|
>There is no definitive evolutionary linkage between humans >and animals?
I'm not sure if that question mark was intentional or not, but there is most definitely an evolutionary linkage between humans and critters that you would definitely call animals. Chimpanzees to name just one. This is not the tiniest bit controversial.
>Yes all life share the same material >compositions, but that doesn't mean all life is in the same >category.
That's a problem with categories, people can choose to define the categories however they like. But the fact that we share a common ancestor with "animals" is not in dispute.
>In fact, we share the same material base composition >with a banana,
We're related to bananas, too. More distantly though.
>but an ape is not an orange,
Indeed, but apes and oranges are both organisms. (Or more precisely an orange tree is an organism.)
>and an apple is >not a rock.
Correct again, but apples and rocks are both material objects. They're both made from the same "starstuff", so there's a connection there, too.
>So, again, who decided that humans are animals.
Biologists defined the taxonomical "kingdom" called Animalia, and it's simply a fact that we, as well as apes, tigers, dolphins, snakes, panda bears, we all happen to satisfy the necessary conditions to fit that taxonomical classification. It's not that big a deal.
>Shoot, we >behave more like a virus, but that's a silly argument - don't >you think?
We behave in some ways like a virus, in other ways not. Viruses behave in some ways like bacteria, in other ways like oranges, in other ways like people, and in other ways like rocks. Isn't Biology fascinating?
|