• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof that humans are not animals

Evolution doesn’t care about the individual- only the survival and propagation of the species. Rape or cheating on your spouse is not conducive to that.
Evolution doesn't matter in contemporary societies. Evolutionary drives are just outdated impulses from our ancestral past.

Modern, developed countries enshrine individual rights and freedoms into the law, which go far above our basic survival needs (which could be met in a prison cell). Perhaps some 3rd world country like China or North Korea is collectivist and authoritarian, but not America or Europe.

Which is further proof that instincts don't play a significant role in our contemporary moral sentiments.

While it’s true that rape can, in some isolated cases, result in reproduction, it’s not a stable, sustainable, or widespread reproductive strategy, especially among such highly social species like primates.

In most social species (including humans), it creates hostility, social exclusion, and retaliation, which actually lowers survival and reproductive chances overall. That’s why you don’t see it as a dominant evolutionary strategy among primates.
Right, and there are certain reasons why people are hostile to rape to begin with.

Again, you seem to be imagining that their is no difference between a 3rd world Islamic country, where wife-beating and child marriage are social norms, and a modern, developed culture where such things are viewed as abhorrant.

So no, our moral and social sentiments go far, far above the minimum of what would be required to merely "survive". People have "survived" for centuries in undeveloped nations where child marriage and forced marriage are social norms, but those things would never be acceptable in the developed world, and for good reason.

Like many primates, humans have evolved to live in complex cooperative societies where trust, reciprocity, and fairness matter far more for long-term flourishing of the species than raw reproductive success. Cheating or coercion undermines the very social bonds that humans rely on to thrive. So even if reproductive impulses are piwerful and important to species propagation, such social behavior, like not being a rapist, is even more important for managing life in a way that sustains stable, functional, even thriving communities.

There is nothing otherworldly or fundamentally different about this for humans than other social primate species.
There is quite a bit of difference between humans and other primates. Such as how we have complex legal and ethical frameworks, which establish concepts such as human rights, consent, and so forth. And how we develop many rational moral and ethical arguments against social ills such as rape.
 
Evolution doesn't matter in contemporary societies. Evolutionary drives are just outdated impulses from our ancestral past.

Modern, developed countries enshrine individual rights and freedoms into the law, which go far above our basic survival needs (which could be met in a prison cell). Perhaps some 3rd world country like China or North Korea is collectivist and authoritarian, but not America or Europe.

Which is further proof that instincts don't play a significant role in our contemporary moral sentiments.


Right, and there are certain reasons why people are hostile to rape.


There is quite a bit of difference between humans and other primates. Such as how we have complex legal and ethical frameworks, which establish concepts such as human rights, consent, and so forth. And how we develop many rational moral and ethical arguments against social ills such as rape.
This all reminds me of someone.
 
Ahhh.
The classic Freudian slip.
I've already explained that categories such as animal, ape, and primate, are merely arbitrary categories invented by humans, which group things together based on shared biological traits.

But there's certainly no reason we have to use such categories, and can't invent completely different categories altogether, such as ones which draw a distinction between humans and animals based on things such as their reasoning ability or the needs they have on Maslow's hierarchy.
 
Claiming that a supercomputer is not a calculator is something a supercomputer would claim.

But it doesn't change the objective reality that a supercomputer has vastly higher computing power than a calculator or abacus does. The mere fact that all of those things "perform calculations" does not mean they have to be reduced to that categorization.
It is ego that makes you think that humans are greatly above other animals. But I will take the bait.

Are lesser evolved animals less than animals?
 
It is ego that makes you think that humans are greatly above other animals. But I will take the bait.

Are lesser evolved animals less than animals?
They have less complex consciousness, and, conversely, fewer rights.

No one goes to prison for killing a mosquito, for example. But people can go to prison for killing a dog.
 
They have less complex consciousness, and, conversely, fewer rights.

