NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/origins/15859

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ulowell!m2c!jjmhome!smds!rh
From: [e-mail] (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Men Evolved from Women
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:51:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <eFcZVB1w165w@kalki33>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.
Lines: 55

In article <eFcZVB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33![e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>> > > To make a very long story very very short:  the primates were here
>> > > before us, and they created us in their image.

>> > No. Biologically, humans are primates, so the statement that primates
>> > were here before humans is logically invalid.

>>   Sorry Kalki, you have that backwards.  Let me rephrase the comment above:
>>       Planes were around before jets.

>No, this statement is invalid unless you specify what kind of planes.
>The author didn't do that (at least not in the fragmented post I saw).

>You can't say "class precedes element of class." You can only say
>"element A precedes element B."

My apologies sir, but you seem to be in error.  "Humans" in this context
is a class as are "primates"; similarly "planes" and "jets" are classes,
i.e. the class of all things that are classified as planes, the class
of all things that are classified as jets, and so on.  The class, humans,
is a sub class of the class, primates.  The class, jets, is a subclass of
the class, planes.

The statement "planes were around before jets" is a compact way of saying
that "there are members of the class 'planes' that were in existence
before any member of the class 'jets'".  The claim ".. humans are primates,
so the statement that primates were here before humans is logically invalid"
is in error.  I gather that the basis for it is the assumption that "humans"
are an element of the class "primates".

Now I would think that anyone who has grasped the notion of element and
class would recognize that popular usage conflates the notion of subclass
and element.  Specifically, either "humans" is a subclass of the class
"primates" or it is an element.  If it is an element then no human is
a primate -- only the class "humans" is a primate.  However it is quite
clear that in normal usage I and my fellow humans are primates -- i.e.
"humans" denotes a subclass of the class primates.  [Whether the Kalki
postings were created by a primate, let alone a human, is open to
question -- one wonders about the possibility that they are the product
of a particularly clever computer program.]

>In any case, humans have been around since the creation of the planet,
>as long as any other life form on earth. The whole argument is bogus
>anyway. (Go ahead, jump on it! :-))

Why?  It's simply another naked assertion, with out supporting evidence,
that is inconsistent with the available evidence.  There is nothing
special about that.
--
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: [e-mail] Phone: [phone]
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: [phone]
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.