Happy Atheist Forum

Since when did we stop becoming animals? It seems like our culture has developed some vague dichotomy of animals and human. I see so many statements in textbooks such as: "Man vs animals", "man evolved from ape (are we not still apes?)".  I fail to see the distinction.

I agree that our cognitive abilities are much higher than any other animal on the planet. On the other hand, intelligence is not completely exclusive to homo sapiens. But so what? Given the fair examination of human origins, I fail to see how we are not animals.

Input?

Well, obviously we're not animals.  We make taffy.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Well, obviously we're not animals.  We make taffy.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Well, obviously we're not animals.  We make taffy.

Only an animal can make taffy! I on the other hand make paper airplanes while eating a bowl of Cookie Crisp!!

Quote from: "Cite134"I agree that our cognitive abilities are much higher than any other animal on the planet. On the other hand, intelligence is not completely exclusive to homo sapiens. But so what? Given the fair examination of human origins, I fail to see how we are not animals.

Input?

I'm not so sure our cognitive abilities are much higher, or even at the top compared to other mammals. Whales are only unfortunate enough to lack thumbs, but that doesn't mean the 6kg Blue Whale brain isn't capable of a greater ability to process and store complex information. Once we find a way to decipher the structured language of whales, dolphins and elephants, etc, I think we'll be blown away at how articulate and philosophical these creatures actually are.

I personally consider humans to be animals. We've just been lucky enough to form the written word and use that to our advantage throughout history. There's a tendency, especially among people with a severe god agenda, to reduce complex mammals to the same bracket as that of an insect. Ie, all living things are the same and none possess consciousness or any sense of self apart from humans because we're made in gods image, yadda yadda.. That's such obvious bullshit and it distresses me greatly. Mainly because I know there are people around the world who'd use this as an excuse to be unimaginably cruel to other animals.

I cheer when I see a matador get gored up the arse.

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "Cite134"I agree that our cognitive abilities are much higher than any other animal on the planet. On the other hand, intelligence is not completely exclusive to homo sapiens. But so what? Given the fair examination of human origins, I fail to see how we are not animals.

Input?

I'm not so sure our cognitive abilities are much higher, or even at the top compared to other mammals. Whales are only unfortunate enough to lack thumbs, but that doesn't mean the 6kg Blue Whale brain isn't capable of a greater ability to process and store complex information. Once we find a way to decipher the structured language of whales, dolphins and elephants, etc, I think we'll be blown away at how articulate and philosophical these creatures actually are.

I personally consider humans to be animals. We've just been lucky enough to form the written word and use that to our advantage throughout history. There's a tendency, especially among people with a severe god agenda, to reduce complex mammals to the same bracket as that of an insect. Ie, all living things are the same and none possess consciousness or any sense of self apart from humans because we're made in gods image, yadda yadda.. That's such obvious bullshit and it distresses me greatly. Mainly because I know there are people around the world who'd use this as an excuse to be unimaginably cruel to other animals.

I cheer when I see a matador get gored up the arse.

I suppose. Additionally, I honestly think there are other animals arguably smarter than some people I know -__-.
But yeah, I cannot see how intelligence is a sufficient distinction for humans being "non-animal like".

Thinking one's self better than something else is the first step in abusing it.

Quote from: "Cite134""man evolved from ape (are we not still apes?)".  I fail to see the distinction.

I want to thank you for triggering me to challenge my knowledge of words.  My initial reaction to your statement was to think (erroneously, it turns out) that it would be helpful for me to clarify (falsely, it turns out) that while humans are certainly animals and are certainly primates, we technically aren't classified as apes.  I wisely decided to double-check first, and lo and behold, I was wrong.  Modern biologists classify humans as apes.  We are apes.  Thanks again for triggering my self-edification.

Quote from: "Cite134"I fail to see how we are not animals.  Input?

Animals don't have souls.
We are created in gods image.
Looken at some of you, I guess god has bad days.

Who really believes this crap anyway, plunder the Earth, the end is nigh creationists?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Well, obviously we're not animals.  We make taffy.

lol  

Quote from: "Cite134""man evolved from ape (are we not still apes?)"

An albatros can glide. A flying squirrel can glide too. Albatros is a bird thus, the flying squirrel is also a bird.

We did not evolve from apes, therefor we are are not apes. They are our distant cousins, not our ancestors. Our common non-human ancestor was an ape-like creature.

Quote from: "Asmodean"We did not evolve from apes, therefor we are are not apes.

