798
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + +
no edit summary
::Couldn't the article have the standard scientific meaning of ''animal'', and then state that "colloquially, however, 'animal' is usually taken to mean any non-human animal...etc"? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:37, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::Couldn't the article have the standard scientific meaning of ''animal'', and then state that "colloquially, however, 'animal' is usually taken to mean any non-human animal...etc"? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:37, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::Or, you could have it the other way around, put the Biblical definitions first, and then add that the scientific definition of ''animal'' is any multicellular (etc, etc...), including humans. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:45, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::Or, you could have it the other way around, put the Biblical definitions first, and then add that the scientific definition of ''animal'' is any multicellular (etc, etc...), including humans. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:45, 16 January 2010 (EST)
:I find the above statements interesting considering the human bring article that is linked to says: ""Human being" is a term for a human that emphasizes the role of a human not merely as a social animal, but a thinking person." We are social animals, we by all scientific definitions are part of the animal kingdom, this article ignores the established biological taxonomies completely while taking one author's religious views as undisputed fact, when it is obviously not. That is not encyclopedic, nor is it honest. Instead it should be noted in the article that virtually all scientific classification in biology has our species as part of the animal kingdom. The reasons are clear, because we share all the basic definitions in biology of what falls into the kingdom Animalia. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 19:12, 16 January 2010 (EST)