Who was the first human?

Your mom.

It's shit and oversimplified.

That's how evolution actually works though. [spoiler]with the added mechanism of selection[/spoiler]

>with the added mechanism of selection
Weird choice of words. Evolution is something that we've observed happens. So far our best explanation for it is natural selection.

Your non-argument is oversimplified.

Don't forget sexual selection and kin selection.

Me.

evolution is a gradual change, there was no point that we went "ok this is the first human" we have evolved from bactiera to apes and then apes from humans, just like how we'll evolve from humans to aliens.

Yeah dude, I meant selection in general. Gradual change in organisms + selection of certain organisms = evolution

Gradual change in organisms IS evolution. We explain that change by the mechanisms of selection.

It's traits that are selected, not organisms.

then what was the first living thing that existed? or is there a smooth transition from being an inanimate object? is there a smooth transition from being nonexistent altogether too?

where does the gradient from existence, to non existence, to existence, to life, to sentience, to now our sapience begin?

GOSH

it depends on:
>how you define life
>how you define existence
>how you define sentience
>how you define inanimate
>how you define being
>how you define living
>how you define existing

This is the correct answer

>first came the big bang
>then came the subatomic particles
>then came the atoms, a collection of subatomic particles
>then came the molecules, a collection of atoms
>then came a bigger clump of molecules
>the clump of molecules started morphing into more complex clumps
>those complex clumps finally gained consciousness cause the sum of it's parts is higher than individual parts

Please ask at what point you're confounded

aren't those objectively defined already? life is an organice system which sustains itself with reproduction.

existence is the presence of the hydrocarbons needed for organic system.s.

sentience is an organic systems ability to reference itself in an environment.

inanimate is any inorganic matter incapable of the former.

being is having a form of sentience.

living is reproducing sentient beings.

existing is being in the universe.

it's meaningless as an answer because there's no way to discern such a threshold. you can't tell if it's just an infertility or if it's due to sterility.

>the clump of molecules started morphing into more complex clumps

but how? if i throw a bunch of hydrocarbons into a swamp am i going to magically get eukaryotes?

>you can't tell if it's just an infertility or if it's due to sterility.
Yes you can, since there's a medical way to test for those

except you can't when it's so close to genetic variation that being infertile due to a disorder is almost the same as due to a medical defect. you can't say which is a deviation of genes or if it's a separate disorder and the person is still a part of your family tree.

>but how? if i throw a bunch of hydrocarbons into a swamp am i going to magically get eukaryotes?

Given enough time, yes. We have found organic molecules even outside of our solar system. The fun part of living in our universe is that it's highly dynamic. Mixing all of these molecules - happens all the time - will eventually lead to life.

that seems less likely than intelligent design and i dont even advocate it.

being sterile or infertile has to do with sperm count

>molecules following the basic laws of physics seems less likely than magical sky daddy suddenly appearing and creating everything out of thin air
k

>that seems less likely than intelligent design and i dont even advocate it.
only if you are a retard

what does likely mean when the time frame is billions of years?

say something can happen once a second

there are 30000000000000000 seconds in 10 billion years

and chemical reactions actually take place so fast that we have hundreds of millions of chemical collisions per second

that gives a lot of room for complex chemistry to evolve and eventually "life"

you guys are saying with enough time, molecules can just clump up into hyper complex mitochondria reticulas and so on

my counterargument is that the probability is so low that the age of the universe is too low to support the claim, based on boltzmann brain model.

yup
>implying the age of the universe matters
the age of earth is enough, otherwise we wouldn't be here

again your argument is invalid. there are immensely more scenarios for us to not exist, and as such, the age of the earth or universe and so on aren't large enough to allow for life to just materialize due to no other model than the "particles collided together randomly" model. laws of thermodynamics literally says no to the bullshit doesn't it? i thought you guys knew science.

>molecules can just clump up into hyper complex mitochondria reticulas and so on
Yes, though you're jumping the gun. A fish doesn't just gain legs and starts walking on ground, eating banana. It happens over the course of millions of years.

We are population X. A population that lived N amount of time ago is population Y. Further, population Z lived 2N amount of time ago.

We can reproduce with population Y, and therefore population Y is human. We cannot reproduce with population Z because we are genetically incompatible.

Now, what happens if population Y and Z can in fact reproduce? Who are the humans here?

An answer like the one you referred to only makes sense if you're comparing populations of the same generation. That's because the concept of species is fluid, as pointed out by others in this thread.

>the age of the earth or universe and so on aren't large enough to allow for life to just materialize
If that was true, we wouldn't be here.
We are here, therefore it's false.

how do you come to the conclusion that there are immensely more scenarios for us not to exist?

>b-b-but muh intelligent design

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Have fun

>my model is the only valid one, therefore if i'm not right we wouldn't exist, therefore it's right

holy shit is this seriously how you argue?

Exactly the point I was making.

complex chemistry exists because it is favorable to exist.

just like we exist because our existence is favorable.

although counterintuitive, formation of life is actually entropically favorable.

Provide an alternative model that makes fewer assumptions

I suppose you have a better model of explaining how we're here? Unless you actually deny our existence in total?

