Since when are humans mammals?

[alexxstar]

Hi everyone.

I'm Alexx, a 26 yr old mom of two children. I spend time in chat rooms dedicated to parents and children.Recently while in one of these chat rooms, several posters stated that it's normal for women to breastfeed because every other mammal does it.

Both my husband and I were raised Christians. Me - Lutheran, my husband- Catholic. We both recall being taught that humans aren't animals and that it's modern science that would like you to believe this is so.

As a breastfeeding mother, I take great offense to being called a mammal. I am not an animal. Pure and simple.

I guess I am posting this to see if I am not alone in my thinking because I got no support at all in the parenting chat rooms as everyone thinks it's ridiculous to argue against it because the dictionary definition includes humans as mammals.

 

[Inspired]

mammals aren't defined as animals, I think that might be why you are getting offended, because of your definiton of the terminology.


The classifications for being a mammal are, warm-blooded vertebrates, breast feeding their young, and skin that is more or less covered with hair.

So yes, humans are mammals according to the terminology, and so are animals, but in no way does that imply that humans are animals, or vice versa.

And welcome to CF

 

[alexxstar]

Definition 2B in the online Merriam Webster dictionary defines ANIMAL as: MAMMAL; broadly : VERTEBRATE

I think that people generally think mammals are animals.
I even came across a Mammal webpage that I found through a Christian website link, that specifically states: Animals are mammals. See this website here: earthlife.net/mammals/mammal.html

 

[coastie]

That's a strange definition for an animal.

We are mammals because of our Characteristics, not because we are animals or someone was calling you a lower life form. Believe me, it wasn't intended as an insult.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm a mammal too.

 

[alexxstar]

Well, I believe this will become an area of interest to me. I know there are many factors that determine what a mammal is. I think there is a HUGE psychological impact by classifying people as animals. I'm new to this concept and I feel there's something wrong with it in my gut. It's not that I think I am better than animals. I just think there is something seriously wrong with categorizing humans as animals.

 

[lucaspa]

Definition 2B in the online Merriam Webster dictionary defines ANIMAL as: MAMMAL; broadly : VERTEBRATE

I think that people generally think mammals are animals.
I even came across a Mammal webpage that I found through a Christian website link, that specifically states: Animals are mammals. See this website here: earthlife.net/mammals/mammal.html

That is a strange definition of "animal". Mammals are animals, but not all animals are mammals. Fish are animals. So are octupi, worms, insects, etc.

The taxonomic grouping called "mammals" was first devised by Linneaus. Linneaus was a creationist and believe similarly to what you do about humans being created separately. However, it was clear to him and everyone since that we share the characteristics of warm blood, hair, and lactation (breast feeding) with all other mammals.

Now, part of your problem seems to be what is called the "naturalistic fallacy". This is the fallacy that says what happens in nature is "good" and therefore must be done by humans. That's a value judgement that doesn't work. Yes, mammals breast feed their young, but that doesn't mean that humans also have to breast feed. Thanks to our technology, we have a choice. There are some advantages for the infant in breast feeding in most cases, but not in all. So, you get to make the choice about what is "good" for your kids and you.

 

[lucaspa]

Recently while in one of these chat rooms, several posters stated that it's normal for women to breastfeed because every other mammal does it.

Yes, it is natural, for the reasons stated. But that doesn't mean you must breastfeed. It's not "natural" to build skyscrapers, but we do it.

Both my husband and I were raised Christians. Me - Lutheran, my husband- Catholic. We both recall being taught that humans aren't animals and that it's modern science that would like you to believe this is so.

As a breastfeeding mother, I take great offense to being called a mammal. I am not an animal. Pure and simple.

Naturalistic fallacy. In this case you seem to think that being an "animal" means behaving in a bestial, violent fashion. That's not true.

Here, this might help:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/766_would_we_all_behave_like_anima_12_7_2000.asp

I guess I am posting this to see if I am not alone in my thinking because I got no support at all in the parenting chat rooms as everyone thinks it's ridiculous to argue against it because the dictionary definition includes humans as mammals.

(sad smile) I'm afraid you're not going to get any more support here. It's not the "dictionary definition", but the characteristics of humans and other animals that are classified as mammals.

Creationists won't give you any support, since all creationist organizations also say humans are mammals even when they give a separate creation of humans and other mammals.

 

[lucaspa]

I think there is a HUGE psychological impact by classifying people as animals. I'm new to this concept and I feel there's something wrong with it in my gut. It's not that I think I am better than animals. I just think there is something seriously wrong with categorizing humans as animals.

Most creationist organizations and conservative Christians think that classifying people as animals means that they will behave as animals. By that they mean that no animal has moral behavior and that humans will lose all their moral behavior.