No one goes to prison for killing a mosquito, for example. But people can go to prison for killing a dog.
The complexity of a spaceship compared to a scooter; both are vehicles despite the complexities.


A lesser form or a superior level of consciousness does not invalidate an animal. It is your ego that guides your cognitive biases. You want humans to be more important to validate your beliefs. Hence, the excuses that you keep trying stick. Human laws are subjective, try harder.
 
Then you'll have to refute it.
Rambozo:

Humans, both primitive and modern. rape. Rape is a behaviour, not a taxonomic or cladistic determinant. Humans are animals because of how their cells, tissues, organs and organ systems are built and function. Animal is not a moral classification in biology, not a moral classification.
Some animals rape as a means of reproducing.
Humans did and do that too. Do you think women caught up in global sex trafficking voluntarily joined sex trafficking rings without threat and violence being used and filled out applications and CVs?
If you believed that humans were animals, then you wouldn't have a problem with rape if it allowed reproduction.
The two parts of you assertion are unrelated and thus there is no connection between the two.
The fact that you have a problem with rape proves that humans are not animals.
The Greeks used ritual rape in fertility cult rituals. The Romans did the same and also used rape of slaves and prisoners for personal gratification and public spectacle. Were ancient Greeks and ancient Romans not human beings? Were the Ottoman Turks not human when the used rape in both peace and war? Were were the Japanese soldiers at Nanking in China not human when they raped and murdered civilians not human beings? Are the paramilitaries and militaries who use systematic rape or have army brothels of captured women civilians not human beings? Are Roman Catholic and other sects' priests who rape small children not human beings? Human beings are human even if they are not humane.

Be well, be safe and be a gentle animal.
Evilroddy.
 
AI Overview

View attachment 67585601
Male chimpanzees frequently use physical aggression and violence to sexually coerce females, with studies showing this behavior increases their chances of mating and siring offspring. This aggression can involve brutal attacks, hair pulling, and forceful separation to control female sexuality and limit their mating options with other males. While female chimpanzees try to mitigate this by mating with multiple males to create paternal uncertainty, male coercion can significantly influence female choice and reproductive success.

While we may share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, chimpanzees engage in mating behavior which would be consider "rape" if humans engaged in it, and rightfully be viewed as repulsive, even if it allowed someone to reproduce.

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

The fact that we value moral sentiments, such as "rape being wrong" more than we value biological impulses, such as the drive to reproduce, proves that humans are not animals.


Hint: A.I. ain’t there yet. Occasionally, especially when it attempts pondering of the philosophical in nature, it’s just plain dumb.
 
AI Overview

View attachment 67585601
Male chimpanzees frequently use physical aggression and violence to sexually coerce females, with studies showing this behavior increases their chances of mating and siring offspring. This aggression can involve brutal attacks, hair pulling, and forceful separation to control female sexuality and limit their mating options with other males. While female chimpanzees try to mitigate this by mating with multiple males to create paternal uncertainty, male coercion can significantly influence female choice and reproductive success.

While we may share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, chimpanzees engage in mating behavior which would be consider "rape" if humans engaged in it, and rightfully be viewed as repulsive, even if it allowed someone to reproduce.

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

The fact that we value moral sentiments, such as "rape being wrong" more than we value biological impulses, such as the drive to reproduce, proves that humans are not animals.
You didn't really show that humans aren't animals you just showed that they're not chimpanzees and of course they're not.
 
You haven't addressed that well.

If a person wants to kill and eat a human, he simply has a different food preference than you.

Sure, most humans don't do that, but most humans don't practice homosexuality either. Something merely being different than what you would do doesn't make it morally wrong.

So how do you justify legally discriminating against people who want to eat humans?
Think I'll stick to my home made breakfast sandwiches, thanks. Ever read Survivor Type?
 
There is quite a bit of difference between humans and other primates. Such as how we have complex legal and ethical frameworks, which establish concepts such as human rights, consent, and so forth. And how we develop many rational moral and ethical arguments against social ills such as rape.

