture here:

All in the family | Playing Chess with Pigeons

 

[rush1169]

Neanderthals did reproduce with humans yet they were not as "Human" as we are today.

Exactly what I've written above. Neanderthals are not initial purple nor are they final green. When asked 'can this creature procreate with humans?' and the answer is yes, we must step backwards at least one color.

Secondly every child born is slightly different to his parents.

I agree. But we should remain focused on the differences that emerge that are actual contributors to the change from initial purple to final green that result in sexual compatibility. The fact that no two humans are identical is not the subject of the discussion because they can mate.

There is no clear distinction as to what is a proper human.

There is a clear distinction with a simple question: Can two entities successfully mate?

Thirdly what of the ability to reproduce but the offspring is sterile (mule)?.

A birthed sterile creature cannot establish a color gradation, therefore is not subject of the discussion.

In 1,000,000 years in the future humans will not be able to reproduce with present day humans were it be made possible by artificial insemination of preserved sperm. We would be considered an ancestor just like we consider Australopithecenes as ancestors.

That is just a guess presented as fact. Neither of us know the future. Also, the future is not the subject of the discussion.

I appreciate your contribution to this discussion, I'm doing my best to stay razor focused. Neanderthals are a good example and very relevant, the rest was not.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

That definition only applies to living humans and can not be applied to comparisons between modern humans and individuals from the past. We could use the language analogy here. All modern english speakers can communicate with each other, but it is doubtful that a modern english speaker could communicate with someone speaking early forms of english. At the same time, everyone speaking early english were able to talk to one another, and each successive generation was able to communicate just fine with the generation before them.

Does this mean that there was a singular moment when there was a single person who spoke modern english, and that person had no one to communicate with? No. Small changes over time added up to larger changes. There was not quantum jump from early english to modern english. There was a continuum of languages that evolved over time.

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.

That's not how it works. Think about the language example.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly what I've written above. Neanderthals are not initial purple nor are they final green. When asked 'can this creature procreate with humans?' and the answer is yes, we must step backwards at least one color.

Do you think that a wolf suddenly gave birth to a chihuahua, and that is where chihuahuas came from? Or do you think that there was a continuum of dog populations that looked more and more like chihuahuas while slowly drifting apart from wolves? Do you think there was a point where a chihuahua was born that had no other chihuahua to mate with?

 

[mzungu]

That is just a guess presented as fact. Neither of us know the future. Also, the future is not the subject of the discussion.

I appreciate your contribution to this discussion, I'm doing my best to stay razor focused. Neanderthals are a good example and very relevant, the rest was not.

What you seem to miss is that no living thing can reach "green" unless you consider "green" to refer to the present state. But you seem to forget that in reality all life is in a constant transitional state. Evolution has not stopped for living things and it certainly has not for humans either. We may not know the future but ToE has made predictions and they were confirmed and since evolution is an ongoing process then suffice it to say that human will continue to evolve. I am absolutely sure that if the present state of forcing the brain to accumulate more knowledge than our ancestors ever dreamed of then the cranial volume should increase. We have seen this so far with our ancestors and there is no reason it should stop.

What do you think?

 

[rush1169]

That definition only applies to living humans and can not be applied to comparisons between modern humans and individuals from the past.

Why?

We could use the language analogy here. All modern english speakers can communicate with each other, but it is doubtful that a modern english speaker could communicate with someone speaking early forms of english. At the same time, everyone speaking early english were able to talk to one another, and each successive generation was able to communicate just fine with the generation before them.

Does this mean that there was a singular moment when there was a single person who spoke modern english, and that person had no one to communicate with? No. Small changes over time added up to larger changes.

The language analogy is generally the same, but weaker analogy KTS and I are using. We are referring to initial purple to final green whereas you are referring to early English to modern English. We are investigating life that could mate with life and your analogy investigates the first early English dialect that could communicate with modern English speakers. That's why the language analogy is weaker. By switching to a weaker analogy in this discussion, we lose focus, clarity, and coherency which can result the circular discussion we are trying to avoid.

There was not quantum jump from early english to modern english. There was a continuum of languages that evolved over time.