The issue is some would be able to breed with certain individuals existant now and not with others who are farther from themselves. And the offspring would not necessarily be fertile in all cases, but likely in some

The solution is right there
>if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection then the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species

So it will depend on what you revived, exactly

except the complexity of the conditions for life to exist are not favorable. we know how it propogates but for it to begin, the actual abiogenesis, is impossible to just be a matter of abiding by the laws of nature, because your model is saying that given enough resources and conditions and time, it will occur, but a model of just having randomized particles and saying at some point it will organize itself is impossible given that the time factor is still too short. maxwell's demon prose even goes over this.

having no model is better than having empirically impossible one.

Right, and therefore it isn't as simple as reviving the most distant relative with which we could still reproduce.

>empirically impossible one.
Except it's not. Don't make stuff up.

it is. there's a higher chance of an entire inanimate object from materializing due to quantum fluctuations than for functional groups to just go lol let's make a polar membrane and then organize transcription groups for protein synthesis! it's orders of magnitude harder and statistically true.

>functional groups to just go lol let's make a polar membrane and then organize transcription groups for protein synthesis!

Again you're failing to grasp basic evolution. Nobody decides to form into higher lifeforms. It just happens by trial and error. Even abiotic molecules exhibit the characteristics of self-organization and self-replication. How far fetched would it be for biotic ones to do the same?

But it is

so long as you don't revive anything else

and you're missing the point that trial and error from a probabilistic standpoint hasn't had enough time to be the most valid explanation.

Show us your calculations

protip: they are obviously wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be here

>so long as you don't revive anything else
This dependance implies that there are multiple correct answers to the question. But the question is absolute.

What exactly is your probabilistic standpoint?

I'm sure that's someone's fetish anyway.

first rule of science:
>never say impossible

second rule of science:
>probability and "randomness" is a meme

third rule:
>2nd law is never violated

also re-read maxwell's demon because you are misunderstanding it, and the point is that the second law actually isnt violated.

> they are obviously wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be here

or abiogenesis wasn't just random exposure of functional groups. it could be due to a variety of factors. do we know something more primitive than a prion? there are a variety of factors and models you're ignoring.

pretty ironic considering probabilty and randomness is what you guys are using to explain abiogenesis.

Thanks for that mental image. I won't be able to look at drawings of australopithecus africanus in quite the same way ever again.

Where are your calculations?

>mfw

Check'd and kek'd

Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long even though it can vary near that amount, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe.

how is this hard to grasp?

who is that semen demon?

>The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300
The chances are 50/50. It either happens or it doesn't.

because it doesnt occur randomly?

are you even out of highschool?

Kim Kardashian.

so you're going to ignore the original topic. okay i guess you're conceding then.

>The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300
You don't know how many combinations are useful, your point is moot

literally the argument here is that by having hydrocarbons in a soup it will happen at some point to jump start evolution. keep up please.

Except a fully fledged ribosome isn't necessary to jump start evolution.

>literally
>jump start evolution
>hydrocarbon soup

Veeky Forums

you need a rhibosome to perform gene transcoding, the core mechanism of life reproduction. do you even biology?

see

But you don't need one to develop one through evolution.

I cant tell if this thread is a result of STEM majors stepping too far outside their field, or if biology majors are really this stupid.

Let's say you have a 4 number pin. There are 10000 combinations possible. What are the chances of guessing the right combination? It doesn't matter. Perhaps you guess it from the first try?

IKR? I haven't seen such a fun thread in quite a while.

You don't have proof that there's only 1 right combination

Also, you are assuming that there's only 1 computer and you must try sequentially, when there's in fact 5*10^47 computers

and what would? a simpler rhibosome?

>if i critcize the people and not their actual statements i'll be safe
lol pathetic

perhaps is not a scientific explanation. i could say we were from quantum fluctuations. perhaps it was from the first try?

we didn't start off with 5*10^47 computers so your argument is invalid.

>and what would? a simpler rhibosome
Any self replicating molecule with the appropriate chemical base structure will do.

>what is the ocean

That was exactly my point, though. There is no evolution god computer that is sequentially going to test all these molecules until it finds life.

>perhaps is not a scientific explanation. i could say we were from quantum fluctuations. perhaps it was from the first try?
Exactly. Saying it's impossible due to high number of combinations is moot.

and what molecule would self replicate while not requiring and insane probability to occur to this random bullshit? the answer is none.

it's not moot because picking one combination by chance is an unfalsifiable statement and not a scientific model. it's worthless. you can say everything was by chance and that gauge fields aren't real.

>the answer is none
>what are prions

> self polynerization is rare

Why would it work like 4^300?

It's not like they CAN assemble in 4^300 ways

If they get close enough, they will either assemble or they won't depending on the laws of physics

99.999999999999% of the 4^300 theoretical combinations are just impossible

Your formula is garbage

prions need a cell host in order to reproduce

your argument is garbage because nucleotides can combine in a variety of ways. you can't assume that the majority are impossible without calculations. there are no laws of physics which say nucleotides can't arrange themselves in a specific manner.

>can combine in a variety of ways
many of which are impossible and/or redundant

it's not 4^300, it's far lower than that

if it's as low as 4^130, given the size of the ocean and the age of Earth, it gives you an exponent in single digits

No they don't. They only need to be close to another protein. Are you making thing up now to win an argument?

>there are no laws of physics which say nucleotides can't arrange themselves in a specific manner.
Exactly. No reason to assume they can't arrange themselves in a way that leads to life.

except there hasn't been enough time for that model to work.