Humans are not animals

Originally posted by Starrman
But you have just described the origins of evolutionary science... It may not have been called evolutionary theory, but it was definitely the basis of it.

he has described Taxonomy.

Taxanomies say very little about relatedness of species. They describe the degree of similarity of phenotypes

Originally posted by Nordlys
That's not an argument, but a definition. Is there any reason why you would define it that way? Or could I just as well define "animal" to refer to all species of Kingdom Animalia except Procyon lotor?

Do you belong to the species Procyon lotor?

In any case, this discussion is really about using the term 'animal' in two different senses. The first sense would be all members of Kingdom Animalia. The second would be the first minus human beings (since the term would only be important to humans).

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
he has described Taxonomy.

Taxanomies say very little about relatedness of species. They describe the degree of similarity of phenotypes

Are you denying that such a process was part of the foundation of evolutionary science?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
he has described Taxonomy.

Taxanomies say very little about relatedness of species. They describe the degree of similarity of phenotypes

I disagree. True, taxonomy is based upon phenotypic similarity, but it's ultimate [modern] goal is to group organisms into groups which reflect their relatedness.

Likewise there are about a dozen different species definitions of quite what a species is. Lineaus' classification based upon the ability to reproduce and produce viable offspring is fine, for big, sexual things, but fails miserably for microbes, fungi and asexual organisms.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do you belong to the species Procyon lotor?

In any case, this discussion is really about using the term 'animal' in two different senses. The first sense would be all members of Kingdom Animalia. The second would be the first minus human beings (since the term would only be important to humans).

Yes, but you don't believe that by saying that humans are animals would be a terrible insult to your children, and so I think you may be projecting your logic of what might be happening onto others. I apologise is I assumed wrong.

If it does boil down to semantics, then somebody stating that humans are animals is correct by at least 1 commonly known definition of "animal", and so semantically it is correct to say that humans are animals. If somebody believes that the definition given above is inaccurate, then please supply your definition, which allows you to deny that humans are animals.

If your definition is the same as the one supplied above, but with "other than humans" tagged on, ie:
"A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure, other than humans." then what do you refer to the family of animals other than humans AND humans? You must have a term for that animal, or else you're butchering language, due to the undoubted fact that we share enough characteristics with them to be related.

If it is due to biogical reasons, then please let us know what the biological reasoning for it is.

If is scripture related, then please quote me the passages which say that humans aren't animals.

Is it due to the ability to have a soul? What? Help me out.

Cheers,

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Yes, but you don't believe that by saying that humans are animals would be a terrible insult to your children, and so I think you may be projecting your logic of what might be happening onto others.

It is similar to racism. The belief that another race/class is somehow inferior despite there being no concrete evidence. With time it becomes so much part of the culture and beliefs of a person that they feel insulted if associated with someone of another race / class.
It is the nature of all animals to treat thier own kind as "family" and distain all others.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is similar to racism. The belief that another race/class is somehow inferior despite there being no concrete evidence. With time it becomes so much part of the culture and beliefs of a person that they feel insulted if associated with someone of another race / class.
It is the nature of all animals to treat thier own kind as "family" and distain all others.

disdain? I don't think animals other than humans look down on other animals as inferior.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
disdain? I don't think animals other than humans look down on other animals as inferior.

D

That's why humans aren't animals but beasts.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
disdain? I don't think animals other than humans look down on other animals as inferior.

D

I don't animals are capable of the complex intellectual processes that disdain requires.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do you belong to the species Procyon lotor?

No, but is it important for the question? Are you saying that if I were a raccoon, my definition of "animal" as "all species of Kingdom Animalia except Procyon lotor" would make sense? Using the same logic, I could define "human" as "member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens except me".

Originally posted by Nordlys
No, but is it important for the question? Are you saying that if I were a raccoon, my definition of "animal" as "all species of Kingdom Animalia except Procyon lotor" would make sense? Using the same logic, I could define "human" as "member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens except me".

Are you saying that if I were a raccoon, my definition of "animal" as "all species of Kingdom Animalia except Procyon lotor" would make sense?

If you were a raccoon, you would probably need a term for that set and, so, yes.

Using the same logic, I could define "human" as "member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens except me".

