B
buffalo
Guest
Just curious, who defined the meaning of animals?
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
Science has a number of ways of distinguishing species. One is difference in kind which means that the difference between two species,e.g., dogs and plants is so radical that they are considered totally separate species. The difference between humans and plants is also radical. Plus this radical difference is so extreme that it extends to the difference between humans and non-human animals.
Since this is definitely not Catholic teaching, I am interested in where it came from.
Since this is definitely not Catholic teaching, I am interested in where it came from.
Since this is definitely not Catholic teaching, I am interested in where it came from.
Please correct me. But this really sounds like an attack on human nature.
Blessings,
granny
Human nature is peerless.
K
kbachler
Guest
I was fortunate. He had a long illness, and fought it bravely; He would often be sick to his stomach and refused to throw-up in the house, he would always come running, even from a dead sleep, with his head held a certain way so that we knew he had to get out - NOW. While I clearly saw things that he learned, or things instinctual, some things, like this were - well - somewhat amazing extensions of prior (learned) knowledge.
When his time came, he knew - he understood his mortality. We were sad together, he literally thanked us, and then got brave, allowing strangers to touch him in ways that he never allowed anyone to touch him - not even me. Even the vet was crying because the dog obviously understood what was happening. I’ve never owned a dog that more cherished his own duty and dignity.
But thank you for your good wishes.
K
kbachler
Guest
Are you asking for an etymology?
We could pick a dictionary. One gives:
- living organism with independent movement: a living organism that is distinguished from plants by independent movement and responsive sense organs
- mammal: a land mammal other than a human being
- brutish person: somebody regarded as vulgar or brutish
- instinct-driven inner self: the instinctive inner self as opposed to the one subject to self-restraint
- type of person or thing: somebody or something of a particular type ( informal )
“The laser printer is a completely different animal.”
Within science the classifications are debated and consensus is reached. The latest classification system was developed at International Society of Protistologists Classification 2005
B
buffalo
Guest
We (humans) designed the classification that we put ourselves in. Perhaps an alien would classify us differently.
K
kbachler
Guest
Not an intelligent one.
B
buffalo
Guest
K
kbachler
Guest
No. And that less traditional taxonomy is also occurring now. But it doesn’t remove humans from the animal kingdom.OK.
Your claim is he would rule out classifying life by its DNA signatures?
G
grannymh
Guest
I’m asking for a person or group. Thank you for the definitions.
Numbers 1 and 2 came from the scientific community.
Actually, number 1 dates way, way back. It could be the original philosophical definition. Nonetheless, it also serves from the position of scientific observation.
In other words, it appears that religions did not define human nature. Perhaps that is why some churches, having been left out, are upset with science.
Catholicism is a religion which defines human nature.
Note: I deliberately shifted the focus from animals to human nature because I consider human nature in itself as the pinnacle of creation. While there are definite similarities between animal species and the human species, the two species cannot be equally interchangeable.
This may be the group I am looking for. Read a reference to a major meeting which would settle various classifications of hominids or the hominidae family.
In any case, when looking at the OP, one should figure out what the major players are allowed to do regarding living organisms.
Blessings,
granny
Divine Revelation trumps!
G
grannymh
Guest
May I go on record – that even though I love my cousin Chilly Chimp and enjoy his company, when I go home at night I am grateful that Chilly and I are cousins and not species members of the same kingdom, same zoo, or same wilderness And I am not an intelligent alien either.
K
kbachler
Guest
Science agrees that chimps and humans are separate species, but they are part of the same animal kingdom.May I go on record – that even though I love my cousin Chilly Chimp and enjoy his company, when I go home at night I am grateful that Chilly and I are cousins and not species members of the same kingdom, same zoo, or same wilderness And I am not an intelligent alien either.
See sayer.lab.nig.ac.jp/~silver/taxonomy.html for a genomic and a phylogenic taxonomy.
D
donsnow
Guest
No apology necessary, kbachler,
Please keep in mind reading this post, that I am writing as a conservative Catholic.
What do you mean by “we”?
I don’t apply non-Christian labels to myself, and tend to shrug off non-Christian labels other people try to dump on me.
I, citizen, am not an animal. One of God’s creatures among many other types of God’s creatures? Yes. I will require you to regard me differently, than an animal, or at least respect my dignity and in addressing me, refer to me as a creature. For, that I am, but your biology professor’s pronunciation notwithstanding my rejection of other peoples’ non-Christian labels, I am not an animal. I am a human.
I don’t have to go by your education, citizen.
I’m a Christan, you can call me that. I’m a creature, you can call me that. But I vigorously reject the label, “animal”.
I stayed out of science classes to avoid that Darwinist baggage from being dumped on me
We have freedom of choice and you can accept the label if you want to. But, don’t apply what you accept for yourself, to any other human… especially me.
So, here I am, personifying the OP. Maybe Protestant and other churches are merely rejecting the label of animal, and not all of science? And, the usual anti-church bias of Darwinist springs into action, and falsely accuse churches of rejecting all of science?
Another posted that labeling humans as animals is the beginning of a discourse and showing people as different from animals is the conclusion of that discourse. I’m just saying, I’m different enough from what you call animal that I am human.
Believe it or not, I have edited this post.
God loves you as His creation,
Don
B
buffalo
Guest
It could. I will give it time.
K
kbachler
Guest
But the question is about classifying life; not classifying the nature of each living thing. And on that basis, humans are animals.
K
kbachler
Guest
No, it couldn’t. See the example I referenced.
B
buffalo
Guest
The classification is a human construct.
Revelation tells us that God made the animals and then He made man. He made man in his image. Revelations tells us that we are distinct. So God classed us differently.
24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. 27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. 29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: 30 And to all the beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. 31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.
K
kbachler
Guest
No non-Christian belief has been applied.
I’m sorry, what?? You do know that the word creature means animal, right? It’s usually used to refer to non-human animals, but technically includes humans.
Don, this is really quite sad. I think you need to look up the word creature.
Humans are animals. You said it yourself when you say that you are a creature.
No one called you a “critter” Don. You seem to think the word animal means critter.
The issue here more and more seems to be that you have a different set of definitions than the rest of the English-speaking people.
I understand you reject it. But you would be wrong.
Sorry Don, you are an animal. You are also a creature. You are not a critter.
No, I don’t see that at all. They seem to not be lost in their own definition.
I believe it. But its still wrong. Look up creature. Basically you’ll find that animal = creature; creature may have the additional implication of being created.
G
grannymh
Guest
It looks as if we are coming from different points of view which could be both-and situations. In my view, classifying life probably used the philosophical classification and classifying the nature would be based on scientific guidelines. The difficulty I see is that classifying humans only on scientific grounds does not address complete human nature.
Because my area of interest is the origin of human nature, I prefer the whole person. However, I do understand why anatomies determine which kingdom.
Blessings,
granny
Human life is sacred.
K
kbachler
Guest
I was having a hard time getting my head around nature in the way you were using it.
Let’s try this:
Physically, the human body falls within the animal kingdom
D
davidv
Guest
If you insist that a human is only physical, then your confusion will persist. As a unique creation of God, humans are both material and spiritual. Classifying humans as animal is misused by some to deny the spiritual aspect of humans. This is why the severe reaction by some on this thread to your insistance on this classification.
- Status