Do evolutionists claim that humans are animals?

[peace4ever]

Do evolutionists claim that humans are animals, namely some form of ape? Yes or no.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Do evolutionists claim that humans are animals, namely some form of ape? Yes or no.

Yes, but it doesn't imply whatever you're thinking it implies. Biologically, humans meet the definition of "animal."

It does not imply a lack of morality, nor does it derive any sort of moral relativism, nor does it imply we should not care about religion, nor does it mean that secularism is going to destroy the world.

In fact, it doesn't even have anything to do with morality, ethics, religion, secularism, philosophy, or anything of that sort.

It simply means that humans meet the following criteria:

Animals are a major group of mostly multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their life. Most animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently. Most animals are also heterotrophs, meaning they must ingest other organisms for sustenance.

Finally, let me just reiterate that it doesn't imply anything but the above definition.

 

[Mallon]

We're animals alright. And eumetazoans. And bilaterians. And deuterostomes. And chordates. And vertebrates. And amniotes. And mammals. And apes.

That doesn't mean that we aren't somehow more than our phylogenetic heritage, though. God bestowed on us His image, which is something we can neither inherit from other animals nor outgrow.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, but it doesn't imply whatever you're thinking it implies. Biologically, humans meet the definition of "animal."

It does not imply a lack of morality, nor does it derive any sort of moral relativism, nor does it imply we should not care about religion, nor does it mean that secularism is going to destroy the world.

In fact, it doesn't even have anything to do with morality, ethics, religion, secularism, philosophy, or anything of that sort.

It simply means that humans meet the following criteria:


Finally, let me just reiterate that it doesn't imply anything but the above definition.

Why not? Animal has a certain characteristic properties. How could anything claimed to be animal, but only stayed on the definition level?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Why not? Animal has a certain characteristic properties. How could anything claimed to be animal, but only stayed on the definition level?

That definition is what those certain characteristic properties are. You are confusing connotative meaning and denotative meaning. One connotative meaning of "animal" is "savage, primitive, uncouth" or what have you, and is the meaning that I suspect peace4ever is trying to link the idea of humans being animals to.

But given that evolution is a scientific theory, it deals with language in a scientific fashion. Therefore, the supplied definition is the only thing we are considering when we say humans are animals. No more, no less.

 

[pgp_protector]

Animals are a major group of mostly multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their life. Most animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently. Most animals are also heterotrophs, meaning they must ingest other organisms for sustenance.

Sounds like we fit the definition.

 

[Skaloop]

Yes. Even more than that, though, pretty much everyone claims that humans are animals, whether they are an evolutionist or a creationist, a Christian or an atheist, or anything else. In fact, you are the first person I have come across who actually denies this plain and obvious fact (except for those speaking in a colloquial sense).

I mean, I've heard the idea that we are different than other animals, and we surely are (as each animal is different than other animals), but not that we are not animals at all.

 

[crawfish]

Is it our bodies that make us children of God, or our immortal soul?

 

[Sphinx777]

Do evolutionists claim that humans are animals, namely some form of ape? Yes or no.

An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates. In less scientific language, it has various meanings, although it often (but not always) excludes humans. Due to its ambiguous nature, the term 'ape' is less suitable as a means of describing taxonomic relationships.

Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:

* the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 14 species of gibbon, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known as the lesser apes.

* the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans, collectively known as the great apes.

A few other primates, such as the Barbary Ape, have the word "ape" in their common names (usually to indicate lack of a tail), but they are not regarded as true apes.

Except for gorillas and humans, all true apes are agile climbers of trees. They are best described as omnivorous, their diet consisting of fruit, grass seeds, and in most cases some quantities of meat and invertebrates—either hunted or scavenged—along with anything else available and easily digested. They are native to Africa and Asia, although humans have spread to all parts of the world. A group of apes is called a "shrewdness".

Most ape species are rare or endangered. The chief threat to most of the endangered species is loss of tropical rainforest habitat, though some populations are further imperiled by hunting for bushmeat.

