A knockdown prophecy

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think R00t is stupid. Stubborn, yeah. But I think there were primitive humans, primitive humans, primitive humans, then suddenly, a human was born who was exceptionally greater than his predecessors.

Which is not reflected in any of the evidence that indicates early modern or fully modern settlements anywhere on the globe, or in the dna of surviving members of this hypothetical event - namely, us.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is devolving into a cheap game of semantics. Even if I play along, I can still squeeze a first modern human from your description above, regardless of its accuracy.

Let's assume we observe the first generation of modern men dispersed over groups in different places around the globe.

Step 1 : For each group of "modern men", take the oldest member.

The oldest member even in this thought experiment would be an archaic, not early modern, or fully modern, human.  

Step 2 : You get a collection of very old people, each of whom would locally be considered the first modern human.

So very many adams....

Step 3 : Take the oldest element in this collection. This element would evidently be the first modern human we're looking for.

This one is just..bonkers..and I think you can figure out why it won't give you an adam all by yourself with reference to living families.  Picking the oldest member of our two families...will not yield a common ancestor between you and I.  

QED.

The existence of a greatest element is a mathematical property about finite sets, the set of modern humans is finite, people.

Yes, QED, you have proven yourself wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can give a very simple definition of what a first modern human (which I'll label FMH, for brevity) is : the oldest member of the first generation of modern humans. 

Okay....and which one of them..is that adam.  I keep asking.  You have plenty to choose from, from all over the world, in a range of 300-50k years. I think that might be your block. You think that there was a single line of modern humans somewhere somewhen - but that's not the case.

[Angrboda]

I'm becoming convinced of the proposition that there is a strong correlation between being an incompetent moron and being a Muslim.

The problem isn't in defining what a first is. The problem is in objectively defining what a modern human is, which you cannot do.

It apparently has eluded you that being subjective is an essential property of any and all definitions. And therein lies the rub.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I don't think R00t is stupid. Stubborn, yeah. But I think there were primitive humans, primitive humans, primitive humans, then suddenly, a human was born who was exceptionally greater than his predecessor

There is no such thing as "greater " in evolution. Evolution doesn't have a hierarchy.

[Angrboda]

I don't think R00t is stupid. Stubborn, yeah. But I think there were primitive humans, primitive humans, primitive humans, then suddenly, a human was born who was exceptionally greater than his predecessor

There is no such thing as "greater " in evolution. Evolution doesn't have a hierarchy.

Although in fairness, evolution was somewhat taken aback when it gave birth to Ahriman.

[Silver]

There is no such thing as "greater " in evolution. Evolution doesn't have a hierarchy.

Although in fairness, evolution was somewhat taken aback when it gave birth to Ahriman.

Quite possibly a gene pool issue.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Although in fairness, evolution was somewhat taken aback when it gave birth to Ahriman.

Quite possibly a gene pool issue.

Not so much a pool I imagine but a puddle and a small one at that.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To the OP, saying there is not an honest objection to an argument is called "posioning the well". I find it very rude to begin a conversation on the presumption that everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest. That said, getting that number exact is remarkable but not exactly beyond the best guess of a battlefield surgueon. Marvelous, yes. Conclusive, no.

[The Architect Of Fate]

To the OP, saying there is not an honest objection to an argument is called "posioning the well". I find it very rude to begin a conversation on the presumption that everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest. That said, getting that number exact is remarkable but not exactly beyond the best guess of a battlefield surgueon. Marvelous, yes. Conclusive, no.

On this occasion we agree