Humans are not animals

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Cladistics?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Indeed. Essentially the basis for all taxonomy. Of course, more related organisms are going to be more similar, so evolutionary theory IS the basis of cladistic analysis irrespective of which one was invented / discovered first.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Hmm, cladistics is entwined with genetics and evolution but taxonomy predates and is independant of both

Originally posted by belgianfreak
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 ...[text shortened]... ating difference. What would this be I don't know.. Higher thought processes? A soul?

BF

Originally posted by Starrman
To be honest, reading it back, I'm not sure how you got that impression.

Originally posted by Starrman
I think we're talking at odds, allow me to try and clarify.

I did not mean to infer that taxonomy was already part of the TOE, merely that it is now part of the grander term of evolutionary science (not reducible to just the TOE). Taxonomic classification laid the basis for a lot of work on evolution and the kingdom Animalia is a notion intrinsic to t ...[text shortened]... iss the definition. To be honest, reading it back, I'm not sure how you got that impression.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Nice spot.

To sidestep the semantics argument, this is what an animal is:
"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."

D

Originally posted by princeoforange
If thats the measure of animals then yes, we are animals.
However, humans differ from animals in that humans have a soul (the capacity of abstract reasoning, articulate speech etc.). It therefore follows that humans must take care of their souls as well as their bodies and the standard way of doing this is by following a religion. As for evolution, If you prefer to believe that you are descended from a flatworm then that is simply your folly.

Animals are people too.

Originally posted by amannion
Is that what a soul is?
Capacity for abstract reasoning.
Because there are many experiments that show cases of a number of different animals demonstrating abstract reasoning.

Not quite sure wy having something that someone else doesn't implies that we should take care of it. I might have a big lump on my leg that you don't - should I take good care of this lump?
Possibly not.
Another example of some suspect reasoning.

Originally posted by princeoforange
Oh, this is interesting, enlighten me on any animal which employs abstract reasoning please.
And as for comparing abstract reasoning or articulate speech to a lump on the leg, something you want rid of, it looks like a pathetic clutch at straws.

Originally posted by princeoforange
Oh, this is interesting, enlighten me on any animal which employs abstract reasoning please.
And as for comparing abstract reasoning or articulate speech to a lump on the leg, something you want rid of, it looks like a pathetic clutch at straws.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That, or a pathetic clutch at lumps.

Originally posted by amannion
Experiments on Chimpanzees, Bobobos, Gorillas, and believe it or not Octopi all show clear evidence of abstract reasoning - which in simple terms is the ability to consider and act on things not actually in plain sight.
I'm sure there are many more.
If you want me to chase up some references, I'm happy to do that.

But I'm guessing it's not going to matter how much evidence I stack up for you ...

In order to try and answer the original question, we need to define exactly what it is to be "human". One poster stated that as opposed to animals, humans have a "soul", and are therefore capable of abstract reasoning and articulate speech.

I find this definition to be unsatisfactory. Firstly, there are many humans who are incapable of abstract reasoning or articulate speech (no George Bush jokes please). Does that make them less human? Or soul-less? As mentioned previously, some animals show signs of abstract reasoning, and can certainly communicate.

Another definition of a "human" is that I have previously heard, is that we are the only "animals" who are self-aware. Yet there is evidence to show that other animals are also self-aware... especially the higher apes.

If we are to try and answer the original question, surely we need to have a specific definition of what makes us human, so that each particular point can be argued. Help me out here folks, because I'm having trouble finding a definition of what makes us human (leaving aside our genetic make-up), as opposed to animals.

We may end up going down the route of "Do apes deserve human rights" here, but I think that is tied in with the spirit of the original post, but looking at it from a different angle.