That fear has been around a long time. Adam Sedgwick and Charles Lyell, among others, voiced that opinion when Darwin first came out with his theory of evolution. It didn't happen. Humans have behaved badly all those centuries when people thought they were not animals. The Bible, after all, chronicles every kind of depravity as existing long before Linneaus' classification came out in the late 1600s.

So, I wouldn't worrry about it.

 

[NeilUnreal]

I think there is a HUGE psychological impact by classifying people as animals. I'm new to this concept and I feel there's something wrong with it in my gut.

Hmmmm. Interestingly enough I'm a Christian and I feel exactly the opposite: it gives me comfort to know I'm part of a great chain of life on this earth.

There are good and bad apples among my human relatives and ancestors, and good and bad apples among my non-human relatives and ancestors. Why should either fact make me feel bad about myself? I'm still me.

-Neil

 

[wblastyn]

You're an animal because you belong to Kingdom Animalia. What's wrong with animals?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Our problem here is the difference between common and scientific useage. 'Animal', to the biologist, is a scientific classification.

The way the classification works is this.

You set up a load of characteristics that the group all has:

(1) Living
(2) Has centrioles
(3) Cells without cellulose cell walls or chloroplasts

And say "That's what animals are". You create a kingdom, Animalia, and put animals in that. Homo sapiens is in that kingdom, because it contains all vertebrates, all mammals, all chordates, and so on.

If a creature also has say:

(a) lactation
(b) homeostasis

We might say "That's what mammals are". But having extra features doesn't stop it being an animal, just as me being a Yorkshireman doesn't stop me being an Englishman, and being an Englishman doesn't stop me being British.

As you can see, we ourselves have all these, and therefore are (biologically) both mammals and animals. In common parlance it may be that 'animal' is used specifically to mean moving creatures that aren't human - many people do not think of fish and insects as animals, although they are to the scientist.

From a purely scientific viewpoint, we are animals. From a cultural viewpoint, it's a semantic argument. Define what your linguistic community means by "animal", and then you can say whether we are animals or not. No-one is claiming were are merely an animal, just as a square is not merely a rectangle

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Only way to possibbly be offended by being scientifically classified as an animal is that we aren't as numerous or adaptable as say plants or fungus, not something I'd get miffed about.

From my understanding a mammal is a vertebrate who

- lactates
- gives live birth (monotremes are a subclass of mammals who lay eggs)
- has skin and hair
- warm blooded

Sometimes I wish people could behave as well as animals, but that's a different can o worms.

 

[Northern Christian]

I thought the malevolent milk man was an atheist, and the other day I swore I saw a Muslim posting in this forum. What ever happened to the Christians only rule?

 

[troodon]

I thought the malevolent milk man was an atheist

He is

and the other day I swore I saw a Muslim posting in this forum.

You did

What ever happened to the Christians only rule?

It's still there

Any more questions?

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Half the time I don't even check what forum I'm in, just click on it if I see it in the most recent posts on the main page. Either that or don't care enough to check /shrug. BTW this has to be said...

Facts:
​

1. Ninjas are mammals.
​

2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
​

3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.​

http://www.realultimatepower.net​

/is proud to be a mammal.​

K, that just had to be said, I'll go to back to my forum and atheist water fountain.​

 

[Brooke]

Hey, the word "animal" comes from the word "animate". We're part of the only group of living creatures who can move around on its own, not stuck in a patch of dirt or anything. The word "animate" means to move. End of subject.

What are mammals? They are warm-blooded creatures who usually have their children live, and (in nature) breastfeed them, and who usually have hair. And it's a fallacy to say that all animals are mammals. Some are reptiles, amphibians, birds, you name it. It's beyond me to be offended to be called a mammal just because God decided to make other animals with those characteristics as well. I don't think I'd want to be born as anything but a mammal.

Yes, it's the natural think to breastfeed, because otherwise why would we have breasts? The word natural comes from the word "nature", meaning it comes from nature. Think about it.

Hey, I don't think God really made us any different from the animals as a whole anyway. We still have natural instincts and stuff like in the animal kingdom. What makes us different from them is our soul. God gave us a conscience. So yes, we are set apart from the animals in that major aspect.

 

[troodon]

Half the time I don't even check what forum I'm in, just click on it if I see it in the most recent posts on the main page. Either that or don't care enough to check /shrug. BTW this has to be said...

Facts:​

1. Ninjas are mammals.​

2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.​

3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.​

http://www.realultimatepower.net​

/is proud to be a mammal.​

​

​

Awesome site. I gotta get my friends to check that out.​

​

K, that just had to be said, I'll go to back to my forum and atheist water fountain.​

Hey! You'll take what we give you and be grateful!

 

[davyuk]

Looking at the state of the world we live in, most animals would be offended to be classed in the same group as humans.

 

[Bushido216]

Man. I could comment on how our similiarities with other mammals is just more proof for our evolution.

But I won't.

 

[thekawasakikid]

If I'm not an animal, I must be a plant. That would be too great a burden for me to bear