Hi Craig, I do not think your logic is very good. First of all I disagree with your first premise as fact. Let me say that I am not a creationist or divine interventionist or evolutionist or ID-ist. The last one mentioned is a simple tautology. We call what we do "intelligent". Evolution is "intelligent" by every objective meaning of the word (makes mistakes and learns from it, has direction towards filling a niche, and has ample memory in terms of the genetic code).
I am a biologist, and I do not accept your first statement. Let us remember that evolution is a concept or theory. It has been around for only a few relative years, and has not stood the test of time like Newtonian Mechanics has. Even the latter will fall sooner or later once a better mathematical model is put in place. One that places less emphasis on cause and effect, and more on synchronicity. Even the predictable movement of balls on a pool table will be more enlightened. So the concept that we evolved from apes is not steadfast and is based solely on the fact that they look similar. Now, we know that whales evolved from mammals that lived in the forest, and whales do not look like deer. In fact, it make more sense that we evolved from dolphins if you look at the evidence: No hair (there was no evolutionary pressure to remove hair). We are fine with birth underwater, we close our eyes and hold our breaths as infants when placed underwater (no evidence for this in apes) and have the capacity to learn how to swim (no evidence for this in apes), we have large brains (apes do not), and communicate with intricate sounds (don't know about apes on this, but dolphins certainly have an extensive alphabet). So, your first premise is suspect and certainly cannot be used as fact. However, I would disagree with your conclusion, based on simple semantic or linguistic premises. A "concept"m as we use it, it part of the Social Level and is an image formed by the brain which is used purely for the purposes of communication. As such it encompasses anything that we talk about either physical or not so. Therefore, since a concept is a creation by the human brain which is used for interaction, the concept of an ape did not exist prior to our having invented it. None of our concepts did. I see so many people who accept what is written in books as fact and have great faith in Scientism. The only thing that science teaches us is that we are wrong and will have to change our theories. The purpose of science is to question and disprove. Just because somebody has some kind of a degree does not make her more knowledgeable, it makes her more closed-minded. That is why it is so hard to change our views on things. Nobody likes to be wrong. But Craig, you are dead wrong. Regards, Mark On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:57 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > [Craig, previously] > > 1) Humans evolved from apes. > 2) :. There were apes before there were humans. > 3) There were no concepts before there were humans. > 4) :. Apes are not concepts. > > I trust the above argument will put to rest the silly notion > that apes (or other such referents of nouns) are concepts. > Craig > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
