Well, I understand all your points, but it still icks me.
Even though we are animals physically, the psyche of a human is so much more advanced that it feels like it must be seperated from the rest in some meaningful manner.
I’ve many times thought about how humans act very much on basic desires and instincts, and how that has formed society, but when we get down to it, there seems to be a big leap from teaching a chimp basic language with cubes, and making an alphabet with grammar.
Hard for me to explain this in a clear manner, so I’ll just list some more things that come to mind.
The way we can think about what we choose, and choose how to dress/talk/think/dislikes/likes. I mean, it looks as if we can change our personality at will. (Maybe not 100%, but very close if we put our minds to it.)
The whole idea that we have a complete picture of our own worlds, and that even though we may be sceptic to new things and sciences, they can easily be fit into our world.
What I mean by this is the fact that we can learn things ourselves, and we can comprehend new things all the time. While for chimps for them to learn anything new must be done through repitition and discipline, very different.
So, I’m not saying that we’re very different physically, but, at some point in time, we became more than animals, we became like ‘the new kind of animal’.
But like another poster said, maybe there’s no point in dividing the two, in any meaningful way.
I dunno, I just think the psyche and behavior of a human is very fascinating, so many things can happen.
I’m afraid that this statement is false. Chimps pick up a lot of things after witnessing a single event and also develop new techiques (and games?) on their own. (They may need repetitive training in order to perform circus tricks–but so do humans.)
I don’t think anyone is challenging the notion that humans are significantly more advanced than apes. The issue is whether the advancement is one of degree or kind. If we are further along only in degree (even if there is an immense gulf in that degree), then you need to provide a rationale for us to create a new category that uses degree, not kind, as its basis.
(If it makes you feel better, many people have the same problem when dealing with the human animal: Alfred Wallace, who published a theory of Natural Selection almost simultaneously with Darwin, retreated from a full endorsement of his own theory when he tried to wrestle with the descent of humanity. (According to all our evidence, he should not have retreated.))
There’s a commonly quoted aphorism, generally attributed to Emo Phillips, that’s obliquely relevant here. Paraphrasing: I’m pretty sure my brain is my most important organ, until I remember what’s telling me that.
But you haven’t addressed the point that there is still a continuum of species (although they are extinct) between us and chimps. Where, precisely, do you draw the line? I don’t think it can be done. From a religious standpoint, you might argue about us having a soul, but then you’re out of the realm of science.
[Devil’s Advocate] One of the most common points made in this thread regarding humans as animals is the commonality of body structures such as skeletal structure, nervous system and digestive systems. Although it wasn’t brought up in the OP, one difference between humans and animals is that we modify those structures. Beyond tattoos and piercings and other social modifications, which could be dismissed as trivial or purely behavioral, we change our internal organs, our skeletons, our dentistry and our brains by transplant, artificial implant, and excision. I forsee this becoming more and more influential on our lives and life expectancies in the future.
While I am not the most eloquent poster to mar these boards, I’d like to try my hand at a more challenging aspect of this idea.
I believe the current organization of kingdom, phyllum, order, class et al, is based on differences in body structures-- simple differences in the case of species ( speciation notwithstanding) and major differences in the case of orders and classes. I understand that this is a very cursory overview of the binomial nomenclature system and that reproduction and other cosiderations play an important role in determining how an animal is placed in the system. But a major change in the structure and maintenence of the life profile of a species seems to warrant at least a consideration of the OP’s argument. [/Devil’s Advocate]
As a last note, wouldn’t classifying humans as other-than-animals require the creation of a new Kingdom rather than a new genus?
Irrelevant, really, because “animal”, in terms of biological classification, is not defined, or diagnosed, by traits such as skeletal structure, organs, or whatever. Animalia (or Metazoa, or to be even more specific, Eumetazoa, which excludes sponges and various weird things like Placozoads and Rhombozoads) is united by various features such as the formation of a blastula and a gastrula during development, true gonads, a nervous system with synapses, etc. Until such time as we can modify those traits, we will remain animals.
Linnaean classification is based on grouping “like with like”, and ignores many instances of descent. Thus, we have separate groups (Orders) for mammals, reptiles and birds, despite the fact that all three descdended from a common ancestor, and birds descended directly from reptilian ancestors. When viewed as a tree, with numerous contiuous and branching lineages, rather than as separate boxes, humans are very clearly kin to others in that tree. Even if we were to eventually become Star Trekian energy beings, we would still be linked by clear lines of descent to other animals.
“Welcome to Denny’s. Cognition or No Cognition?”
“Two for No Cognition.”
“Would you like to see our No Cognition menu?”
“Yeah.”
“Here you are.”
“What’s this Grand Slam Breakfast?”
“That’s where we beat you savagely with an aluminum baseball bat, breaking as many of your bones as fast as we can. It’s our $2.99 special this week! Would you like to try it?”
“Uh, yeah. Separate checks.”
Oops…those are Classes, not Orders. Another reason I hate Linnaean taxonomy: not only does one have to keep straight the name of a group, but the name of the hierachical position of that group, as well.
