A knockdown prophecy

[R00tKiT]

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.

I am not sure what you're driving at with this "objective/subjective" stuff, so let me clarify that once and for all : I am obviously trying to argue that there is objectively a first modern human that existed at some point in time. If the definition of a modern human is subjective, then it's not a definition worth considering.

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. We know an oldest member exists per the well ordering property in math, this much is absolutely true. So we can rest assured that this definition doesn't depend on anybody's tastes.

Now let's consider your example. If A and B agree on one definition of a FMH, either A or B are wrong, necessarily, and obviously they can both be wrong, but they can never be both right. If they don't agree on a definition, then there can't be a comparison of the specimen to begin with.

So, to sum it up, nobody cares about subjective facts here, and if the best definition of a FMH that you can come up with is subjective, then it's not good enough.

[Angrboda]

Yeah, I'm out. You're entirely too stupid to benefit from any amount of tutoring. When we say it is subjective it means there is no right definition; all definitions of it are subjective; all such definitions are a matter of taste.

No human is objectively the first human.

[R00tKiT]

Thanks for the confession. You don't have a definition of what a human means in the first place, that was my point all along.

[Angrboda]

Thanks for the confession. You don't have a definition of what a human means in the first place, that was my point all along.

I don't have an objective definition of it, and neither do you. If that's a confession, it's hardly a remarkable one. Here's another: I think water is wet! Your point is not a point at all. God you are stupid.

Tell you what, now that we've settled that, let's delve into the equally fascinating topic of what is objectively the best flavor of ice cream!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Thanks for the confession. You don't have a definition of what a human means in the first place, that was my point all along.

Of course we have a definition of human (I know your internet service works, feel free to look it up). The issue you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that there are several definitions of human, all equally valid.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Thanks for the confession. You don't have a definition of what a human means in the first place, that was my point all along.

I don't have an objective definition of it, and neither do you.  If that's a confession, it's hardly a remarkable one.  Here's another: I think water is wet!  Your point is not a point at all.  God you are stupid.

Tell you what, now that we've settled that, let's delve into the equally fascinating topic of what is objectively the best flavor of ice cream!

Hokey pokey. Next question.

Boru

[Ahriman]

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.

[R00tKiT]

I don't have an objective definition of it, and neither do you.  If that's a confession, it's hardly a remarkable one.  Here's another: I think water is wet!  Your point is not a point at all.  God you are stupid.

I already gave one. It's not my problem that your brain cells are unable to parse a single sentence when it doesn't agree with your position. Here, I'll write it again : 

the first modern human = the oldest member of the first generation of modern humans. Do you think the concept of "oldest member" is somewhat subjective or unclear ? 

Let me make it easier for your brain cells so they can process this : say you have a family of 4 people, husband, wife and two kids, whose dates of births are unknown. Even without knowing these dates, we can still say there is an oldest member who is the "first" member of this family, who will be either the husband or the wife. This is a tautology that has nothing to do with evolution, or biology, or genetics, or anything related.

What happens if we have multiple families ? No problem, take the oldest member of each family, and you get a new family whose members are the oldest members of each initial family. Repeat: this new family has necessarily an oldest member, which will be the "first" element for all the families in consideration.

Now extend that to all groups of modern humans.

Tell you what, now that we've settled that, let's delve into the equally fascinating topic of what is objectively the best flavor of ice cream!

Yeah, sure, this sounds like a fair comparison. 

Of course we have a definition of human (I know your internet service works, feel free to look it up). The issue you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that there are several definitions of human, all equally valid.

Boru

I know, I know... again, once you pick one definition, there is necessarily a first human according to that particular definition.

[R00tKiT]

But I think there were primitive humans, primitive humans, primitive humans, then suddenly, a human was born who was exceptionally greater than his predecessors.

Sounds like you're the only one in the thread who understands this simple fact.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But I think there were primitive humans, primitive humans, primitive humans, then suddenly, a human was born who was exceptionally greater than his predecessors.

Sounds like you're the only one in the thread who understands this simple fact.

But he’s clearly not the only one who doesn’t understand how gradualism works. *nudge nudge*

Boru