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. ...

[Grumpy]

McCulloch et al

Rather than repeat myself and to avoid spamming please see my post in Kitzmiller vs. Dover PA. This racist idea of human superiority must be pointed out every time it raises it ugly, elitist head.

Grumpy

[McCulloch]

McCulloch et al

Rather than repeat myself and to avoid spamming please see my post in Kitzmiller vs. Dover PA. This racist idea of human superiority must be pointed out every time it raises it ugly, elitist head.

Grumpy

For the readers' convenience a link to said post: Kitzmiller vs. Dover, PA

[McCulloch]

Primate Taxomomy
IMGT, the international ImMunoGeneTics information system® http://imgt.cines.fr (Initiator and coordinator: Marie-Paule Lefranc, Montpellier, France).
Here is a standard scientific primate taxonomy which JCrawford seems to object to.
Edited to replace wide graphic with link to wide graphic.

[Cathar1950]

I think it is humans then everything else.
Humans are made in God's image.
Just find out who looks like God and the rest are not humans.
What kind of nose does God have? How big are God's ears?

[Jose]

Well, you know, the classification was made on the basis of ordinary, garden-variety anatomical characteristics. They are neatly summarized here. It is very difficult to escape the obvious similarities. Should we, perhaps, classify humans among the cabbages? Wouldn't this be difficult to justify?

[Cathar1950]

classify humans among the cabbages?

I can almost see a thread in the making.
I can see no reason to remove humans from the animal classification. It seems so obvious. I like cabbage and don't want to stop eating it. It is great with corned beef. I better get out the crockpot.

[ST88]

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?

[jcrawford]

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)

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.

[Jose]

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.

Hmmm... First, the neo-Darwinist phylogeny was started by Linneaus, well before there was Darwin or phylogeny. Second, McCulloch's proposed phylogeny doesn't divide humans into different species. It excludes them from the classification. 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. 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.