Either rape is a “social ill”- the ill effects of which can can be empirically observed, measured, and rationally demonstrated here in the physical world, or they have some otherworldly source in souls and gods.

Seems to me you are trying to have it both ways. Pick a lane.
 
I've already explained that categories such as animal, ape, and primate, are merely arbitrary categories invented by humans, which group things together based on shared biological traits.

But there's certainly no reason we have to use such categories, and can't invent completely different categories altogether, such as ones which draw a distinction between humans and animals based on things such as their reasoning ability or the needs they have on Maslow's hierarchy.
You mentioned that you believe humans are a beast/god hybrid.
How did this "hybrid" come about?
Was it manufactured by god, along with the universe in seven days?
 
Evolution doesn't matter in contemporary societies. Evolutionary drives are just outdated impulses from our ancestral past.

Modern, developed countries enshrine individual rights and freedoms into the law, which go far above our basic survival needs (which could be met in a prison cell). Perhaps some 3rd world country like China or North Korea is collectivist and authoritarian, but not America or Europe.

Which is further proof that instincts don't play a significant role in our contemporary moral sentiments.


Right, and there are certain reasons why people are hostile to rape to begin with.

Again, you seem to be imagining that their is no difference between a 3rd world Islamic country, where wife-beating and child marriage are social norms, and a modern, developed culture where such things are viewed as abhorrant.

So no, our moral and social sentiments go far, far above the minimum of what would be required to merely "survive". People have "survived" for centuries in undeveloped nations where child marriage and forced marriage are social norms, but those things would never be acceptable in the developed world, and for good reason.


There is quite a bit of difference between humans and other primates. Such as how we have complex legal and ethical frameworks, which establish concepts such as human rights, consent, and so forth. And how we develop many rational moral and ethical arguments against social ills such as rape.
Evolution still happens. You are not a carbon copy of your mother or father nor a perfect mixture.
 
Evolution doesn't matter in contemporary societies. Evolutionary drives are just outdated impulses from our ancestral past.

Modern, developed countries enshrine individual rights and freedoms into the law, which go far above our basic survival needs (which could be met in a prison cell). Perhaps some 3rd world country like China or North Korea is collectivist and authoritarian, but not America or Europe.

Which is further proof that instincts don't play a significant role in our contemporary moral sentiments.


Right, and there are certain reasons why people are hostile to rape to begin with.

Again, you seem to be imagining that their is no difference between a 3rd world Islamic country, where wife-beating and child marriage are social norms, and a modern, developed culture where such things are viewed as abhorrant.

So no, our moral and social sentiments go far, far above the minimum of what would be required to merely "survive". People have "survived" for centuries in undeveloped nations where child marriage and forced marriage are social norms, but those things would never be acceptable in the developed world, and for good reason.


There is quite a bit of difference between humans and other primates. Such as how we have complex legal and ethical frameworks, which establish concepts such as human rights, consent, and so forth. And how we develop many rational moral and ethical arguments against social ills such as rape.
Actually our ability to see something happen to another and feel a twinge of that pain is partly instinctual at the least.

Whether or not we rape is not indicative of whether or not we are animals in a taxonomic sense. We are animals, thats just taxonomy.
 
They have less complex consciousness, and, conversely, fewer rights.

No one goes to prison for killing a mosquito, for example. But people can go to prison for killing a dog.

What rights do dogs have? People may get legal penalties for destroying other people's property, living or inanimate. It has nothing to do with rights for the canines...unless you have some legal code or authority that recognizes that?
 
Think I'll stick to my home made breakfast sandwiches, thanks. Ever read Survivor Type?
Again, unless you can establish the contexts in which behaviors like human cannibalism occur, merely pointing out isolated examples of it occurring completely devoid of social context isn't going to cut it.
 