Quantum jumps have not been mentioned and are not part of the discussion.

That's not how it works. Think about the language example.

Please try to avoid pronouns as they make it difficult to know to what you are referring. What is 'That' and what is 'it'?

 

[rush1169]

Do you think that a wolf suddenly gave birth to a chihuahua, and that is where chihuahuas came from?

You have two questions:
Do I think a wolf suddenly gave birth to a Chihuahua? My answer is no.
Do I think that is where Chihuahuas came from? (Try to avoid pronouns, I'm not sure what you mean by 'that'). If you mean to ask, Do I think Chihuahuas came from wolves? My answer is yes.

Or do you think that there was a continuum of dog populations that looked more and more like chihuahuas while slowly drifting apart from wolves?

My answer is yes, but by your inclusion of the word 'Or' at the beginning, implies that because I've answered 'yes' to both successive questions that I didn't understand at least one of the questions. However, your dog analogy is not on-topic because dogs can mate. The topic KTS and I are discussing is not about two humans that look very different but can mate.

Do you think there was a point where a chihuahua was born that had no other chihuahua to mate with?

No.

I'm doing my best to stay on topic.

 

[rush1169]

What you seem to miss is that no living thing can reach "green" unless you consider "green" to refer to the present state.

If I may restate what you said using our current color analogy:

What you seem to miss is that no living thing can reach 'human' unless you consider 'human' to refer to the present state.

I'm missing something, because I don't know what you mean. I will restate that for the discussion I'm talking about sexual compatibility between human and the creature(s) that led up to human.

But you seem to forget that in reality all life is in a constant transitional state.

No, I have not. I am examining a specific transition that took place. I am examining a subset of all transitions and a subset of all life.

Evolution has not stopped for living things and it certainly has not for humans either.

I agree, but whether or not evolution has stopped for living things is not the topic.

We may not know the future but ToE has made predictions and they were confirmed and since evolution is an ongoing process then suffice it to say that human will continue to evolve.

Predictions cannot be confirmed until the predicted resides in the past. Humans will continue to evolve, but the topic is sexual compatibility with past life.

I am absolutely sure that if the present state of forcing the brain to accumulate more knowledge than our ancestors ever dreamed of then the cranial volume should increase. We have seen this so far with our ancestors and there is no reason it should stop.

What do you think?

What do I think about your last paragraph or what do I think about your entire post? I addressed where appropriate, and your assertion that the human cranial volume will increase because we learn more stuff is wildly off topic.

I'm doing my best to stay on topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why?

How do you take a modern human and have them mate with someone from 200,000 years ago?

The language analogy is generally the same, but weaker analogy KTS and I are using. We are referring to initial purple to final green whereas you are referring to early English to modern English. We are investigating life that could mate with life and your analogy investigates the first early English dialect that could communicate with modern English speakers. That's why the language analogy is weaker. By switching to a weaker analogy in this discussion, we lose focus, clarity, and coherency which can result the circular discussion we are trying to avoid.

You didn't show how it was weaker, only that it is different. Languages are a perfect model for biological evolution since they involve changes spread through a population and through time.

Quantum jumps have not been mentioned and are not part of the discussion.

You are the one who is mentioning them. You are saying that there is a quantum jump from not human to human instead of a continuum.

 

[Loudmouth]

However, your dog analogy is not on-topic because dogs can mate.

Actually, due to size differences a wolf can not mate with a chihuahua, and they will not mate if introduced to each other in the wild.

So how could this occur? According to you, there had to be a first chihuahua which means that it could not mate with anything else that was not a chihuahua since chihuahuas and wolves can not mate.

 

[rush1169]

How do you take a modern human and have them mate with someone from 200,000 years ago?

One cannot. We, at least KTS and I, are engaged in a discussion concerning the arrival of human. We are operating under the educated guess that a human alive today is sexually compatible with a dead human of 200 years ago, as if that 200 years gone human were alive and that continuing back in time one would reach a point where sexual compatibility is gone. Refer to the KTS color chart depicting initial purple to final green combined with our respective on topic posts for additional clarity.

