Were the First Female and Male Human's On Earth Fully Grown?

DMH

Jan 25, 2022
20
0
30
I have been thinking about this question for several weeks now after meditating on an infant. We know that an infant cannot feed or fend for itself until at least age 18, and especially more so during the times when humans are thought to evolved on Earth. But if humans came from a new soup after the Dino Killing Asteroid collided with the Earth, did humans evolve from the soup into full grown humans? How would have the first female and male humans on Earth protected theirself from other evolving lifeforms that would have consumed them much like a dinosaur consumes the eggs of another dinosaur? I doubt if the the first humans evolved to the point of going through an infant stage because human infants wouldn't have lasted very long and our species would have been wiped out.

Could the first female and male humans have grown so rapidly, from tiny cells to full adult in less than a few weeks, ready to produce?
 
May 8, 2022
129
3
105
How would have the first female and male humans on Earth protected theirself from other evolving lifeforms that would have consumed them much like a dinosaur consumes the eggs of another dinosaur? I doubt if the the first humans evolved to the point of going through an infant stage because human infants wouldn't have lasted very long and our species would have been wiped out.

Could the first female and male humans have grown so rapidly, from tiny cells to full adult in less than a few weeks, ready to produce?
Humans were not formed as they are today.
1658192096567.png

IMO, except for a more complex brain, the first humans were indistinguishable from their parents and were as protected by the tribe as all other newborns and just grew up as any of the other brother and sister apes, even as they had only 23 pr of chromosomes instead of 24 pr that all great apes still possess and is the clear demarcation point of the emergence of early humans.

It probably still took several thousand years before the humans split from or just replaced their ancestor's gene pool, just like today .
 
Mar 4, 2020
605
81
1,980
To my way of thinking, the theory of evolution proves humans did not evolve on this planet.

All theories aside, just look in a mirror while naked. We have no hide and we have no claws. We have no venom. No camouflage. Our bodies are not evolved to accommodate or resist earth's environment. Totally unarmed, naked and remain so.

It's one of the most obvious and basic FACTs one can discern in reality.

Life is our largest paradox and the only singularity we've ever detected.
 
May 8, 2022
129
3
105
To my way of thinking, the theory of evolution proves humans did not evolve on this planet.

All theories aside, just look in a mirror while naked. We have no hide and we have no claws. We have no venom. No camouflage. Our bodies are not evolved to accommodate or resist earth's environment. Totally unarmed, naked and remain so.
But that is not how humans started. The first humans lived in trees with its hominid ancestor parents and looked identical.

Due to our large brain we first built semi-permanent tree-houses and eventually came down from the trees and started living in caves that are easily defendable.

It's one of the most obvious and basic FACTs one can discern in reality.
Life is our largest paradox and the only singularity we've ever detected.
On the contrary, one of the other super-intelligent organisms on earth lives in the ocean ad is even more vulnerable than humans, the octopus, a descendant of the slug family.

It used to have a protective shell which was discarded in favor of ability to shapeshift and become invisible to predators.

As to life itself, I believe that abiogenesis and evolution via natural selection is a well established theory. (see Robert Hazen)

(start viewing @ 12:00)

If earth life started somewhere in the universe, why should the earth itself be excluded from consideration? The earth had all the necessary ingredients and dynamical character to qualify for abiogenesis to occur spontaneously.

Why reject the obvious?

View: https://youtu.be/TlAQLgTwJ_A?t=719
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
605
81
1,980
A very old and decrepit man, in his nineties, has been excavating an ancient tomb, in a secret location for over 50 years. Somewhere in the Mideast. He emerges from the bush and proclaims to the scientific world that he has discovered the tomb of Adam and Eve.

How does he know the bodies are Adam and Eve?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snorrie
Mar 4, 2020
605
81
1,980
It would have to be if there were no belly buttons. The post was just a lighthearted puzzle. Only Adam and Eve would not have belly buttons. Adam and Eve were instructed to multiply. They both lived a very long time. They had many generations of un-named/recorded offspring at their death. At least hundreds, if not thousands. They probably had much land, fields, vineyards and many animal herds at their death. Very prosperous. I'm sure many of their offspring were very prosperous too. Many villages by then.

If one goes with the Adam and Eve narrative.

Believe or not, it was a question I had from a nuclear physics lecture quiz many years ago. Along with the space being remove from the Empire State building scenario. Empire State building oscillation thru the center of the earth. Old college puzzles.
 
