Are we part of the animal kingdom?

[divagreen]

Inspired by this thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33922-homosexuality-in-the-animal-kingdom/

 

I wonder how many posters in this forum consider themselves animals or even part of the animal kingdom?

 

How much of what is interpreted through our research and studies in biology, ecology, zoology, etc. are we anthropomorphizing?

 

Any thoughts?

[Moontanman]

I honestly do not see any way humans could be defined that didn't include humans being animals.

[ydoaPs]

Inspired by this thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33922-homosexuality-in-the-animal-kingdom/

 

I wonder how many posters in this forum consider themselves animals or even part of the animal kingdom?

 

How much of what is interpreted through our research and studies in biology, ecology, zoology, etc. are we anthropomorphizing?

 

Any thoughts?

Yes, we are a part of the animal kingdom.

[divagreen]

For the record, I think that we are, too (animals).

 

There is a distinction between insects and animals, no?

 

So why is it often a convenient response to certain social engineering questions that include, "just look at the rationale that can be backed up by insects...which can support a a socio-dynamic theory...e.g. ants", yet fail to include the often noted "raison'd etre"?

 

I question the interdependence of animal communities and the insect communities.

 

I think that the two are very different.

[Moontanman]

For the record, I think that we are, too (animals).

 

There is a distinction between insects and animals, no?

 

No. Insects are indeed animals.

 

So why is it often a convenient response to certain social engineering questions that include, "just look at the rationale that can be backed up by insects...which can support a a socio-dynamic theory...e.g. ants", yet fail to include the often noted "raison'd etre"?

 

I question the interdependence of animal communities and the insect communities.

 

I think that the two are very different.

 

How so? How or why would insects not be animals?

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, we are animals, chordates, vertebrates, mammals, primates, and a few other classifications. I suspect almost all the people that say we are not animals will still say we are vertebrates and mammals. These classifications tell a lot of our body structures and biochemistry, for example they tell us what animals to test our drugs on and how close such testing will be for a given animal. We are also social animals, another sort of classification that also tells some things about us. And finally, we are a technological species, and as far as we know the only one. This last classification is extremely important for many things, which is why we invented the word "artificial" to describe the effects due to that aspect of humanity, and it is a huge aspect of our lives.

 

I think that when people say we are not animals they are not referring to our classification within Animalia. When people refer to animals they often mean a certain subset of Animalia, excluding humans and the smaller animals, and probably also sponges and such, possibly also fish. Think of what is meant by "wild animals", what is being talked about probably won't include fish, insects, nor worms among other things.

[John Cuthber]

I have to say that when I first saw the thread about homosexuality in the animal kingdom my thought was "where else? "

 

I can't see any definition of animals that makes sense but excludes us.

[divagreen]

I have to say that when I first saw the thread about homosexuality in the animal kingdom my thought was "where else? "

 

I can't see any definition of animals that makes sense but excludes us.

 

 

I agree. So why do people use the argument, and I have heard it often, "We are not animals!" as a springboard for billboarding their own sense of morality?

 

Especially as it relates to homosexuality, bisexuality, any type of sexuality? (Including polyamory)

 

I am guilty of using this same argument in discussions centering around violence. "We are fully capable of rational thought!" is my counter to the pessimists who claim that, "The world is going to toilet!" because we do exhibit some of the negative characteristics of the animal kingdom, such as fratricide, matricide, patricide, hate crimes, murder for money or even the simple random murder of another human being.

[cypress]

I honestly do not see any way humans could be defined that didn't include humans being animals.

 

 

I'm not surprised at all by your response, but I certainly do not consider myself to be an animal. Sapiens are sentient beings not animals.

[Edtharan]

What is wrong with a sentient animal?

 

There are animals that have greater or lesser levels of inteligence, so why can't sentience be another such property?

 

There are abilities that animals have that we don't have (infrared vision, the ability to fly, the ability to enter a suspended animation state, etc) but we don't excluede these form the animal kingdom because they have abilities that we, or other animals don't have. So why should just one ability (that some other aniamls do seem to have as well) cause us to be declasified as an animal when we have everything else in common with them?

 

It is pure hubris and egocentrisim to assume we are not an animal because of just 1 thing (which is not unique to us either). Even if it was unique, 1 thing is not enough to seperate us from animals, it would mean we were just a unique animal (and I do agree we are pretty unique, but not totally unique which would be what is needed to remove us from being an animal).

[AzurePhoenix]

I agree. So why do people use the argument, and I have heard it often, "We are not animals!" as a springboard for billboarding their own sense of morality?

I imagine this is more a matter of animal being a homonym for two different meanings. There's animal in the biological sense, in which case, we irrefutably are (and so are insects, and jellyfish, and sponges,) then there's animal in the philosophical sense of being removed from the status of personhood or being civilized. This second version of "animal" is probably better represented by the word "beast." You have to consider that most people really don't have any real technical comprehension of biology, or philosophy for that matter, so the distinction is inevitably lost on most people.

 

I'm not surprised at all by your response, but I certainly do not consider myself to be an animal. Sapiens are sentient beings not animals.

