Posted: Nov 17, 2019 8:56 pm
Wortfish wrote: Admittedly, this could be avoided if they referred to humans and OTHER primates.
Yes, "this" could be avoided if they referred to "other primates".
But you need to consider what the "this" is here, because the authors and 99.9% of their readers simply take the implicit "other" as something so obvious it does not need inclusion.
So the unnecessary inclusion of of "other" every time would achieve what, exactly? Make it harder for creationists to transparently lie about their work? Why would the author care about that? Creationists gonna lie, no matter what. And it's transparent; nobody actually thinks the authors are confused, or reticent, or hedging their bets; everyone just sees you lying.
As long as you think this is the author's problem, or science's problem, the longer you're not going to realise that it's a "you" problem.