It’s important to combat anthropocentric bias. Primates came first we’re actually the newest ones, so if we share behaviors, they did it first and we copied them.
Exactly — ‘Like’ is a comparison and doesn’t imply belonging to a set. Someone can be ‘like a piece of shit’ without belonging to a greater class of shits
Ahh… but humans are primates?
So wouldn’t that make both true? Other primates would display human like qualities, while the inverse of ‘humans do primate things’ also holds true?
I can see what OP is getting at but it’s really an argument around semantics, and sentence structure.
For example, we don’t say “Some fruits are similar to Apples”, because it sounds daft and it’s redundant.
On the other hand saying “Pears are similar to Apples” is of course fine, and helpful to someone who’s never seen a Pear.
Like most shower thoughts, they’re pointing out something obvious, but in an emotive way. “Primates aren’t like us, we are like them!”
In terms of biology, specifically botany, we do say some fruits are similar to apples. This comparison seems like a biological one too.
It’s important to combat anthropocentric bias. Primates came first we’re actually the newest ones, so if we share behaviors, they did it first and we copied them.
Humans are in the set of primates, but not all primates are human.
Still, your showerthought says “a subset of primates are doing primate things”.
Well humans are the newest primates so anything we do similar to other primates, they did it first and it’s us who copied them.
No we’re not.
Heck, chimpanzees and bobobos only branched from each other like a million years ago.
Modern day non-humaj primates evolved from common ancestors, just like us.
Exactly — ‘Like’ is a comparison and doesn’t imply belonging to a set. Someone can be ‘like a piece of shit’ without belonging to a greater class of shits