That would be fun to see. 🙂

Anyhow, a couple of points:

(1) Why are people getting into so much of a tiffy about some evangelist using 'animals' in the sense of K. Animalia minus humans? After all, animal-rights activists do exactly the same!

(2) Whether it makes sense or not doesn't matter - both of the senses I listed earlier are listed in the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=animal

Originally posted by Starrman
But you have just described the origins of evolutionary science... It may not have been called evolutionary theory, but it was definitely the basis of it.

again, I diasgree. Classifying species like this was done by observation alone with no agenda, yet it would seem that you would dismiss it because it's ideas were later incorporated into ToE.

Your fisrt statement was that such clasifications had to be dismissed because they were "created on the basis of evolutionary science". They may not contradict ToE, but they are not based on it (they preceeded it) and were not created with the same agenda or aim in mind. Therefore I still think you are wrong to dismiss the defenition of what an animal is.

Are humans animals? Physiologically we are massively similar, especially to other mammals (heart, lungs, blood, immune system, skin...) and these similarities vastly outweigh the differences so I don't think it can be argued that we are not animals based on physiology. Therefore any argument that humans are not animals must be based on there being another separating difference. What would this be I don't know.. Higher thought processes? A soul?

BF

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If you were a raccoon, you would probably need a term for that set and, so, yes.

So it's simply a practical matter, to avoid having to say "all animals except humans (or raccoons)" if that's what you want to say? Now that does make some sense to me, and in daily use I often use "animals" to refer to "animals except humans" myself. However, I don't think those evangelists would agree that it's just a practical matter. It's also interesting that we seem to need a term for the set "animals except humans" more than for "animals including humans" (which becomes more complicated to say if "animals" is mostly reserved for "animals except humans" ). I believe this wouldn't be the case if we wouldn't put ourselves apart of the Kingdom Animalia in our thinking. I am not sure the raccoons would feel the need to have a term for "animals except raccoons". (Maybe we should ask them. 😉 )

Nordlys: Using the same logic, I could define "human" as "member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens except me".

lucifershammer: That would be fun to see. 🙂

Okay, I hereby define "human" as "member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens except me". I am a grisadee. 🙂

(1) Why are people getting into so much of a tiffy about some evangelist using 'animals' in the sense of K. Animalia minus humans? After all, animal-rights activists do exactly the same!

I think the "tiffy" (whatever that may be) is not about the use of "animals" as "animals except humans" in everyday language for practical reasons, but about the idea that humans are essentially different from and standing higher than animals, which I believe most animal rights activists would disagree with.

I believe I have already addressed your second point with what I have said above.

Originally posted by belgianfreak
Therefore any argument that humans are not animals must be based on there being another separating difference. What would this be I don't know.. Higher thought processes? A soul?

This is what I am trying to find out, but unfortunately it seems, the christians on here don't seem to want to discuss their believes for some reason.

Higher thought processes could be one factor. But that would just be conceited humans being vain. For some reason we write off a mother dog's actions as being purely instinctual, whereas if a human mother protects her children from danger, then it is some kind of higher thought process at work.

If we had an objective judge rate the thought processes of a lot of different species, are we sure that this judge would actually rate us as having higher thought processes.

Now, I'll give it to you that our thought processes are different to other species, but does that necessarily mean higher/better? During the tsunami, there are numerous reports of animals (other than humans) heading for the hills. Could it not be argued that this is a higher thought process at work?

Chimpanzees (though not often meat eaters) are the best predators in the wild in terms of successful kills/hunts ratios. This is due to their ability to communicate (in some way) and organise strategically where they need to be to encircle and trap/trick the prey. Instinct or higher thought process?

Have you ever seen a mother dog after her pups have been drowned? I have, and you could see that she was in mourning. Instinct, or presence of a soul?

D

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I disagree. True, taxonomy is based upon phenotypic similarity, but it's ultimate [modern] goal is to group organisms into groups which reflect their relatedness.

Likewise there are about a dozen different species definitions of quite what a species is. Lineaus' classification based upon the ability to reproduce and produce viable offspring is fine, for big, sexual things, but fails miserably for microbes, fungi and asexual organisms.

Cladistics?