Are Humans Animals

[The Kilted Heathen]

By who, and what evidence do you have for that ?.

Anyone and everyone. Many have already been mentioned; some animals can be observed using "tools," but none are building microprocessors. Animals may help their own, but they do not have the scope and influence to help or harm that we do. We build habitats, and we destroy ecosystems. We possess the ability - through guile, craft, or might - to literally rule the world. No other animal in the world can compete with us.

 

[psychoslice]

Anyone and everyone. Many have already been mentioned; some animals can be observed using "tools," but none are building microprocessors. Animals may help their own, but they do not have the scope and influence to help or harm that we do. We build habitats, and we destroy ecosystems. We possess the ability - through guile, craft, or might - to literally rule the world. No other animal in the world can compete with us.

And thank god no other animals can do that!!.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Supreme being ? what the hell is that ?

That is the one whose representiveship we can claim and in whose name we can loot, rape, kill other people. That does not count as sin but is rewarded in heaven.

 

[Valjean]

eating: animals seek out resources and process them for energy so that life is prolonged.

"Seek out" needs clarification. Some plants 'seek out' sunlight. They compete for it. Some plants poison those nearby to gain nutrition from soil. This doesn't make them animals. Tapeworms are animals, but don't seem to seek anything, they just absorb nutrients.

sleeping: All animals have some period of inactivity (which we can call sleep), thought not in the same way.

I think there's more to it than that. Sleep involves specific brain activity. It has a specific EEG signature. Not all animals even have brains, much less specific periods of inactivity. Does a sponge sleep? How about the aforementioned tapeworm?

mating: yeah mating=reproduce in this case.

Bacteria reproduce. Tulips reproduce. Amoeba reproduce. reproduction is not a definitive feature of animals.

Defence: This is a higher function, but that is mean here that animals have a sense of "Mine", and understanding that I ought to protect either myself (survival) or that which belongs to me, either consciously or instinctively..

Not all animals have higher functions, or any sense of anything, much less "mine."

say our moral agency invests us with certain obligations, but I don't see how it gives us any more rights than many other animals.

I agree. The 'human' characteristics we we use in ascribing rights to others exist in many other animals.

It is certainly how our society operates. We give certain inalienable rights to humans, that we don't give to animals. We must find a basis for why this discrimination exists, and capacity for moral understanding creates this clear division. It is certainly the basis of anthropomorphic theories of morality. Basically since morality is a human concept, only humans are ultimate moral ends (animals may have relative moral rights, but human rights are absolute ends). It is rationality or even its capacity/eventuality (ability to act upon representations of moral law) which gives a human being such inalienable rights.

No. This is speciesism. Rationality and a moral sense are not the features we actually use in ascribing rights to humans.

debatable apparently

Study: Man did not evolve from apes - UPI.com
www.upi.com › Science News

1. Cached

Oct 1, 2009 - A U.S. biological anthropologist says he's determined humans did not evolve from apes

Irrelevant -- Chimps did not evolve from apes, either, but that doesn't make them non-apes.
Chimpanzees, orang-utans, humans, bonobos and gorillas all evolved from a common, non-ape ancestor. All are Apes.

 

[Valjean]

And why not? calling it other names won't change anything, still the supreme being.

But id we "know nothing about" it, how do we know it even exists?

 

[Skwim]

Nice copypasta. That chart is an example of how nested heirarchies work.

Next time you should probably read your source material to make sure it supports the case you are trying to make.

Sorry that it's beyond your comprehension. But it's about all I'm willing to devote to your enlightenment.

.

 

[FearGod]

But id we "know nothing about" it, how do we know it even exists?

By logic, do you think that you were made by the stupid nature?

 

[Valjean]

By logic, do you think that you were made by the stupid nature?

Please explain what you mean by "the stupid nature" Are you thinking of natural selection as random? Are you thinking intentionality and magical interference with the laws of physics is necessary to create an organism (watchmaker "theory")?

I believe the embryology involved in my personal creation has been pretty well established. As for my species, it evolved like any other, by the mechanisms described by the ToE.
Neither of these mechanisms require any divine (read: "magical") interference. They're sufficient all on their own.

So, by what mechanism do you believe you were made?

By the way, I don't think "by logic" means what you think it does.

 

[निताइ dasa]

No. This is speciesism. Rationality and a moral sense are not the features we actually use in ascribing rights to humans.

Nothing wrong with it. Our theories of rights currently are very anthromorphic, it is certainly how we ascribe rights to humans.

 

[FearGod]

Please explain what you mean by "the stupid nature" Are you thinking of natural selection as random? Are you thinking intentionality and magical interference with the laws of physics is necessary to create an organism (watchmaker "theory")?

I believe the embryology involved in my personal creation has been pretty well established. As for my species, it evolved like any other, by the mechanisms described by the ToE.
Neither of these mechanisms require any divine (read: "magical") interference. They're sufficient all on their own.

So, by what mechanism do you believe you were made?

By the way, I don't think "by logic" means what you think it does.

The creation is designed to evolve, it isn't the magic of nature that the DNA works.
Before the product being naturally selected it should first work and success and that
means the organism will be successful due to randomness and chances before
being selected, I don't believe that randomness and chances can make a designed product,
it's irrational.

 

[Valjean]

The creation is designed to evolve, it isn't the magic of nature that the DNA works.
Before the product being naturally selected it should first work and success and that
means the organism will be successful due to randomness and chances before
being selected, I don't believe that randomness and chances can make a designed product,
it's irrational.

But there is no evidence of a "design to evolve." True, it does evolve, but the mechanisms behind this have been described and do not require an intentional designer.

Randomness and chance did not make a designed product, variation and natural selection did. You show your ignorance of the mechanisms involved.
Natural selection is not random.

 

[idav]

By logic, do you think that you were made by the stupid nature?

Nature isn't stupid, it just uses trial and error, billions of years of trial and error.

 

[Valjean]

Nature isn't stupid, it just uses trial and error, billions of years of trial and error.

Is natural selection trial and error?

 

[jess11]

Yes we are.

 

[idav]

Is natural selection trial and error?

Yeah I think so.

 

[Skwim]

Is natural selection trial and error?

It's certainly the result of it.


.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah I think so.

 

[idav]

Trial and error doesn't mean random. It means trying every possibility regardless regardless of outcome:

 

[FearGod]

But there is no evidence of a "design to evolve." True, it does evolve, but the mechanisms behind this have been described and do not require an intentional designer.

Randomness and chance did not make a designed product, variation and natural selection did. You show your ignorance of the mechanisms involved.
Natural selection is not random.

Where did I say that natural selection is random?I said DNA is.

 

[FearGod]

Nature isn't stupid, it just uses trial and error, billions of years of trial and error.

Trial and error won't work without intelligence being involved, imagine that I have all the components
to assemble a tv set but I have no diagram and know nothing about electronics then I try using the trial
and error method and if the TV doesn't work then I try another connections and of course some components
will be damaged due to the bad connections and hence a new components will be needed and I should have
a constant power supply ...etc, how about the human's body systems and the complexity of our brains?