Again, unless you can establish the contexts in which behaviors like human cannibalism occur, merely pointing out isolated examples of it occurring completely devoid of social context isn't going to cut it.
The main character of Survivor Type sure did cut it.
 
The main character of Survivor Type sure did cut it.
Sure, but that was a very specific context, in which people, under very harsh conditions, engaged in that behavior. Trying to pretend that such behavior would be a norm in civilized life would be ridiculous.
 
AI Overview

View attachment 67585601
Male chimpanzees frequently use physical aggression and violence to sexually coerce females, with studies showing this behavior increases their chances of mating and siring offspring. This aggression can involve brutal attacks, hair pulling, and forceful separation to control female sexuality and limit their mating options with other males. While female chimpanzees try to mitigate this by mating with multiple males to create paternal uncertainty, male coercion can significantly influence female choice and reproductive success.

While we may share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, chimpanzees engage in mating behavior which would be consider "rape" if humans engaged in it, and rightfully be viewed as repulsive, even if it allowed someone to reproduce.

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

The fact that we value moral sentiments, such as "rape being wrong" more than we value biological impulses, such as the drive to reproduce, proves that humans are not animals.

You are a metabolic organism.
As such, you are basically a collection of replicative proteins that function according to metabolic chemical reactions and processes. A virus is similar, in that it too is a replicative protein complete with mutable DNA and RNA, just as you have. But viruses lack metabolism, and so may not be considered to be alive in the same manner that you definitely are.

You are a eukaryote.
All remaining organic life is distinguished by structural differences at the cellular level between different groups of prokaryotes (which are essentially bacteria) and the eukaryotes (us). Unlike bacterial or viral cells, our cells have a nucleus. Hence, all non-viral / bacterial lifeforms are as we are; eukaryotes.

You are an animal.
Now I've heard a few creationists argue that there are plants and there are animals and then there are human beings. And that none of them are actually related to one another other than through a common creator. They adamantly argue that we are not animals, as if there is some insult in that association. But you are one of only about a half-dozen kingdoms of eukaryotic life forms. Unlike those of most other biological kingdoms, you are incapable of manufacturing your own food and must compensate for that by ingesting other organisms. In other words, your most basic structure requires that you cause death to other living things. Otherwise, you wouldn't have a means of digestion. This, along with some very specific anatomical differences in the chemical composition of our metazoic cells, are the factors that define and distinguish an animal like yourself from all other kingdoms of life. Given the alternative choice between plants, molds, or fungus, animalia should seem reasonable even to the most adamant fundamentalist.

You are a chordate.
You have a spinal chord and every other minute physical distinction of that classification. You also have a skull, which classifies you as a craniate. Note: Not all chordates have skulls, or even bones of any kind. Once one of the chordates has enough calcium deposited around the brain to count as a skull, all of its descendants will share that. This is why absolutely all animals with skulls have spinal chords. And that is yet another commonality that implies common ancestry as opposed to common design.

You are a vertebrate.
Like all mammals, birds, dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, and most fish, you have a spine. Not everything with a spinal cord has a spine to put it in, but everything with a spine has a spinal cord in it, implying common descent.

Every animal that has a jaw and teeth (Gnathostomata) also has a backbone. And of course, you have both as well, again implying common descent.

You are a tetrapod.
You have only four limbs. So you are like all other terrestrial vertebrates including frogs. Even snakes and whales are tetrapods in that both still retain vestigial or fetal evidence of all four limbs. This is yet another consistent commonality implying a genetic relationship. There certainly is no creationist explanation for it.

You are synapsid.
Unlike turtles (which are anapsid) and "true" reptiles, dinosaurs and birds (which are all diapsid), your skull has only one temporal fenestra, a commonality between all of the vast collection of "mammal-like reptiles", which are now all extinct without any Biblical recognition or scriptural explanation either for their departure or their presence in the first place.


cont...
 
...
You are a mammal.
You are homeothermic (warm-blooded), follicle-bearing and have lactal nipples. And of course, not all synapsids are or were mammals, but all mammals are synapsid, implying common descent.

