798
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 49:
Line 49: + + + + + +
→Are humans animals?
:There's more here than meets the eye, and I'd rather not let liberals or anyone else sweep these issues under the rug. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:11, 20 January 2010 (EST)
:There's more here than meets the eye, and I'd rather not let liberals or anyone else sweep these issues under the rug. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:11, 20 January 2010 (EST)
::First I must point out that not all conservatives disagree with the evolutionary theory. I hold many conservative views and I accept fully evolution. For me conservatism is a political concept while evolution is a concept of science. Other may disagree of course, but that I where I am coming from, I just want to mention that so as the straightforward and honest in my views.
::Biologists assert human are animals based on biological definitions of what an animal is. In basic biological terms animals are eukaryotic, heterotrophic, lack rigid cell walls, are motile (even if at only certain sages of life), it is a very broad category and most people misinterpret the biological term with more colloquial (and often ill-defined) terms for the word. However humans do have all these attributes. The first person to come up with a taxonomic classification for animals was Carl Linnaeus and he place humans in that kingdom, note this was a century before the theory of evolution exited, Linnaeus was a creationist.
::In this view, souls and other metaphysical ideas are not considered as they are not part of biology. I do not object to writing about metaphysical concepts when it comes to humans (us) but those are separate subjects and should have their own entries. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:01, 20 January 2010 (EST)