Recent genetic mapping has led taxonomists to classify humans as apes: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/hominins.html

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Asmodean"We did not evolve from apes, therefor we are are not apes.

Recent genetic mapping has led taxonomists to classify humans as apes: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/hominins.html

It's about classifying apes as hominid, not humans as apes, as far as I can see. There is a difference.

Quote from: "Asmodean"It's about classifying apes as hominid, not humans as apes, as far as I can see. There is a difference.

First, I should clarify that orangutans are in a different family, and so the more accurate phrase to be applied to humans, gorillas, and chimps, is, African ape.  Humans, of course, arose out of Africa, according to the best genetic analysis currently available.  Genetically speaking, humans are as closely related to chimps as gorillas are, and are as closely related to gorillas as chimps are.  The relationship between all three is such that each is a subfamily of the same family.  If the phrase African ape can encompass gorillas and chimps by virtue of both being subfamilies of the same family, then it follows, I think, that the phrase African ape can likewise encompass humans, for we are a subfamily of the same family as gorillas and chimps.  The family hominid might as well be viewed as the taxonomic designation for the African ape.  It wasn't always but it is now, or if it isn't, I don't see why not.  Personally I enjoy thinking of myself as an African ape.  Through the tall trees of my imagination, high up in the canopy, tightly clutching a taut vine, Tarzan swings, bellowing.

Received knowledge when I took Anthro 101 several centuries ago was that humans, chimps, and gorillas were the so-called "great apes", but I was unsure what was so great about an ape that invented soap-operas.

Quote from: "Cite134"Since when did we stop becoming animals? It seems like our culture has developed some vague dichotomy of animals and human. I see so many statements in textbooks such as: "Man vs animals", "man evolved from ape (are we not still apes?)".  I fail to see the distinction.

I agree that our cognitive abilities are much higher than any other animal on the planet. On the other hand, intelligence is not completely exclusive to homo sapiens. But so what? Given the fair examination of human origins, I fail to see how we are not animals.

Input?

I believe you are combining several ideas into one thought.  1.  We are, indeed, animals and are derived from the ape (nothing will change that).  2.  I don't believe the conflict of man vs. animal implies that man is not an animal.  3.  There are definite differences between modern homo sapiens and the wild animal kingdom... 4. In the texts you are referring to, I think you may have it wrong; what you probably mean is man vs. nature....   Conflict: It is a problem in the story. There are four basic types: man vs. man, man vs. himself, man vs. nature, and man vs. society

Quote from: "legs laney"

Quote from: "Cite134"Since when did we stop becoming animals? It seems like our culture has developed some vague dichotomy of animals and human. I see so many statements in textbooks such as: "Man vs animals", "man evolved from ape (are we not still apes?)".  I fail to see the distinction.

I agree that our cognitive abilities are much higher than any other animal on the planet. On the other hand, intelligence is not completely exclusive to homo sapiens. But so what? Given the fair examination of human origins, I fail to see how we are not animals.

Input?

I believe you are combining several ideas into one thought.  1.  We are, indeed, animals and are derived from the ape (nothing will change that).  2.  I don't believe the conflict of man vs. animal implies that man is not an animal.  3.  There are definite differences between modern homo sapiens and the wild animal kingdom... 4. In the texts you are referring to, I think you may have it wrong; what you probably mean is man vs. nature....   Conflict: It is a problem in the story. There are four basic types: man vs. man, man vs. himself, man vs. nature, and man vs. society

I understand that there are differences between modern homo sapiens and other animals. There is a lot of differences between alot of different species.

I don't see a true dichotomy between man and nature. Man is of nature.

Quote from: "legs laney"2.  I don't believe the conflict of man vs. animal implies that man is not an animal.

My reaction to this will be purely semantic.  I want to emphasize that.  I'm talking about words here, and nothing else.  To whit: if the phrase man vs. animal doesn't imply that man is not an animal, then it must imply a conflict between man and man, in addition to other conflicts, such as, for example, between man and zebra.  Do you think the phrase implies a conflict between man and man?*

An extrapolated reaction, and again, purely semantic, talking about words and nothing else.  The phrase man vs. nature, if it doesn't imply that man is not of nature, must imply a conflict between man and man, in addition to other conflicts, such as, for example, between man and oak trees, or between man and oxygen.  Do you think the phrase implies a conflict between man and man?*

* Perhaps the phrase implies the political conflict between environmental activists and their human adversaries?  If so, this would have the curious effect of implying that the human adversaries represent man while the environmental activists don't.  (Talking about words and nothing else.)  Interestingly, this implication is precisely the accusation hurled at environmental activists by their human adversaries.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "legs laney"2.  I don't believe the conflict of man vs. animal implies that man is not an animal.

My reaction to this will be purely semantic.  I want to emphasize that.  I'm talking about words here, and nothing else.  To whit: if the phrase man vs. animal doesn't imply that man is not an animal, then it must imply a conflict between man and man, in addition to other conflicts, such as, for example, between man and zebra.  Do you think the phrase implies a conflict between man and man?*

An extrapolated reaction, and again, purely semantic, talking about words and nothing else.  The phrase man vs. nature, if it doesn't imply that man is not of nature, must imply a conflict between man and man, in addition to other conflicts, such as, for example, between man and oak trees, or between man and oxygen.  Do you think the phrase implies a conflict between man and man?*

* Perhaps the phrase implies the political conflict between environmental activists and their human adversaries?  If so, this would have the curious effect of implying that the human adversaries represent man while the environmental activists don't.  (Talking about words and nothing else.)  Interestingly, this implication is precisely the accusation hurled at environmental activists by their human adversaries.

It is my belief that humans feel superior to the other species and therefore we label them as "animals" to the exclusion of ourselves knowing all the while that we are also an animal.  So when asked the question if it is an implied difference between man and man; I would say, "no".  It is understood that the author means "homo sapiens" against the other animals.

Quote from: "legs laney"It is my belief that humans feel superior to the other species and therefore we label them as "animals" to the exclusion of ourselves knowing all the while that we are also an animal.

Ah.  That pesky cognitive dissonance blindsides me every time.

I think we make the distinction because humans like to feel special. It's the same reason why anytime science makes us seem less special in the universe the religious try to kill X advancement.  I remember a few years back I decided to troll a christian forum and started a thread around the blue brain project and how  the brain is nothing more than hardware and software. Didn't go over too well. My arguments were sound of course, theirs was a lot of "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! LA LA LA! LA LA LA! Others that were more serious prattled on about playing god, It's a shame really. There is nothing wrong with having a huge ego, just as long as you understand you aren't somehow special in the universe. When people think they're special you get holy wars that lasts centuries, like Israel and Palestine, it's insane people can fight that much over something so insignificant as a plot of land.

But you know what? I love humans, they're so adorable, it's really interesting if you walk outside and observe humans with the mindset that you're examining an animal can change your perspective of your environment .

Ah, I see what you're saying legs. It's just that most people thend to think that there is even a true biological distiction between man and animal.

I see what you are saying also, Ultima, although I do not think we are special at all. Yet, I am not a big fan of our species. :)

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I think we make the distinction because humans like to feel special.

I agree, so long as the pronoun we is changed to they. :)

Same answer with respect to myself as an automoton, merely different favorite things.**

* Leopards, falcons, mongooses, hummingbirds, etc.

** Gigantor, Optimus Prime, Tobor the 8th Man, Astro Boy, etc.

But what about Reptar?  Huh?!

Quote from: "Ultima22689"When people think they're special you get holy wars that lasts centuries, like Israel and Palestine, it's insane people can fight that much over something so insignificant as a plot of land.

In one sense, aren't they trolling each other?  It's kinda like the idiot in the thread who cannot "permit" anyone else to have the last word.

Quote from: "Cite134"Since when did we stop becoming animals? It seems like our culture has developed some vague dichotomy of animals and human. I see so many statements in textbooks such as: "Man vs animals", "man evolved from ape (are we not still apes?)".

Input?

I agree.  We are animals.  Anyone who thinks we are not should read Frans de Waal's Our Inner Ape (2005).  Jared Diamond refers to us as the third chimpanzee, and I think he's quite serious.

Diamond is hardly alone.  Virtually all modern biologists classify us as great apes, as pointed out earlier.

Quote from: "Cycel"Jared Diamond refers to us as the third chimpanzee, and I think he's quite serious.

Some biologists think humans may be reasonably described, to some extent at least, as neotenous chimps; I.e., as chimps with some (normally) juvenile traits retained into adulthood and some adult (chimp) traits suppressed.  Here's an article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=being-more-infantile

Yeah, that's actually a pretty old hypothesis.  Gould discusses it in The Panda's Thumb, amongst other books.