You are eutherian.
Or more specifically, you are a placental mammal, like most other lactal animals from shrews to whales. All eutherians are mammals, but not all mammals are eutherian. There are six major divisions in mammalia, only three of which still exist; those that hatch out of eggs like reptiles (monotremes), marsupials, that are born in the fetal stage and complete their development inside the mother's pouch, and those that developed in a shell-like placenta and were born in the infant stage, as you were. Your own fetal development seems to reveal a similar track of development from a single cell to a tadpole-looking creature, then growing limbs and digits out of your finlike appendages, and finally outgrowing your own tail. Some would consider this an indication of ancestry. Especially since fetal snakes, for example, actually have legs, feet, and cute little toes, which are reabsorbed into the body before hatching, implying common descent.

You are a primate.
You have five fully-developed fingers and five fully-developed toes. Your toes are still prehensile and your hands can grasp with dexterity. You have only two lactal nipples and they are on your chest as opposed to your abdomen. These are pointless in males, which also have a pendulous penis and a well-developed ceacum or appendix, unlike all other mammals. Although your fangs are reduced in size, you do still have them along with some varied dentition indicative of primates exclusively. Your fur is thin and relatively sparse over most of your body. And your claws have been reduced to flat chitinous fingernails. Your fingers themselves have distinctive print patterns. You are also susceptible to AIDS and are mortally allergic to the toxin of the male funnel web spider of Australia (which is deadly to all primates, but only dangerous to primates, which is why you'd better beware of these spiders). And unlike all but one unrelated animal in all the world, your body cannot produce vitamin-C naturally and must have it supplemented in your diet, just as all other primates do. Nearly every one of these individual traits are unique only to primates exclusively. There is almost no other organism on Earth that matches any one of these descriptions separately, but absolutely all of the lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, apes, you, and I match all of them at once perfectly, implying common descent.

You are an ape.
Your tail is merely a stub of bones that don't even protrude outside the skin. Your dentition includes not only vestigial canines, but incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, and distinctive molars that come to five points interrupted by a "Y" shaped crevasse. This in addition to all of your other traits, like the dramatically increased range of motion in your shoulder, as well as a profound increase in cranial capacity and disposition toward a bipedal gait, indicates that you are not merely a vertebrate cranial chordate and a tetrapoidal placental mammalian primate, but you are more specifically an ape, and so was your mother before you.

Genetic similarity confirms morphological similarity rather conclusively, just as Charles Darwin himself predicted more than 140 years ago. While he knew nothing of DNA of course, he postulated that inheritable units of information must be contributed by either parent. He rather accurately predicted the discovery of DNA by illustrating the need for it. Our 98.4% to 99.4% identical genetic similarity explains why you have such social, behavioral, sexual, developmental, intellectual, and physical resemblance to a bonobo chimpanzee. Similarities that are not shared with any other organism on the planet. Hence you are both different species of the same literal family. In every respect, you are nearly identical.

You, sir, are an ape.
 
...
You are a mammal.
You are homeothermic (warm-blooded), follicle-bearing and have lactal nipples. And of course, not all synapsids are or were mammals, but all mammals are synapsid, implying common descent.

You are eutherian.
Or more specifically, you are a placental mammal, like most other lactal animals from shrews to whales. All eutherians are mammals, but not all mammals are eutherian. There are six major divisions in mammalia, only three of which still exist; those that hatch out of eggs like reptiles (monotremes), marsupials, that are born in the fetal stage and complete their development inside the mother's pouch, and those that developed in a shell-like placenta and were born in the infant stage, as you were. Your own fetal development seems to reveal a similar track of development from a single cell to a tadpole-looking creature, then growing limbs and digits out of your finlike appendages, and finally outgrowing your own tail. Some would consider this an indication of ancestry. Especially since fetal snakes, for example, actually have legs, feet, and cute little toes, which are reabsorbed into the body before hatching, implying common descent.

