Atheists, rationally speaking was there a first human?
Ok, since every atheist is a scientist with an extensive background in anthropology and molecular biology, was there a first human? I ask because atheists laugh at the idea of a first human, such as adam and eve, but surely in the chain of evolution, at SOME point it had to be a human when it previously wasnt right? So is the issue with the name "adam" ?
2011-06-23T21:59:42Z
I am aware that in antitheist mythos a human disnt just "slip out of an ape", although according to it , they did since humans are apes (hominoidea), but i mean, that however one classifies a human "human" whether it be the ability to procreate with a human, or number of chromosones etc, at SOME point something that is not classified as a human gave birth to something that is, right?
Anonymous2011-06-23T21:45:25Z
Favorite Answer
Populations of animals evolve. It happens slowly. No, there was no "first" human; who would he (or she) have mated with?
Wait I'm not a...oh I see that's sarcasm right? You had me their for a minute.
I ask because atheists laugh at the idea of a first human, such as adam and eve, but surely in the chain of evolution, at SOME point it had to be a human when it previously wasn't right?
1. it is almost always a bad idea to say that all atheists do or agree on something. Atheists can, and do, have views that are very different from each other. We really only agree on one thing and this is not it.
2. As someone stated It is not specific individuals who evolve but rather populations. How would have that first human have passed on his genes?
The issue is with being able to point to a creature and claim it as family while discarding it's parents as unrelated. I laugh at the idea that there is a singular being that we can look to. Consider family history. I could trace a line back 20 generations and then follow a different path up to the future...would I have any appreciable characteristics similar to my fellow human? Of course we are both human, but I find that even branching away to my third cousins is far enough to not be a family tie. In the same way, I don't feel a tie with the biblical adam or the evolutionary milestone that produced humanity. There is likely to have been a time when what we consider human was finally fully established, but there would have been many generations of humaniods, and hominids, and creatures that aren't totally human but close enough to mate with.
It's not a sharp change, where suddenly an proto-ape gives birth to a human. At some point, an early human that is still different enough from us that it would not be able to breed with us gave birth to a human just enough like us that it could breed with modern humans. In that sense, sure, there was a first human.
The issue isn't with naming conventions, it's with the story of the Garden of Eden, which is patently ridiculous in a hundred ways.
At what wavelength of light does blue stop and green begin? It's like that. For a species like humans, the concept of "first generation" doesn't make sense. Except in the case of hybrids, there isn't really a discrete moment of change. And you seem to be forgetting that evolution operates on populations, not individuals. So no, it isn't an issue with the name "adam" at all.
Oh, and evolution isn't a chain. It's a tree, generally.
"yeah i just cited wikipedia what of it" You may have cited wikipedia, but the article doesn't support what you said.