May 8, 2022
129
3
105
Ah yes, I particularly like the book "Of Pandas and People" .

On second thought ......... "irreducible complexity"........? :unsure:
 

miner

BANNED
Dec 12, 2020
95
7
555
Could the first female and male humans have grown so rapidly, from tiny cells to full adult in less than a few weeks, ready to produce?
Your mistake is that you are thinking about specific individuals, and not about the kind of humanity, with all the subspecies that have existed for millions of years. It's like thinking about the development of the Earth, other planets, the Universe over a period of time measured by a year, a century, or even a million years will not allow you to get an idea of the course of development and the course of time.
 
Mar 4, 2020
605
81
1,980
I am not familiar with that book, or that concept. Or any of the arguments about intelligent design. I believe that it is impossible for man to discover how life started here.

I think man's intellect is much less than what we credit ourselves for.

And I believe our knowledge is even less.

But I do believe our physical reality is square and mechanical. By square I mean absolute time and length.

We should be able to discover and learn what mass is. But as for life or this universe.....we'll never know.
 
May 8, 2022
129
3
105
I am not familiar with that book, or that concept. Or any of the arguments about intelligent design. I believe that it is impossible for man to discover how life started here.
That book claims that the universe and man were created complete by an intelligent designer.

IOW. The universe is an irreducibly complex construct, which of course is an entirely flawed perspective, if we consider what we do know about the "inflationary epoch" and "evolution via natural selection"

This comedic skit by Ricky Gervais explains the ridiculous concept of "creation in toto" .

(warning some crude language)
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv0NFBEMf60

I think man's intellect is much less than what we credit ourselves for.
And I believe our knowledge is even less.

But I do believe our physical reality is square and mechanical. By square I mean absolute time and length.
Perhaps you are reading the wrong books?

We should be able to discover and learn what mass is. But as for life or this universe.....we'll never know.
We already do! Abiogenesis!

Watch the lecture by Robert Hazen above .
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
605
81
1,980
If Abiogenesis has any validity to it, why don't we see it? Especially on this planet. It should be happening continuously. Why did it stop after establishing life....so that now, life requires life to come from life? And even more restrictive....like life has to come from like life.

Does this explanation of life really make any sense to you?

All of our scientific theories have overt contradictions within them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: miner
Mar 4, 2020
605
81
1,980
As a matter of fact, if you think about that theory, the chances of that happening, would be much greater now, than before life.

Because of life, we have organic debris all thru out all of our environmental mass. That's one huge advantage because it's a shortcut to many of the materials needed.

Life makes prefab components for that theory. But we still don't see it.
 
May 8, 2022
129
3
105
If Abiogenesis has any validity to it, why don't we see it? Especially on this planet. It should be happening continuously. Why did it stop after establishing life....so that now, life requires life to come from life? And even more restrictive....like life has to come from like life.
No, you are making some incorrect assumptions.
Let's first get a definition so that we understand the term and what it implies.

Abiogenesis
In biology, abiogenesis or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.
Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process.
1658427341969.png
Stages in the origin of life range from the well-understood, such as the habitable Earth and the abiotic synthesis of simple molecules, to the largely unknown, like the derivation of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) with its complex molecular functionalities.[1]
The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today. It primarily uses tools from biology and chemistry, with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of many sciences. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water, and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids for cell membranes, carbohydrates such as sugars, amino acids for protein metabolism, and nucleic acids DNA and RNA for the mechanisms of heredity. Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules. Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world, although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA.
The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of proteins, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. External sources of energy may have triggered these reactions, including lightning, radiation, atmospheric entries of micro-meteorites and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.
more......
Does this explanation of life really make any sense to you?
All of our scientific theories have overt contradictions within them.
Do you realize the contradiction inherent in the assumption of your statement that; "like life has to come from like life".

Everybody always gets hung up on the false assumption that the universe is fine tuned for life. The more likely scenario is that life is fine tuned to local conditions on planets that contain the necessary dynamics for the natural self-organization of complex patterns from simple fundamental chemical ingredients that were created during the "inflationary epoch", as described in LIVESCIENCE article:

What are the Ingredients of Life?
By Natalie Wolchover published February 02, 2011
From the mightiest blue whale to the most miniscule paramecium, life as we know it takes dramatically different forms. Nonetheless, all organisms are built from the same six essential elemental ingredients: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur (CHNOPS).
more......

The error you are making is assuming that current conditions on earth are conducive to chemical transmutations.

