Should humans be removed from animal classification?

[McCulloch]

Is it that [jcrawford] feels that other primates which had been classified as Homo but not Homo sapiens should really be re-classified as Homo sapiens?

All humans are classified as humans. To classify humans as anything non-human is to dehumanize them.

It appears as if jcrawford wishes to change the accepted biological classification currently used by science.

Question for debate, "Is there any scientific justification for removing humans from the classification of animals?"

JCrawford will correct me if I am wrong, but it appears as if he would change the accepted classification of life to something like this:

1. Animal
   1. Human
   2. Non-Human
      1. Vertebrates
         1. Fish
         2. Amphibians
         3. Reptiles
         4. Birds
         5. Mammals (excluding Humans)
            1. Primates (excluding Humans)
            2. Rodents
            3. Carnivores
            4. ...
      2. Invertibrates
2. Plant
3. ...

[McCulloch]

Your so-called "accepted classification" of life-forms should be annotated with the fact that it is only a neo-Darwinist phylogeny of life-forms. An American creationist phylogeny would not divide and separate our one human race and species into several self-proclaimed neo-Darwinist 'species,' but would limit the list of human species under the genus Homo to Human beings. We would also change the genus name to Human, since the Latin term Homo has several English translations and interpretive meanings, and doesn't apply to all English-speaking people in America who claim various ancestral origins for governmental purposes.

So you would accept the taxonomy if the genus name was changed from Homo to Human and if that genus were to contain only one species. Humans are still to be classified as Animals and within that Mammals and within that as Primates?

[ST88]

And lastly, it is inappropriate to use an English name when most of the people in the world aren't English, don't speak English, but do recognize the historical precedence of the Latin term. For most of them, the term "Homo" doesn't hold the same negative connotations it does for some of us, and you'd think that those of us who worry about it could learn a little Latin. "homo" means "same," so that the genus "Homo" would be those who are "the same" as us.

Not to take the wind out of your sails, Jose, but a little correction here. The "homo" in homonym is actually a Greek root meaning same. The "homo" in Homo sapiens is Latin meaning man. This proves your point even more. It's interesting that these homonyms (if you will) mean what they do considering that the word homosexual is a Greek-Latin hybrid (Greek homo, Latin sexus), and not a complete Latin derivative -- otherwise it wouldn't apply to women in the same way.

[jcrawford]

Is there any scientific justification for removing humans from the classification of animals?
Really, the only justification that I can see is that we're the ones doing the taxonomy. No other species is going to make a list like this.

I see no valid justification for treating humans differently on a scientific level. There is much to be lost for not considering ourselves part of the animal kingdom, including: the role of instinct on behavior, the efficacy of medications & medical procedures, comparative anatomy, genetic research... If we don't consider ourselves animals then there would be no reason to believe that medical animal research would lead to generalizable results. However you might feel about animal research, it has led to dramatic advances in reducing human suffering because results are generalizable to humans.

If it's true that the difference between man and animal is that God breathed life into man, then where's the problem? Even in terms of Genesis, we are meat puppets -- with bodies so similar to many animals that we should be able to at least compare our physical forms with the "lesser" life forms on this planet. That is, if our only difference is the immortal soul, then what's wrong with comparing the bodies?

The problem does not lie with strawman arguments that humans should be removed from an animal phylogeny in the Kingdom of Animalae, but in the fact that all Human beings and their fossilized human ancestors are not classified under the genus Human as unique Human beings but are instead separated and classified by neo-Darwinist race theorists into different 'species' of Homos solely for neo-Darwinist purposes of associating and identifying their first 'primitive species' of African people with common ancestors of African monkeys and apes.

Homo sapiens aren't a unique, distinct and separate human 'species' from people (human beings) who once lived in the Neander Valley so many years ago, any more than they are a special neo-Darwinist species of human beings who evolved from upright and erect African people who stood tall and were proud, dignified people in their own day.

Dividing our fully human ancestors up in an evolutionist continuum which gradually degrades and dehumanizes human ancestors in Africa to the non-human level of australopithicine apes and their ancestors is nothing more than a neo-Darwinist form of scientific racism regarding the national, ancestral and geographic origins of several diverse racial groups in America.

[jcrawford]

First, the neo-Darwinist phylogeny was started by Linneaus, well before there was Darwin or phylogeny.

Homo sapiens were not included in any of Linneaus's taxons. H. sapiens was only invented as a self-described neo-Darwinist 'species' after the first Neanderthal fossils were classified as a unique species by William King of Ireland.

Second, McCulloch's proposed phylogeny doesn't divide humans into different species. It excludes them from the classification.

Wrong. It only excludes Homo sapiens from classification as either human or animal.

And lastly, it is inappropriate to use an English name when most of the people in the world aren't English, don't speak English, but do recognize the historical precedence of the Latin term.

Wrong again. Most of the world's people don't understand one word of Latin and never heard of Homo sapiens.

For most of them, the term "Homo" doesn't hold the same negative connotations it does for some of us, and you'd think that those of us who worry about it could learn a little Latin.

There you go imposing Latinology on non-Latins.

"homo" means "same," so that the genus "Homo" would be those who are "the same" as us. Homozygous = the same alleles from Mom and Dad. Homoeopathic = the idea that one can treat a disease with the disease itself, albeit diluted until nothing is left. Homocentric = things with the same center. Homogenize = blend a mixture of stuff into the same common solution. Homonym = a word that is spelled or prounounced the same as another, but has a different meaning. One could go on, eventually reaching the homo... word you quibble with, but I suggest that those who worry about it don't have enough to do.

Who cares what "homo" means? What does it mean to be 'human' in neo-Darwinist lingo?

