First human

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 11:23 PM 3/30/98 -0600, April wrote:

>> Jones> Apparently you're yet another wiseass who can't read plain

>> English, and thinks word games are cute. Your request was for

>> me to tell you "EXACTLY in VERY, SPECIFIC, DETAIL what

>> constitutes *a 'human'*" NOT the *first human* but *a human*.

>> The first human existed but *a human* does not exist except as

>> a mental abstraction. Eve had specific characteristics but "a

>> human" which was your question does not. You need to learn a

>> dab of semantics and language.



>April

>

>If you can't distinguish or define what specifically makes "a human" then

>how do you (or anyone) decide when a being is "not human" vs.. "human"?


I, and everyone else who uses the word 'human' can define it.
This does not mean that a human exists. This means some living
creatures are placed within that definition and some are not.

A human is a member of the Homo genus. However, in both biology
and logic, this classification is completely arbitrary and is
not found in reality where only individuals, not classes, exist.


>> Jones

>> Just how in the hell do you imagine there are any humans now,

>> if there was no first human? Do you know any logic at all?



>April

>Nope - don't know a damn thing about logic.


This is becoming more apparent the more you write. While logic
means nothing in reality, it is required for clear communication.


>But I know a hell of a lot

>about biology and I know that the point between "human" and "not-human"

>does not exist.  The change was so gradual (as someone else already pointed

>out) that there was no line between the two. 


There is an absolute division between human and not-human. 
However, no word can ever encompass all the facts about anything
(second and third axioms of semantics). The fact that you, or
biologists, or others, may have difficulty in placing individual
specimens in these manmade arbitrary categories means only that
the definition or classification is incomplete (as it must be
due to the nature of language).

Humans, as a class, do not exist in reality. Humans, as individuals,
do exist in reality. This placing of the label of human on an
individual being doesn't determine or change the nature or the
reality of that being.

At some point in time, there were no humans on this planet.
At a later point in time, there were humans on this planet.
Now, things in reality can be numbered, one, two, three...
The first of these humans to appear on this planet is called
the first human. No matter what word games you try to play,
the fact remains that unless humans existed as long as the
earth existed, then at some point in time, there was a first
human. The fact that I or anyone else cannot identify that
first human does not imply that first human did not exist.

Evolution, from the first cell in the primordial soup, to you
as a human being is a direct line. However, each and every
being in between was an individual thing. The manmade labels
placed on those things, amphibian, reptile, mammal, are only
for convenience in human understanding and communication. All
classifications, which are generalizations, are false in reality
and often lead to faulty thinking and erroneous conclusions.
They also create needless and pointless arguments such as this
one.

Dick Jones

• Previous message: Dicks real purpose....
• Next message: Fw: So much goes on a single cell
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]