 

[metherion]

Human beings are animals.

edit: left out the word explain in the sentence below, as was called to my attention. FACEPALM
I will explain exactly what I mean with a video.
This video is titled '10th foundational falsehood of creationism' and as such contains some rhetoric that has little to do with the video. Out of respect for my fellow Christians who are YEC, I would suggest not watching the following segments as they don't really give anything to the point I am trying to make with this video:
8:44-end
3:30-3:40
4:05-4:17
2:41-2:52

In addition, you may want to have a dictionary handy, as he does a fair job of explaining what most of the terms means but not always, though it isn't necessary.
And, if you don't want to sit out the entire ~10 minute video, the main important section is:
7:53-8:48

Okay, that all being said, here is the video.

YouTube - 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism


Metherion

 

[Mallon]

If we're willing to recognize organisms as diverse as these as "fish":

... then to be consistent, we must recognize ourselves as apes, biologically, because apes show much less diversity of form.

 

[Catherineanne]

Do evolutionists claim that humans are animals, namely some form of ape? Yes or no.

This question has no simple yes or no answer.

Humans are certainly part of the animal world, yes. That does not mean the same thing, however, is saying 'humans are animals'.

Consider the United Kingdom in relation to Europe. We are part of the EU, and yet when we say 'Europe', pretty well invariably we mean 'the rest of Europe, not including the UK.'

It is the same with the human:animal divide. When humans talk of animals, we generally mean the other animals, not including us. But nonetheless we share many of the same characteristics, but with a few unique ones of our own.

As for the ape issue, I have answered this elsewhere. Humans are primates, and share a common ancestry with the ape, but that does not make us apes. Our nearest relation in the animal world is the chimpanzee, but that does not make us chimps, nor chimps human.

This is not just a claim. It is evidenced, and not just in DNA. It is also evidenced in human lice, would you believe.

 

[Mallon]

As for the ape issue, I have answered this elsewhere. Humans are primates, and share a common ancestry with the ape, but that does not make us apes. Our nearest relation in the animal world is the chimpanzee, but that does not make us chimps, nor chimps human.

"Ape" is a colloquial term typically used in reference to hominoids, a group to which humans belong. So technically, we are apes.

 

[Catherineanne]

"Ape" is a colloquial term typically used in reference to hominoids, a group to which humans belong. So technically, we are apes.

How can 'ape' be technical if it is also colloquial?



Technically, the term is 'common ape-like ancestor'.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566394/Human_Evolution.html

 

[Assyrian]

Do evolutionists claim that humans are animals, namely some form of ape? Yes or no.

The bible says we are animals too.
Eccles 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.

 

[MattLangley]

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

 

[Mallon]

How can 'ape' be technical if it is also colloquial?



Technically, the term is 'common ape-like ancestor'.

Human Evolution - MSN Encarta

Are chimpanzees apes?

 

[juvenissun]

That definition is what those certain characteristic properties are. You are confusing connotative meaning and denotative meaning. One connotative meaning of "animal" is "savage, primitive, uncouth" or what have you, and is the meaning that I suspect peace4ever is trying to link the idea of humans being animals to.

But given that evolution is a scientific theory, it deals with language in a scientific fashion. Therefore, the supplied definition is the only thing we are considering when we say humans are animals. No more, no less.

Scientific meaning of an object starts with a definition. But that is not the end of it. After the object is defined, the definition need to be used in other arguments so the object would become meaningful.

So, if human IS an animal, then what? Do you like to continue to explore the nature of human based on this definition?

I don't think so.

 

[juvenissun]

Is it our bodies that make us children of God, or our immortal soul?

Neither. That is why we are NOT animals.

 

[juvenissun]

If we're willing to recognize organisms as diverse as these as "fish":

... then to be consistent, we must recognize ourselves as apes, biologically, because apes show much less diversity of form.

Your argument proves one more time that paleontology is only a morphological science. No more than that.

This is not a very precise argument, but it makes the point: If you are animal, then you do drive to work. Because no other animal is doing that. They don't drive. And they do not go to their office or lab to work.