A knockdown prophecy

[The Grand Nudger]

So, not a knockdown prophecy, and hey..if the "prophet" got it wrong, no big deal, counting joints is not his occupation anyway.

Good job.

[R00tKiT]

Modernity is defined in two basic ways.  Anatomic modernity is when the bones of some (pre)historic population are  identical (or very closely identical) to the bones of contemporary populations.  Behavioral or cultural modernity is when we find recognizable artifacts of contemporary human behaviors and beliefs.  Full modernity, thusly, is when the remains and the artifacts are recognizable as and to a contemporary human population.  

The former we sometimes call early modern, because the difference between us appears to have been more in their behaviors than their anatomy.  We hit that 300k to 200k ago - maybe more, maybe less.  The latter parcel of traits or attributes doesn't show up until about 40-50k years go.  

There was never a singular first anotomic or behaviorally or fully modern man.  You can give that literally impossible non-entity any name you want, adam or steve, won't change a thing .  This was a vast trend of co-concurrent biological and technological development in populations separated by both time and distance with multiple instances of independent construction, as in the case of bows.

....and suddenly a modern human became a literally impossible non-entity........

This bit about atheists not acknowledging the simple, logical fact that a first modern human existed, will always make me laugh uncontrollably.

[R00tKiT]

So, not a knockdown prophecy, and hey..if the "prophet" got it wrong, no big deal, counting joints is not his occupation anyway.

Good job.

The things is, he didn't get it wrong when he could've, and the risk was largely unnecessary.

Excellent strawman skills, by the way.

[R00tKiT]

That's not how evolution works. With the exception of hybrids and a few rare instances like the marbled crayfish, no offspring is ever a different species from its parent. There was no first human, no first horse, and no first rabbit. Populations change over time as different alleles become more or less common. It doesn't matter how you define 'modern human', there wasn't a first one.

Sounds like a long winded way to say: I don't have a definition of "modern human", therefore there is no first human.

I mean, you're not wrong. If a characteristic X is undefined (or you can't define it), then there is no first element who has this characteristic.

[Angrboda]

That's not how evolution works. With the exception of hybrids and a few rare instances like the marbled crayfish, no offspring is ever a different species from its parent. There was no first human, no first horse, and no first rabbit. Populations change over time as different alleles become more or less common. It doesn't matter how you define 'modern human', there wasn't a first one.

Sounds like a long winded way to say: I don't have a definition of "modern human", therefore there is no first human.

I mean, you're not wrong. If a characteristic X is undefined (or you can't define it), then there is no first element who has this characteristic.

Modern humanness is a matter of definition. Since the boundary of modern humanity is fixed by definition, i.e. fiat, rather than by fact, even if there is such a first human, it isn't a first human in any objective sense. Adam, however, according to scripture is objectively the first human. You're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and aside from the unintentional hilarity of watching you try, it has no merit.

[R00tKiT]

Modern humanness is a matter of definition. 

Sure. But will I ever get an actual definition of a modern human ? I want it precisely from the experts in this forum who keep telling me : "That's not how evolution works".
Let's say we have species X and we define modern X by the following charateristic: "all members of the species X whose tail is >= 15 cm". Now the first observable member that has a tail longer than 15 cm will be the first modern X. I am sure that wasn't very difficult to define.

even if there is such a first human, it isn't a first human in any objective sense.  

Um.. what ? 
There either is a first modern human or there isn't. Again, this shouldn't be difficult.

Adam, however, according to scripture is objectively the first human.  You're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and aside from the unintentional hilarity of watching you try, it has no merit.

You mean religiously the first human.. anyway, I am sure the only reason why you're reluctant to acknowledge the fact that there is a first human is because it supports creationism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Modernity is defined in two basic ways.  Anatomic modernity is when the bones of some (pre)historic population are  identical (or very closely identical) to the bones of contemporary populations.  Behavioral or cultural modernity is when we find recognizable artifacts of contemporary human behaviors and beliefs.  Full modernity, thusly, is when the remains and the artifacts are recognizable as and to a contemporary human population.  

The former we sometimes call early modern, because the difference between us appears to have been more in their behaviors than their anatomy.  We hit that 300k to 200k ago - maybe more, maybe less.  The latter parcel of traits or attributes doesn't show up until about 40-50k years go.  

There was never a singular first anotomic or behaviorally or fully modern man.  You can give that literally impossible non-entity any name you want, adam or steve, won't change a thing .  This was a vast trend of co-concurrent biological and technological development in populations separated by both time and distance with multiple instances of independent construction, as in the case of bows.

....and suddenly a modern human became a literally impossible non-entity........

This bit about atheists not acknowledging the simple, logical fact that a first modern human existed, will always make me laugh uncontrollably.

Modern humans aren't an impossibility. You're one, I'm one. A singular first.  Because......as angrboda very succinctly explained, modernity is fixed by definition.  By definition, there were many groups of "first modern human men" all over the world, all separated by time and geography.  Impressively large amounts of it. From a purely genetic or hereditary point the exact same problem repeats itself.

I'm still waiting to hear which of these adams you'd be willing to call the Abrahamic Adam. What do you think about my children of toba theory? Do you think if Big Mo heard that from me just as he;d heard so much from random greeks or christians or..hell, chinese people..., he'd go - yeah- and give it gods seal of magical approval through supernatural abilities and would you be here wondering wtf was wrong with atheists denying the toba eruption and our genetic bottleneck and it's clear validation of your silly fucking religion?

[R00tKiT]

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.

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

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

QED.

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

[Angrboda]

I see you have problems with the subjective/objective distinction. Sucks to be you.

[Angrboda]

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.

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

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

QED.

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

Let me put the problem to you so that even you might understand. Let's say we have scientist A and scientist B who use different definitions of modern human. According to A, specimen #1264 is the first modern human. However, according to B, specimen #12,831 is the first modern human. Neither is objectively right or wrong, they're both equally right and equally wrong. However, since A and B claim different specimens as the first modern human, there is no fact of the matter as to which is the first modern human. It's dependent upon which definition a person holds, and as such it depends upon a specific mental disposition and is by definition subjective. Subjective facts are not objective facts and ne'er the twain shall meet. But do keep trying. It's good for the lulz.