Ok, let's assume that you mean you aren't an animal in the "beast" sense of the word, in a philosophical sense, rather than actually claiming to not be a biological animal (I'm hoping you are though, cuz that'd be amazingly fun). Assuming that to be the case, sentience is a trait of countless other species besides ourselves. Sapience is a little less common by comparison and I'd say of more interesting note, but again, can be applied to a number of other species. If some combination of the two are what you mean then dolphins and elephants aren't beasts but are Elephant Beings and Dolphin Beings. If sentience IS all you mean, then even tortoises aren't beasts but Tortoise Beings. Edited November 4, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[pioneer]

Humans are part animal but also part something more than animal. We have many of the instincts of animals but our instincts are not as natural. Humans also have free will ,which allows humans to pertubate instinct away from the purely natural instincts to create a human hybrid. The result is a composite instinct that reflects the tinkering by consciousness.

 

According to evolution life began in the water or oceans. Land animals are not fish but still contain genetic traces that are also common to fish. They have other genes which better define their nature. The same is true of humans and animals. We have willpower and can copy behavior allowing us to act like fish or animals. But that does not reflect what humans are but only reflects what will power can do.

 

The term "beast" better describes humans, with humans not exactly an animal in the natural sense. In mythology, they projected the human beast within characters who were part human and part animal, or into composite animals like the sphynx. These ancient people were closer to the transition from animal but had enough common sense to see the differentiation.

Edited November 4, 2010 by pioneer

[Sisyphus]

Complete (all standard and mainstream proposed) current human classification based on descent (as opposed to just similarities like the Linnean system), from broadest to narrowest, with "non-scientific" name and/or explanation in parentheses:

 

All life-like structures (including viruses)

Cellular life

Eukaryota (have complex cellular organelles, specifically a nucleus)

Unikonta

Opisthokonta

Holozoa

Filozoa

Animalia (animals)

Chordata

Vertebrata (vertebrates)

Mammalia (mammals)

Theria (non egg-laying)

Eutheria (placentals, i.e. not a marsupial)

Exafroplacentalia

Boreoeutheria

Euarchontoglires

Euarchonta

Primatomorpha

Primates (primates)

Haplorrhini

Simiiformes (simians)

Catarrhini ("old world" monkeys and apes)

Hominoidea (apes)

Hominidae ("great apes", includes orangutans)

Homininae (includes gorillas)

Hominini (the narrowest classification for humans that includes other non-extinct species, specifically chimpanzees and bonobos)

Hominana

Homo (includes several species such as neanderthals, but all except humans are extinct)

H. sapiens

H. s. sapiens

 

So, not only are we animals, but we're apes, technically. Albeit profoundly pretentious ones. In common speech, "ape," as in "planet of the," generally means non-human ape.

[ewmon]

why do people use the argument, and I have heard it often, "We are not animals!" as a springboard for billboarding their own sense of morality?

Perhaps it's our nature to think ourselves "above" animals.

 

Consider all that animals do and then ask yourself why humans don't do the same thing. For example: some use their tongues as their washcloths AND their toilet paper, some (like rabbits) eat the own feces, some (like dogs) eat other animals' feces, some eat carrion, some eat each other, some eat their young when distressed, some males kill the (unrelated) young of the females they take into their harems, some males (there's plenty of them) form harems, all of them pay no taxes and take/use/eat/*&^% whatever and whenever they want, it's a dog-eat-dog world out there, etc, etc.

 

Saying that "animals do it" is reaching down the evolutionary scale for excuses. Remember, that we "ascended" from the [other] animals. So then, what do we aspire to be? Animals? We're at the pinnacle of evolution and there's nothing greater to inspire us. I think that's one reason why some people become moral/spiritual/etc.

[Sisyphus]

 

Saying that "animals do it" is reaching down the evolutionary scale for excuses. Remember, that we "ascended" from the [other] animals. So then, what do we aspire to be? Animals? We're at the pinnacle of evolution and there's nothing greater to inspire us. I think that's one reason why some people become moral/spiritual/etc.

 

There is no such thing as an evolutionary scale, we did not "ascend," and we are not the pinnacle of evolution, because there is no such thing. We are not "more evolved." The most you can say is that we (that is, humans) are currently the smartest living members of the family (that is, living things), under the sorts of definitions of "smart" that we generally use.

 

Really, though, we consider ourselves different from "animals" the same way we consider family members different from strangers. I'm sure in a squirrel's mind, limited as it is, it's "squirrel" and "other" that are the big categories.

 

I do agree, of course, that just because something is natural doesn't make it desirable, and just because it is unnatural doesn't make it undesirable. We have minds that let us decide what we want to be, and that is one of the things that does make us special.

[John Cuthber]

When people tell me they are not an animal I ask if they are a rock; they usually say no. I conclude that they are vegetables- they don't often like this.

[A Tripolation]

When people tell me they are not an animal I ask if they are a rock; they usually say no. I conclude that they are vegetables- they don't often like this.

 

Win.