[jcrawford]

So you would accept the taxonomy if the genus name was changed from Homo to Human and if that genus were to contain only one species. Humans are still to be classified as Animals and within that Mammals and within that as Primates?

Yes, of course, happily, provided that we modern Neanderthal Americans and other human beings like us are also classified under the Human family instead of in the racist neo-Darwinist Hominidae family.

[jcrawford]

Not to take the wind out of your sails, Jose, but a little correction here. The "homo" in homonym is actually a Greek root meaning same. The "homo" in Homo sapiens is Latin meaning man. This proves your point even more. It's interesting that these homonyms (if you will) mean what they do considering that the word homosexual is a Greek-Latin hybrid (Greek homo, Latin sexus), and not a complete Latin derivative -- otherwise it wouldn't apply to women in the same way.

Thanks for the Greco-Latin etymologies, ST88. Do you have any idea what the name, Jose, means in Latin or Greek? Not that it would matter to most of us modern American Neanderthals.

[McCulloch]

So you would accept the taxonomy if the genus name was changed from Homo to Human and if that genus were to contain only one species. Humans are still to be classified as Animals and within that Mammals and within that as Primates?

Yes, of course, happily, provided that we modern Neanderthal Americans and other human beings like us are also classified under the Human family instead of in the racist neo-Darwinist Hominidae family.

I guess that the problem with this view is that the consensus of scientific opinion is that the Neanderthal and modern Homo sapiens are two distinct species. You apparently claim otherwise. Now if you would post the names and credentials of peer reviewed published scientists who support your view we might have some grounds for debate. However, without that, it appears as if your claim to Neanderthal ancestry is pure fantasy.

[Scrotum]

Who cares what "homo" means? What does it mean to be 'human' in neo-Darwinist lingo?

Eh.. Hopefully you do. Else this entire debate is pointless for you if you dont know the words used.

I know american education is pretty limited, but presumably they have explained the basis of ancient greek and latin... i hope...

[USIncognito]

Forgive the flippancy, but I'm giving anything the troll says the respect it deserves...

If I, as a proud Homo, who was born a Homo and didn't chose to be that way, am no longer defined as an animal does that mean:

- I can no longer wolf down my food
- I can't be crazy like or sly as a fox
- Should I get rich not call myself a fat cat
- Can I no longer do "it" doggie style
- If I lose my temper will I have to go "human s***", not "ape s***"
- Will knowledgeable people no longer be wise as owls
- Does Maria Bartelromo need to excise the appellations "Bull" and "Bear" from her on air commentary
- Must we call Vegas high rollers or exaggerators something other than "whales" or telling a "whale of a tale"
- Hung, mule... you get the rest

If I as a "primate, cognate and in your face" Homo am no longer considered an animal, I fear less for my self esteem than for the cost it will have on the English language.

[McCulloch]

from: Human Evolution Post 182: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:53 am

We are Homo sapiens by definition.

No, we're not. We are Human beings, by common definition.
Our species is human. Our genus is human. Our family is human. Our order is human. Our class is human and our phylum is human.

Working backwards:

• Phylum JCrawford claims without basis that there is (or there should be) a phylum for human. Phylum is the second largest group that scientists classify living things into. Each Kingdom (Animal, Plant, Fungi, Protist, Moneran) is split into phyla. The phylum that most scientists place humans is called chordata. This phylum consists of animals with spinal cords. I have not seen a human without a spinal chord. I think that most anatomists would concur that humans generally have spinal chords. Therefore, I cannot see any objective reason why JCrawford would exclude humans from the phylum chordata.
• Class JCrawford claims without basis that there is (or there should be) a class for human. Each phylum is split into classes. If JCrawford is correct that humans should be in their own phylum, then it follows that humans are the only class in the phylum. However, scientists normally classify humans in the class mammal in the phylum chordata. Mammals are a class of vertebrates which are warm-blooded and give birth to live young which they breast-feed. I have not seen any evidence that shows humans are not warm-blooded, do not give birth to live young and do not breast-feed. There appears to be no objective reason for excluding humans from the class of mammals.
• Order Scientists divide Classes into orders. JCrawford made the claim that humans belong in their own order. Scientists place humans in the order primate. Primates are mammals having large brains, eyes that look forward, and usually opposable thumbs—thumbs they can bend to help pick up objects. If JCrawford has any objective reason to exclude humans from this order, I must have missed it. We share a great number of physiological characteristics with the other primates.
• Family Hominidae is the family within primates that scientists usually classify humans. JCrawford has made the claim that humans should be classified in their own family rather than in a family with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Male hominids are larger than females, and they have opposable thumbs. Hominids are the largest primates and have developed forearms, but their legs are longer than their arms. Hominids lack a tail. Hominids also have a unique structure of their teeth, with canines that have not developed into tusks and broad incisors. I have seen thus far, no evidence why humans should not be included in this family of tail-less primates.
• Genus The class Hominidae has been divided by scientists into four genera. Gorilla, Pan, Pongo and Homo. At this level, JCrawford seems to be somewhat in agreement with scientists. Humans, according to him, should be in their own genus. However, it appears as if our genus should not be in the family of hominidae or in the order of primate. Nor should it be called Homo.
• Species JCrawford has objected to scientists' division of the genus Homo into species. He seems to claim that there is but one species within the genus Homo, where the consensus of scientists is that there is one existent species in the genus Homo and several extinct species. It is at this level that much of the debate has been occurring.

JCrawford has made six taxonometric claims about humans. He has provided little or no objective support for most of them. Will he either provide evidence to support these claims or admit that he was in error with regard to Phylum, Class, Order and Family? Then we can properly resume debate on Genus and Species.