Its oh so quiet Shh Shh

[Stefan-A]

Sure you were. You were trying to convince me that I am wrong about evolution not being observed.

Completely unrelated.

What about first living things? What were they?

Same thing applies. There's a reason why I asked you to draw a line between life and chemistry.

If the question is nonsensical then so is the existence of life.

Doesn't follow.

There were no "first" life forms? Life doesn't exist. It's all an illusion. Everything we "know" is a lie. OMG!

Nope.

[ConcinusMan]

Of course there were first mammals. There had to be a "first" that fully fits the definition of mammal. Right? If a life form didn't fit the definition, than it wasn't a mammal.

There's a reason why I asked you to draw a line between life and chemistry.

Life is chemistry. Or is it physics? You see what I was saying now? I don't think humans are capable of fully understanding and grasping everything there is to know. If we were capable of it, there would be no need for us to ask any questions, because we would already know the answers.

[Stefan-A]

Of course there were first mammals. There had to be a "first" that fully fits the definition of mammal.

Nope. Gradual change. The "first" mammal would have been indistinguishable from the previous generation and all other members of the population, meaning that drawing a line there instead of at the previous or next generation (or basically any other) would be completely arbitrary.

Right?

Wrong.

If a life form didn't fit the definition, than it wasn't a mammal.

Where do you draw the line between a reptile-like mammal and a mammal-like reptile?

Life is chemistry.

Go on.

[infernalis]

[ConcinusMan]

Cute ^^^

Where do you draw the line between a reptile-like mammal and a mammal-like reptile?

You don't. It's a mammal once it meets all the criteria for being a mammal. Doesn't matter if it's "reptile-like". Also doesn't matter if a reptile is "mammal-like". If it still meets all the criteria for being a reptile, than it's still a reptile. Does it matter that the platypus lays eggs like a reptile or a bird? Does it matter that it has a bird-like bill? No. It's still a mammal because it meets all the criteria.

[ConcinusMan]

[ConcinusMan]

Awesome! A Leucistic White Red-Tailed Hawk | Village Hiker ConversationsVillage Hiker Conversations

[Stefan-A]

You don't.

So why are you demanding it?

It's a mammal once it meets all the criteria for being a mammal.

Gradual change. There was no first such animal at any point in time.

Doesn't matter if it's "reptile-like". Also doesn't matter if a reptile is "mammal-like". If it still meets all the criteria for being a reptile, than it's still a reptile.

The class Reptilia is paraphyletic and therefore not a valid taxon. There is no such thing as a reptile.

Does it matter that the platypus lays eggs like a reptile or a bird? Does it matter that it has a bird-like bill? No. It's still a mammal because it meets all the criteria.

You're still only looking at morphology. Also, no. The "criteria" are not criteria, they're general descriptions. Even if eg. turtles evolved that exhibit the exact same characteristics, they wouldn't be classifieds as mammals.

[Foxrun402]

LMFAO!
Sorry couldn't hold that one in

[ConcinusMan]

Life IS chemistry.

Go on.

OK. One might say that life is just an emergent property of chemistry and physics but If you're going to say that, it's like saying that something is the emergent property of nothing. That time and matter emerged from nothing all on it's own. "Emergent property" is just another way of saying that life emerged from chemistry and physics without admitting the existence of a creative intelligent design. This is why I say we are incapable of understanding/grasping the real answers to our questions (basically, "what is reality") because we are made of matter and operate inside the laws of physics and time. In order for us to understand it fully, we would have to operate outside of it and if we could do that, we would be "God". Obviously, we are not or we wouldn't need to ask the questions in the first place. There would be no question if we were capable of understanding the answer.

That brings us back to one of your other questions. I said that we were incapable of understanding the answers and you asked me what I based that on. In order for the universe to exist we must believe that it had a beginning. Most of us do. It was created by an intelligent deity, or something came from nothing on it's own. Either way, we can't comprehend it. We would have to comprehend how something can come from nothing, or we would have believe that it was created by a deity that just for the sake of simplicity, I will call "God". But what is God? Again, we wouldn't have to ask the question, if we were capable of understanding the answer.

The answers are right under our noses, and observable, and yet we still ask the questions. Therefore, we are incapable of understanding the answers. It's no different than explaining to a 5 year old child, where he came from. If you give him all the biological details, in other words, the truth, instead of telling him the stork brought him, he still won't understand. Even if he witnessed the creation of a human life in real time, he still wouldn't fully understand what he was seeing. What makes you think adults are any different?