You are a primate.
You have five fully-developed fingers and five fully-developed toes. Your toes are still prehensile and your hands can grasp with dexterity. You have only two lactal nipples and they are on your chest as opposed to your abdomen. These are pointless in males, which also have a pendulous penis and a well-developed ceacum or appendix, unlike all other mammals. Although your fangs are reduced in size, you do still have them along with some varied dentition indicative of primates exclusively. Your fur is thin and relatively sparse over most of your body. And your claws have been reduced to flat chitinous fingernails. Your fingers themselves have distinctive print patterns. You are also susceptible to AIDS and are mortally allergic to the toxin of the male funnel web spider of Australia (which is deadly to all primates, but only dangerous to primates, which is why you'd better beware of these spiders). And unlike all but one unrelated animal in all the world, your body cannot produce vitamin-C naturally and must have it supplemented in your diet, just as all other primates do. Nearly every one of these individual traits are unique only to primates exclusively. There is almost no other organism on Earth that matches any one of these descriptions separately, but absolutely all of the lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, apes, you, and I match all of them at once perfectly, implying common descent.

You are an ape.
Your tail is merely a stub of bones that don't even protrude outside the skin. Your dentition includes not only vestigial canines, but incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, and distinctive molars that come to five points interrupted by a "Y" shaped crevasse. This in addition to all of your other traits, like the dramatically increased range of motion in your shoulder, as well as a profound increase in cranial capacity and disposition toward a bipedal gait, indicates that you are not merely a vertebrate cranial chordate and a tetrapoidal placental mammalian primate, but you are more specifically an ape, and so was your mother before you.

Genetic similarity confirms morphological similarity rather conclusively, just as Charles Darwin himself predicted more than 140 years ago. While he knew nothing of DNA of course, he postulated that inheritable units of information must be contributed by either parent. He rather accurately predicted the discovery of DNA by illustrating the need for it. Our 98.4% to 99.4% identical genetic similarity explains why you have such social, behavioral, sexual, developmental, intellectual, and physical resemblance to a bonobo chimpanzee. Similarities that are not shared with any other organism on the planet. Hence you are both different species of the same literal family. In every respect, you are nearly identical.

You, sir, are an ape.
Nope, those are arbitrarily applied zoological categories invented by humans. And nobody has to care about them.

Whether or not humans have biological similarities to other creatures doesn't matter. The differences between humans and other creatures are far more significant.
 
AI Overview

View attachment 67585601
Male chimpanzees frequently use physical aggression and violence to sexually coerce females, with studies showing this behavior increases their chances of mating and siring offspring. This aggression can involve brutal attacks, hair pulling, and forceful separation to control female sexuality and limit their mating options with other males. While female chimpanzees try to mitigate this by mating with multiple males to create paternal uncertainty, male coercion can significantly influence female choice and reproductive success.

While we may share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, chimpanzees engage in mating behavior which would be consider "rape" if humans engaged in it, and rightfully be viewed as repulsive, even if it allowed someone to reproduce.

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

The fact that we value moral sentiments, such as "rape being wrong" more than we value biological impulses, such as the drive to reproduce, proves that humans are not animals.

It was only 50ish years ago that marital rape became a crime. For most of human history, rape has been acceptable.
 
I've already debunked it. You're just repeating what you've been indoctrinated to believe, but don't understand.

Zoology is an arbitrary set of categories invented by humans. You can categorize humans and animals an infinite number of ways based on an infinite number of similarities and differences.

So no, there is no reason whatsoever to insist on putting humans and other animals into the "apes" category. This simply emphasizes their biological similarities, while ignoring their vast differences.

Human consciousness, which is far more complex than that of animals, is far more of a defining feature of humans than are the biological similarities they share with animals.

So we most certainly can render zoological categorization mute and invalid, and put humans into a completely separate category based on their vast differences - one above the apes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom