So yes, I suppose my error was to assume that regardless of what definition you use for the category "Human", the mother of the first human must have been an ap

So yes, I suppose my error was to assume that regardless of what definition you use for the category "Human", the mother of the first human must have been an ape. As I wrote in the other subthread, is that I should not have made the assumption that it doesn't make sense to make ANY defintion of "Human" sharp enough that a child belongs to the category and not the mother. In other words, the category "Human" has no sensible definition, and any attempt to make up an arbitrary one leads to such absurdities. Transferred to the chicken-and-egg problem. I've always held that it is clear that the egg came first, as regardless of your definition of "chicken" it came from an egg. But since I now belive that there cannot be a sensible definition of "chicken", the question turns from having an obvious answer to a question based on an absurd premise. Thx for pointing this out to me.