How did sex start?

[SkepticThinker]

So if I understand you correctly, you say there were no first homo sapiens, right? They just continued evolving into the homo sapien type from, uh, that "Unknown Common Ancestor." Chimps, gorillas, no first in their model either, although they are still producing chimps and gorilla types, right among themselves, right?

Yep.



I asked YOU a question.
Can you pinpoint the exact moment when the "first human" emerged?

Please answer.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, maybe I missed it, btw. So can you VERY BRIEFLY explain why there were no "first humans"? Thank you! That is, if you have the kindness to do so, since I evidently did not see your answer. And thanks in advance. I will not post any more to you in case I miss your answer (which I hope you will not simply say you've answered it before, without giving the answer again - thanks btw..) because I'm busy reading other responses from you or others. Thanks again. And, of course, looking forward to your brief, uncomplicated answer as to why you say there were no "first humans." (Thanks again.)

It's easy enough: the 'line' between humans and non-humans, especially in evolutionary history is broad and spans many generations.

There was no 'first human' in a way analogous to the reason why there was no 'first English speaker'. The change from Saxon to English was gradual and took generations. So there was no 'first'.

 

[Polymath257]

So as I understand what you mean, this brings up a question. Humans in the form of homo sapiens as described about you and me are here for how long do scientists say?
So no matter though, you are saying as the crossover (evolving from one type of hominid to another) occurred, there was no 'first' homo sapien. Evolving from whatever is surmised to have come before. Hmm ok, I wonder if the firm believers in the theory here would agree with that. But honest, at this point, I don't think I will discuss it much with any types of conjectural assertions offered by believers in evolution (evidence or proof) about that idea. Ok no proof just evidence maybe of that whatever. Ok thanks and have a nice evening.

Yes, there was no 'first Homo sapiens'. The distinction between 'Homo sapiens' and 'Homo heidelbergensis' and other species of the genus 'Homo' is not sharply defined.

The transition was gradual and took place over many generations and in a sizable population. There is no sharp division line.

Think of it like this: the change happened over a tens of thousands of years. The boundary is broad and vague. No generation was hugely different than the previous one, but yet change over the course of many generations still happened. There is no sharp line that can be drawn between 'not H sapiens' and 'H sapiens'.

 

[Polymath257]

So if I understand you correctly, you say there were no first homo sapiens, right? They just continued evolving into the homo sapien type from, uh, that "Unknown Common Ancestor." Chimps, gorillas, no first in their model either, although they are still producing chimps and gorilla types, right among themselves, right?

Yes, precisely. The split of populations is also gradual and each branch changes slowly. The modern divisions do not well represent what existed in the past.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, there was no 'first Homo sapiens'. The distinction between 'Homo sapiens' and 'Homo heidelbergensis' and other species of the genus 'Homo' is not sharply defined.

The transition was gradual and took place over many generations and in a sizable population. There is no sharp division line.

Think of it like this: the change happened over a tens of thousands of years. The boundary is broad and vague. No generation was hugely different than the previous one, but yet change over the course of many generations still happened. There is no sharp line that can be drawn between 'not H sapiens' and 'H sapiens'.

I understand what you're saying. I wouldn't say I agree with it, that for severeal reasons. However, to say that at a certain point there was no First Distinct and Complete Being called homo sapiens as we see them (--us--) now makes no sense to me, If it does to you, so it goes with you and lots of others. But even IF these lineages of hominids evolved, to say there was no complete "first" homo sapien sapien or whatever the latest order is named is not making sense. Because somewhere the line was drawn.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand what you're saying. I wouldn't say I agree with it, that for severeal reasons. However, to say that at a certain point there was no First Distinct and Complete Being called homo sapiens as we see them (--us--) now makes no sense to me, If it does to you, so it goes with you and lots of others. But even IF these lineages of hominids evolved, to say there was no complete "first" homo sapien sapien or whatever the latest order is named is not making sense. Because somewhere the line was drawn.

Except that it is a line that is broad and covers many generations. THERE IS NO SHARP LINE.

Again, it is similar to the fact that there was no French speaker. French developed from previous languages over a period of time. At no point did it suddenly transition from 'not French' to 'French'. All generations understood both their parents and their children.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Pseudo-science tells, that the first life in Multiverse was primitive one-cell organisms.
There was no male-female distinction. How that has happened and when?
This cannot be a million years-long evolution, because the very first sex must have happened in one single second: the female organ was penetrated by the male organ. The very first time in history! Was it a good one, or a disappointment?

It was when Adam knew his wife - and yes - she found it very disappointing.