When evolutionists speak of the first Human being, what name have they slotted him in as. As opposed to Adam?

Question

Hey J-Maveri. I was going to email you with a compliment but you have gone all private on me. However the question I askes was, : The name you would give him ?, taking Human being as given.

Answer 1

By virtue of being evolutionists, the matter of who the first human was is somewhat in question becuase evolution involves such minute changes over such a long period of time, what is close-enough to human to be human is disputable.  Clearly, it was a long time ago as well so there isn't exactly a record of some of the means we might use to measure humanity today.  We cannot know for certain by looking at a skeleton or even at existing prehistoric artifacts if someone had a certain threshold of capability of thought.  Perhaps on this matter, laypeople who believe in Evolution are just as content with mystery as believers in religion are with other mysteries surrounding their gods.  Both also share the research class - scientists and theologians.  Maybe they're not as different as the enormous and passionate debate on this issue might suggest.

Answer 2

Evolutionists do not speak of a first human.  Species are a continuum.  There is no way to point to one organism and say "this" is the 1st human.  We speak in generalities like humans first came about around 1-2 million years ago.

In fact there is not just one definition of human.  If you mean homo sapiens sapiens, that was about 40,000 years ago.

Answer 3

I saw a documentary once where scientists had discovered a female skull that was basically  monkey's skull but with an enlarged brain.

It was the  earliest evidence found to show a human trait in a monkey's body.

The scientists had nicknames it Anne but it is unlikely that was what she called herself.

The interesting thing about this documentary was that this skull predated a skeleton they'd found of an ancestor showing a partially evolved opposable thumb, which goes against the idea that it was the thumb that first set us apart from monkeys - it was the random mutation of an increased intellect.

Answer 4

Blimey, Jingles.  You're hitting below the belt now.  You've set the poor evolutionists a real problem.  Just what set of web sites can they quote to cloud over this question??

BTW - J_Maveri seems to be on the same, exclusive  wavelength as ourselves.  Pity we can't communicate.

ATB  

EDIT

Wow!  You evolutionists have been busy with your "thumbs down".  Too near the truth again, was I??

Answer 5

Evolutionists (or scientists) don't have a name for the first human being.

If you understood anything about evolution you'd realise that it was the evolution of a SPECIES, not a single creature like the bible says.

Therefore there was no first, single human being.

Answer 6

Bill- hahahaha

Answer 7

Anthropologists and paleontologists are somewhat divided on what the term human means.  Some want to extend it to all in the genus Homo which is basically a group of hominids where the brain started getting bigger about 2.5 million years ago.  During that time several lineages arose but only one is the one that led to humans.  It isn't exactly certain which hominids are ancestral but whichever it was it was a gradual process.  They became more and more like us as they changed because of evolutionary pressures.  You can't really define the first human so its name is more of an opinion at this point.

Answer 8

There is no such thing as a first anything.

Evolution is a slow graduation from one form to another to take advantage of conditions at that particular time.

The exception being perhaps the first occurrence of life...........bacteria perhaps. It's hard to know because we don't have the evidence, it was after all over 3 billion years ago and the world has changed a bit since then don't you think.

Answer 9

homo-habilis

the first answerer was correct.

however under details you said that you haven't had any good answers yet? homo habilis is the right answer, have fun denying it my friend.

if i was gonna name the first human being...idk bob...maybe or bill or a name that can go both ways like taylor

Just FYI evolutionists call the first human being homo habilis...i really dont understand what ur looking for here

Answer 10

Anthropologists do not know (or expect to know) who the first human being was - but we know more every year about how long humans have been around and what early ones looked like and how they lived. The fossil record is continually being expanded and updated. That's the beauty of science - it's open ended and there's always more to learn.

Answer 11

Arthur. Homo Regalus or is that just...nevermind.

Answer 12

Your question may be answered several ways. The first modern humans, Homo sapien, spaien are dated from 100,000 to 40,000 years ago. The archaic form, Homo sapien goes back 400,000 years. These were "people" in that they looked very much like us. Earlier forms can be called "people" too. They made tools, used fire and controlled their environment. For me the first "people" would be Homo erectus

Homo erectus ("Upright Man") was the first hominid to leave Africa. His existence dates from 1.6 million years ago to perhaps 200,000 years ago. However, recent discovers have suggested that isolated populations may have existed even later.

Early discoveries of Homo eretus remains were variously named Peking Man, Java Man and Heidelberg Man. His range was all of Africa, most of Europe and as far east as China. Sites in California have been suggested as containing Homo erectus finds. No one had satisfactorily explained how the vast distance from China to California was crossed.

Homo eretus used stone tools made by the Acheuliam process. This mainly produced a hand ax, a fist sized piece of rock that tapered to a point. The hand ax was suitable to be used as an ax, a knife, scrapper, or to dig roots.

Camps are identified by the remains of the stone tools and the debitage (debris) left from their making. Bones, and stone circles also identify the camps. Inside the stone circles, believed to be the remains of huts made of hides or bush, are found hearths. Fire use is shown by the reddish color of the soil plus the remains of burned material (carbon products)

While Homo erectus used and controlled fire it isn't certain that he was able to create it. Most likely he was able to collect fire from lighting strikes and other natural sources. He then would maintain the fire and develop ways to carry embers to start more campfires. Fire can be made from percussion, striking sparks, by friction, rubbing wood together or by pressure as used in the fire piston. Homo erectus left no remains to suggest that he used any of these methods.

Answer 13

Please, can some one tell me when Anthropologists stopped giving names to beings, of whatever form they took, or age they were. They have always been forthcoming with a name for all the missing links that were never missing, they just did not exist. I just don't accept most of these answers at all. I will accept emails.

Answer 14

Probably eve with the mighty kondrion!

When a sperm fertilizes an ovum the mitochondria belong to the female, as only the nucleus from the sperm enters the egg. DNA mutates/changes over time and the rate can be estimated. By comparing MDNA from all over the world and the variation thereof, it is possible to trace back in time to about 120,000yrs BP (+/- about 20,000yrs) when it originated with a single common female ancestor.

The reason it is a single ancestor is that in a given group only a certain % of the female offspring go on to reproduce. After about 7 generations, only about 1% of the original female line survives. So after about 10,000yrs I'd say in an average population all the present line have just one common female ancestor.

Creationists on the other hand can date their origin back to 1880 when Luther Burbank and Gregor Mendel had a tragic genetic accident involving a jackass and a vegetable.

Answer 15

Individual organisms do not evolve, populations of organisms do. There was never a single first human (male or female), we probably arose from several small populations - villages or extended families.

Answer 16

Mr. Homo-Habilis.

http://www.realhistoryww.com/world_histo...