You didn't show how it was weaker, only that it is different. Languages are a perfect model for biological evolution since they involve changes spread through a population and through time.

Fair enough, it is weaker in my opinion as it doesn't add clarity to what I'm trying to understand. Words do not procreate with other words to produce a new word.

You are the one who is mentioning them. You are saying that there is a quantum jump from not human to human instead of a continuum.

No, we are discussing the extremely gradual transition from non-human to human.

I'm trying my best to stay on topic.

 

[mzungu]

What do I think about your last paragraph or what do I think about your entire post? I addressed where appropriate, and your assertion that the human cranial volume will increase because we learn more stuff is wildly off topic.

I'm doing my best to stay on topic.

I am on topic. Why do you think cranial volume increased through human evolution? If evolution is continuing with humans then cranial size will increase as it always has done. Likewise we will never reach "green"There will always be purple.

Correct me if I am wrong but if your reference is only modern humans of 2013 then we have indeed reached " green" but only in the sexual compatibility area. We are constantly evolving and since we are so then future distant humans will eventually be so different as to be not sexually compatible (theoretically) since we cannot have both to test the said compatibility.

Please specify if the sexually compatible "green" is in reference only to modern humans.

 

[Loudmouth]

One cannot. We, at least KTS and I, are engaged in a discussion concerning the arrival of human.

Yes, and I am using other examples to show why your argument does not hold water.

We are operating under the educated guess that a human alive today is sexually compatible with a dead human of 200 years ago, as if that 200 years gone human were alive and that continuing back in time one would reach a point where sexual compatibility is gone.

Yes, just as has happened with wolves and chihuahuas. According to your logic, there had to be a first chihuahua that could not mate with any other dog breed since chihuahuas can not mate with wolves.

Fair enough, it is weaker in my opinion as it doesn't add clarity to what I'm trying to understand. Words do not procreate with other words to produce a new word.

Words do procreate. They are passed on from one generation to the next, and each new generation changes the language in slight ways, and those changes spread through the population just as alleles do in biological populations. Those slight differences add up over time until a modern speaker of english would no longer recognize someone speaking an early form of english, and yet each generation was still able to talk to the next. There was not a point where someone suddenly began speaking modern english and no one was able to understand that person.

It seems like a perfect analogy to me.

No, we are discussing the extremely gradual transition from non-human to human.

Yes, and I am using non-controversial lineages to show why your description of human evolution is wrong.

 

[rush1169]

Actually, due to size differences a wolf can not mate with a chihuahua, and they will not mate if introduced to each other in the wild.

So how could this occur? According to you, there had to be a first chihuahua which means that it could not mate with anything else that was not a chihuahua since chihuahuas and wolves can not mate.

Please don't ask me a question and provide an answer that is intended to represent my answer.

Your question is "So how could this occur?" Please try to avoid using pronouns for clarity. I assume your question is "How could a Chihuahua exist given that it cannot mate with a wolf in the wild?"

My answer: Chihuahuas exist because, through selective breeding, were made to exist.

I'm doing my best to stay on topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly what I've written above. Neanderthals are not initial purple nor are they final green. When asked 'can this creature procreate with humans?' and the answer is yes, we must step backwards at least one color.

So why couldn't each generation be interfertile while small changes accumulated within the population until you ended up with modern humans? Neanderthals could mate with modern humans, and neanderthals were outside the parameters of an anatomically modern human. The changes from one generation to the next in our lineage leading from our common ancestor with neanderthals to the modern population would have been less than that between neanderthals and anatomically modern humans. So why do you think there would have been a problem with fertility?

 

[Loudmouth]

Please don't ask me a question and provide an answer that is intended to represent my answer.

I am showing where your logic leads, and why your logic is wrong.

Your question is "So how could this occur?" Please try to avoid using pronouns for clarity. I assume your question is "How could a Chihuahua exist given that it cannot mate with a wolf in the wild?"

My answer: Chihuahuas exist because, through selective breeding, were made to exist.

Who did breeders breed the first chihuahua with since chihuahuas are not able to mate with wolves? According to your logic, it is impossible to breed chihuahuas.

 

[rush1169]

@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.