[Truthsearcher]

Doesn’t the entire theory of evolution require there to be a first?

I mean, according to the theory, isn’t the first homo sapien the first because he’s the first to have the random mutation that differentiated him from his ancestors?

If there is no first human, is the author suggesting that the same random mutation struck multiple times in a population of 10,000?

[allmendream]

If by evolution you mean speciation, still no - there is no “first” member of a new species born intact and distinct from the parent population.

Defining when a population has diverged enough to be called a separate species is not a dividing line but a continuum.

A swamp dries up and becomes a forest over a hundred years. It was obviously a swamp one hundred years ago, and it is obviously a forest now. At what point did the swamp become a forest? Was there a particular second when it happened? One location that was obviously forest first?

[allmendream]

Similarly....

Do you think the theories of language require that there be a first original speaker?

That among Latin speakers there was born one individual who spoke Italian - and unless another Italian speaker were born concurrently - they would have nobody to speak to?

Do you think one day that can be precisely defined the residents of Italy stopped speaking Latin and started speaking Italian?