The current conditions on earth are conducive to life, but chemistry usually involves a much greater dynamical chaotic condition from which self-organizing patterns such as biochemical polymers, emerge spontaneously.

Urey-Miller experiment
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments.
Abiogenesis is entirely consistent with the early dynamical conditions on earth.
OTOH, the much more benign conditions that exist on earth today are not necessarily conducive to abiogenetic processes at all. You fail to consider all contributing resources and dynamics.

One thing is clear, a supernatural agency is not a requirement for the evolution of animate life from inanimate matter.

It is quite possible that the earliest life forms were extremophiles, organisms that require extreme conditions. We know that the earliest life did not use oxygen and the first great extinction event was due to the production of oxygen in the atmosphere, a chemical that the majority of life on earth today must have.

So your chronology of life must come from life is strictly dependent on environmental conditions that shape the evolution of life in all its infinite variety.
 
Last edited:
May 8, 2022
129
3
105
I don't believe that narrative fits reality. For stated reasons.
I just debunked your reasons. The conditions under which life emerged on earth were completely different than they are today. They were not conducive to life. They were conducive to biochemical activities that created life.

You fail to account for all conditions necessary for abiogenesis .

For your information, the earth itself has produced some :
2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical interactions of which perhaps a few yielded proto-living forms, from which perhaps only one or two species survived to continue. to evolve into living forms.

Even if that is true, these species would share some of earth's native chemicals arranged slightly different, but suitable for that specific local environment.

abiogenesis
biology

archaea; Yellowstone National Park
archaea; Yellowstone National Park
See all media
Related Topics: Miller-Urey experiment Oparin-Haldane theory coacervate
origin of life

1658439452520.png
The bright colors of Grand Prismatic Spring, Yellowstone National Park, are produced by Thermophiles, a type of extremophile.

Do you believe these organisms had living ancestors ? What you see is a left over from early conditions on earth, the exact opposite of a benign environment. You're not accounting for the conditions on early earth, before there was life.

Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex.
Biogenesis, in which life is derived from the reproduction of other life, was presumably preceded by abiogenesis, which became impossible once Earth’s atmosphere assumed its present composition.
Although many equate abiogenesis with the archaic theory of spontaneous generation, the two ideas are quite different. According to the latter, complex life (e.g., a maggot or mouse) was thought to arise spontaneously and continually from nonliving matter. While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.

Everything evolved from Chaos, the condition that existed directly after the Inflationary Epoch and created the firs fundamental chemicals that later self-organized into compound biochemicals and still later into self-duplicating biochemical polymers and still later into the first cellular structures and then with the self-organization of microtubules (cilia) and the cytoskeleton (internal data distribution), and the beginning of motility in early biochemical organisms.

The living cell
Summary"Shows the division and growth of single-celled organisms, including yeast, amoebae, and paramecia, and of progressively more complex organisms, including the hydra and flatworm. Shows tissue cells, ciliated epithelium, and plant and animal cell division"--summary from Educational film/video locator, third edition, volume II, p. 1879.
 
Last edited:
May 8, 2022
129
3
105
Most people believe genes are code, a blueprint for growth and that is not false.
But it fails to account for the fact that chromosomes are biochemical polymers consisting of only 4 biochemicals

The biology and polymer physics underlying large‐scale chromosome organization

Abstract
Chromosome large‐scale organization is a beautiful example of the interplay between physics and biology. DNA molecules are polymers and thus belong to the class of molecules for which physicists have developed models and formulated testable hypotheses to understand their arrangement and dynamic properties in solution, based on the principles of polymer physics. Biologists documented and discovered the biochemical basis for the structure, function and dynamic spatial organization of chromosomes in cells.
The underlying principles of chromosome organization have recently been revealed in unprecedented detail using high‐resolution chromosome capture technology that can simultaneously detect chromosome contact sites throughout the genome. These independent lines of investigation have now converged on a model in which DNA loops, generated by the loop extrusion mechanism, are the basic organizational and functional units of the chromosome.
1658441128375.png
Figure 2
The eukaryotic cell and chromosome cycle: (A) The eukaryotic cell cycle is divided into mitosis and interphase, and interphase is further subdivided into G1, S and G2. DNA is duplicated in S phase, the chromosomes condense and segregate in M phase, and these phases are separated by Gap (growth) phases called G1 and G2. (B) Each chromosome has telomeres (blue) at its ends, a centromere (pink), to which spindle microtubules attach at M phase, and multiple origins of DNA replication (purple). In S and G2, the replicated chromosomes are held together by cohesin (green). At M, the chromosomes condense, align at the metaphase plate, individualize and are separated from one another by the mitotic spindle after cohesin release. The centromeres are at the leading edge of this mitotic chromosome movement, the telomeres trail behind, and some cell types retain this polarized positioning, called the Rabl orientation in G1, even after chromosome decondensation23, 24

more......