[cypress]

I imagine this is more a matter of animal being a homonym for two different meanings. There's animal in the biological sense, in which case, we irrefutably are (and so are insects, and jellyfish, and sponges,) then there's animal in the philosophical sense of being removed from the status of personhood or being civilized. This second version of "animal" is probably better represented by the word "beast." You have to consider that most people really don't have any real technical comprehension of biology, or philosophy for that matter, so the distinction is inevitably lost on most people.

 

Ok, let's assume that you mean you aren't an animal in the "beast" sense of the word, in a philosophical sense, rather than actually claiming to not be a biological animal (I'm hoping you are though, cuz that'd be amazingly fun). Assuming that to be the case, sentience is a trait of countless other species besides ourselves. Sapience is a little less common by comparison and I'd say of more interesting note, but again, can be applied to a number of other species. If some combination of the two are what you mean then dolphins and elephants aren't beasts but are Elephant Beings and Dolphin Beings. If sentience IS all you mean, then even tortoises aren't beasts but Tortoise Beings.

 

Our minds are quite proficient at grouping and categorizing according to observed similarities. Minds are also good at generating definitions to describe these groupings. By some measures and corresponding definitions, humans are in a common group called animals. By other measures and definitions humans are distinct from all others. But the bottom line is we don't factually know if we are cut from the same cloth as these things we call animals. Some think we are while others doubt it. Personally I tend to focus on identifiable differences rather than similarities and when I view the differences, I tend to conclude humans belong in a distinct group.

[Sisyphus]

Our minds are quite proficient at grouping and categorizing according to observed similarities. Minds are also good at generating definitions to describe these groupings. By some measures and corresponding definitions, humans are in a common group called animals. By other measures and definitions humans are distinct from all others. But the bottom line is we don't factually know if we are cut from the same cloth as these things we call animals. Some think we are while others doubt it. Personally I tend to focus on identifiable differences rather than similarities and when I view the differences, I tend to conclude humans belong in a distinct group.

 

Classifying humans as somehow in a different category than all other animals is not necessary to be a creationist, you know. Carl Linnaeus lived before the theory of evolution and common descent, and he classified humans among the apes also, simply because there is no more biological difference between us than there is between any other closely related species. There are many, many species that have no living relatives with as few differences as there are between chimpanzees and humans.

[Edtharan]

The best way I have heard it put is: Humans are just animals with delusions of grandure. B)

[cypress]

Classifying humans as somehow in a different category than all other animals is not necessary to be a creationist, you know.

 

Non-sequitor. Why should I care what is necessary to be a creationist?

 

Carl Linnaeus lived before the theory of evolution and common descent, and he classified humans among the apes also, simply because there is no more biological difference between us than there is between any other closely related species. There are many, many species that have no living relatives with as few differences as there are between chimpanzees and humans.

 

As I said before, simliarities and differences allow minds to generate and place things into artificial groupings but these similarities can not tell us how they actually came to be or if they are actually related. Of what use are artificial categories that are not demonstrably correct in what they imply?

[Sisyphus]

Non-sequitor. Why should I care what is necessary to be a creationist?

 

I assumed you were rejecting the obvious classification scheme on that basis. It's clearly not irrelevant, inasmuch as the rest of your post is about how categories relate (or rather supposedly don't relate) to "how they actually came to be," and what those categories "imply." The implication of the standard scheme is, in fact, demonstrably correct in a general sense, but I already know you don't accept that, so to avoid that debate I figured I'd try to point out it isn't necessary: it's still an extremely logical system even if you believe the world was made fully formed yesterday, implications be damned. (Though obviously, many have other theological objections to it.)

 

Obviously, you could come up with whatever classification scheme you wanted, e.g. badgers on one side and everything else on the other, since such classifications are ultimately all artificial. It's just that some, let's say "suggest themselves" a lot more readily than others, and it's difficult for me to see how a scheme with humans on one side and everything else on the other might suggest itself purely from biology.

[ewmon]

We're related to apes and other animals, but "related" does not mean "exactly the same". There's aspects that are the same, and there's aspects that are different How we differ is what's at stake here. For example, some endogenous molecules are exactly the same, some are not, and it also depends upon the other species. The major systems of the body can be similar, though not the same. Overall, humans are obviously significantly different than any other animal; most parts are not interchangeable.

 

Humans and chimps share about 99% of the same genome, and all humans share about 99.9% of the same genome — about a magnitude of difference between human-human variation and human-chimp variation. So, is it really any wonder why most people find some animal behavior repulsive?

[Moontanman]

We're related to apes and other animals, but "related" does not mean "exactly the same". There's aspects that are the same, and there's aspects that are different How we differ is what's at stake here. For example, some endogenous molecules are exactly the same, some are not, and it also depends upon the other species. The major systems of the body can be similar, though not the same. Overall, humans are obviously significantly different than any other animal; most parts are not interchangeable.

 

 

And just how are humans significantly Different than any other animal? Do cow parts interchange with other animals any better than human parts do?

[ydoaPs]

We're related to apes and other animals, but "related" does not mean "exactly the same".

Actually, we ARE apes. We're the 'third chimpanzee', as some say.