# Side Comments on Kondrashov’s Paradox

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-kondrashov-s-paradox/17842>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Comments\
**Created:** [May 26, 2026, 8:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-kondrashov-s-paradox/17842 "2026-05-26T20:42:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 128

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [May 31, 2026, 7:03am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-kondrashov-s-paradox/17842/128 "2026-05-31T07:03:16Z")

</div>

> [@Kondrashov's Paradox: Why We Haven't Died 100 Times Over](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/kondrashovs-paradox-why-we-havent-died-100-times-over/17840/34):
>
> I’ll leave it to those smarter than I to figure out how any new species could ever come into being without there being a first.

You don’t need to be “smarter”, you just need to have a basic understanding of evolution.

> Two geographically separate populations that at one time were members of the same species later may have diverged into two different species. Since the process is gradual, there is no particular point at which it is possible to say that the two populations have become two different species. [[1]](https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/Species-and-speciation)

If “there is no particular point at which it is possible to say that the two populations have become two different species”, there is no point at which a specific first individual member of the new species existed.

Evolution, and speciation, occurs at the level of populations, not individuals.

Analogously, we are also unable to point to the first speaker of French – as the divergence from Latin was likewise gradual.

That somebody would consider themselves qualified to criticise evolution, let alone claim expertise in a subsection of population genetics, without understanding this _very basic principle_, is **problematical in the extreme.**

_ **This** _ level of basic misunderstanding Paul, not “religous ferver[sic]”, is why **Creationist apologetics has zero scientific credibility.**

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-kondrashov-s-paradox/17842)._