And IMHO , it is the self-organization of the first microtubules from two simple tubulins (dimer) and the remarkable properties this dipolar coil possesses that allowed for the formation of complex cellular organization and memory and motility , including aquatic motility (cilia) and pseudopodia (walking).
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
605
81
1,980
Yes sir, your debating skills and the reasoning of your intellect has overwhelmed me, without a doubt. Your theory of life just can't be disputed. Who would argue with all that evidence? But the intellect was the most impressive aspect. I have never been debunked like that before.

The contradictions have just faded away. When seen in the proper manner, there really are no contradictions, it was just a defect in my reasoning. All I needed was the proper context.

Thank you. I'll remember this and know better next time. I hope I didn't upset you with my ridiculous meaningless assertions.

Shirley you can understand how old people can get set in their ways.

I'll tread lightly from now on.

I feel so defeated and useless. I shall retire from this thread.
 
Feb 14, 2020
4
1
1,515
Another question.

How many species of animals on Earth are born with the umbilical cord still attached to the infant?

Most of the life I have seen born are in a placental sack. Most fish are born right in the water, ready to go within a few seconds, just like gazelles, bears, etc. are born on land and ready to go within a few minutes.

But humans have to be taught how to walk and dont do so right away. If humans had evolved beside apes, then that early human life would have been able to cling to its mothers back, all of the instincts of walking and clinging on, built in and useable within minutes after birth.

Humans have a placental sack that the fetus develops in. But unlike a human, most animals are born with the placental sack still around them. I have seen a calf born and fight its way out of the sack, the second aspect of survival of the fittest, other than the eggs being fertilized.

Is the umbilical cord the key to understanding when and why humans evolved in the manner we did?

I can imagine a group of cells encased in a placental sack, growing into something that could move around and consume nutrients, but not on land as the sack would be vulernable to predators. Someplace that had alot of calcium and other minerals that would have been easy to consume and convert and into bone.

As the cells continued to feed and new generations of larger humans grew inside of the sack via umbilical cords, could the sack organism have re-absorbed life growing inside of the sack that then became a larger human male and female over time until the male and female emerged, at least the size of pygmy humans and then began to reproduce?

Basically the sack would grow humans that went out into the world, consumed foods and then returned to the sack. The sack would then re-absorb the human and then analyze what the brain of the human had recorded to then create a better human.

Studies have shown that human offspring will actually not grow larger if the food supply is not ample enough to promote new growth.

What is also interesting is that early humans consumed each other based on the scent created by human DNA. Unless the human smelled like the humans of the tribe, then human that didnt smell like the tribe were considered food.

The above idea tells me that at some point, the sack or sacks that humans evolved in, probably in a very quiet and remote location, free of larger predators, somehow found their way to different locations on Earth. Could an early human have evolved to be a sack with legs that could eventually move around?

As each sack evolved to consume food and produce new and different humans based on the mineral and nutrient intake variables of the food being consumed which created a new DNA smell in a new group of humans, the base DNA of each new human group however, would have been the same as the original sack, If it doesnt smell like us, eat it.

If you look at a newly born infant still attached to the womb via the umbilical cord, and then reverse the process, where the smaller human gives birth to a human that grows into a six foot tall human, much like a dwarfen woman of three feet tall can get pregnant and carry a human that grows into a six foot tall human, then a pattern of smaller and smaller humans giving birth to larger, evolutionary charged humans, is possible.

I still think that a full sized human male and female came from the sack of cells. Otherwise, humans wouldnt have survived.
 
Last edited:
May 8, 2022
129
3
105
Another question.
How many species of animals on Earth are born with the umbilical cord still attached to the infant?
The Evolution of the Placenta

Mammals
All mammals except the egg-laying platypus and the five species of echidnas, the only surviving monotremes, rely on a placenta for their reproduction. Indeed, the first lineage decision made during embryonic development of Mammalia is the segregation of cells destined to become the external tissue layer of the placenta.
I still think that a full sized human male and female came from the sack of cells. Otherwise, humans wouldnt have survived.
All mammals are born small. There are no "full grown" babies.


Creationism has been scientifically debunked.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS