What seperates us from the animals?

The question is flawed, because it presupposes a separation. What evidence is there for a qualitative distinction between human animals and non-human animals? There are quantitative distinctions, but every qualitative distinction that has been proposed has been found to be incorrect.

We aren't separate.

 

What separates humans from rocks.

 

AHHHHH It's this thread :rofl:

 

Some people object to the idea that there are distinctions between humans and all other organisms on moral grounds, because they erroneously believe that any claim that humans are different is equivalent to the claim that humans are superior. This is simply not the case, in the most basic sense it is obvious that every species is distinct.

Every organism is distinct in some relevant way from every other organism. For humans the most obvious reasons are associated with our brains, for elephants the most obvious reasons have to do with its trunk, Bubonic plague bacteria for its secretory system. No judgment of value, just a statement of differences.

I say organisms instead of animals, because why not extend the discussion to all living things? There certainly are qualitative differences between particular species. I would think that possessing a brain or possessing no brain would be a qualitative difference. It is hard to see how there could be only a quantitative gap between bacteria and the mammalian brain for example.

 

The title suggests that all animals are one sort of categorization of creatures and humans are something 'separate' from that categorization, it has nothing to do with moral grounds.

If it were titled something like 'what makes Humans a unique (or the best) creature/animal/organism?' then perhaps you would see many people including myself responding differently.

 

A- We are animals. Didn't think we were plants, did you?
B- Many other creatures communicate with eachother verbally and when studied their sounds can be interpreted to mean all kinds of things, from jealousy and shame in more advanced mammals to "threat, danger!" in smaller prey animals.
C- What separates us from other animals is a brain which is more highly advanced in a number of areas, not just language, although this is significant.
D- It is important however to note that we are not the only advanced mammals. Other primates, dolphins, whales and elephants have all been found to possess the capability for what is relatively advanced thought and feeling, although comparing their brains with human brains is problematic.

 

I hope you're being facetious

 

I always thought: "opposable thumbs"

 

It's not morals, it's basic biology. And I don't think anyone is objecting to the fact that there are differences. It's claiming that humans are not animals at all which is ridiculous.

 

#Yeah... :2thumbsup: <- opposable thumbs.

 

Did you read my post? My point was exactly that it is not a moral question, just one of biology and morphology. I was pointing out that many people get this confused, and refuse to participate in a discussion about the differences between organisms because they wrongly believe that any statement about differences is automatically making a judgment claim about one organism being better than another.

Also people are objecting to the fact that there are differences such as KeithBC a few posts up. And if you read from the first post on you will see many people trying to argue that humans are not superior, as if that question were automatically a part of any discussion of differences, which of course it isn't. And that was my original point.

Any organism that can be classified as a distinct species must have relevant differences that separate it from all other species, by definition.

 

Conversely, it must possess features in common with members of it's own species.

Curiously, that is not how humans classify themselves and each other. Human beings are afforded special individual distinctions that are not allowed any other species. There are no exceptional red winged blackbirds but there are all sorts of "specially endowed" humans. I think mans view of himself as animal is distorted and grandiose.

 

aspirations versus immediacy

 

Our ego.

 

what sets the order primatae apart from other animals is binocular vision and depth perception, opposable digits, small litter sizes, the fact that a primate's primary tactile organ is the fingertips, a relatively large brain mass/body mass ratio, and orbital tori (ridges of bone around the eye). what distinguishes hominids from other primates is bipedalism. that's all. language grew out of bipedalism, as the switch from knuckle-walking to bipedal movement evolutionarily favored a differently shaped respiratory apparatus, particularly at the neck.

 

Binocular vision is not exclusive to the order primatae, and neither is depth perception. Small litter sizes are also not exclusive to this group. Bipedalism is not the only relevant difference between hominids and other primates.

First, there is evidence that knuckle walking evolved after the split between the primates that eventually led to humans on one hand and for example chimps on the other.

Also the idea that language should not be explicitly listed as a feature that distinguishes us from other primates simply because "language grew out of bipedalism" is a rather silly idea. No matter why language evolved, it is the defining feature that separates us from the other primates. Also I find the idea that the evolution of the breathing apparatus drove the evolution of language to be severely lacking. andallthatstocome, what do you base this hypothesis on? It is very much unclear to me how changes in breathing apparatus could cause the development of grammar (though I certainly see how changes in breathing apparatus allowed the evolution of language to get started, but that is very different than saying that language "grew out of bipedalism").

 

I base this hypothesis on the fossil record, like any good physical anthropologist.

 

whales and possibly porpises(sp) and dolphins have more complex languages than people do. some people argue theyre more intelligent too, but they just lack the opposable thumb to make tools and manipulate their environment with precision.

people are drastically the most dominant creature on the planet because of a combination of the opposable and our intelligence.

 

"I base this hypothesis on the fossil record..." -andallthatstocome

And what does the fossil record tell you about the evolution of grammar? Please don't spare the details, I study evolutionary theory everyday and between the books on my shelf and academic search engines like Jstor I have mountains of reference material at my disposal in case I need to look something up.

 

I don't have any specific sources, just what I remember from Anthropology 101 classes but I think allthatstocome has you on this one. I don't want to come off as sounding arrogant but you seem to not be very educated on the subject for how much you claim to study about it. I'll willingly admit I'm not that educated in anthropology so if I'm wrong so be it but I believe...

Our straight up and down skeletal structure that allows for bipedialism, also happens to allow for a more 'symmetrical' skull allowing our brain to have a more developed frontal lobe than primates with sloped skulls hence a better ability for critical thinking and better grammar.