Do you believe humans are mammals?

[tex-mex]

And for Spycar:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/85/why-do-men-have-nipples

 

[texasmama]

Prove it :D

 

Bill

 

Now I'd have to get really personal to do that!:lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

I have exclusively breastfed my kids, so, I'm voting yes from my belief in the power of my mammary glands.

:iagree::cheers2:

[Melinda in VT]

i don't think it is a matter of belief.

 

for example, i don't "believe" 2 + 2 = 4.

 

it follows the rules of mathematics. it is.

 

(although i must confess to having given birth to children who have attempted to convince me otherwise ;)).

 

likewise, there is a definition of what is a mammal and what isn't.

 

here's a definition (from wikipedia, as it was the most concise that came up early on):

air-breathing vertebrate animals characterized by the possession of endothermy, hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands functional in mothers with young.

 

homo sapiens sapiens fits the definition.

 

hth,

ann

 

eta: the current definition doesn't include live young, as the monotremes lay eggs but are classified as mammals.

 

:iagree: Belief has nothing to do with it.

[Moxie]

Wow, six pages while I ate dinner!

 

My kids are in a science class with a friend. They are using BJU Science 6. I hate it with the white hot passion of 1000 suns but it has started many interesting discussions (the reason they are in the class is a long, boring story). My kids are dino-loving, evolution-believing Catholics. This book has really opened our eyes to what some people believe.

 

Anyway, the book says we share traits with mammals but we're in a class all our own.

 

I had honestly never ever heard of such a thing. How could a child that is taught this ever go on to study science in college??

[Ohdanigirl]

Now I'd have to get really personal to do that!:lol:

 

uh hum, :rofl:

[teachermom2834]

:D Um. NO. I had no idea I had picked a controversial topic. I seriously thought it was going to be a fun zoo animal visiting class. I did some serious "undoing" that semester. :glare:

 

We still attend but we pick things like gym, legos, cooking, photography, etc. Things that are pleasant fun extras & no hot buttons. :tongue_smilie:

 

I ran into this but my kid was actually taking a history class when this came up.

 

Dropped the class.

[ktgrok]

 

eta: the current definition doesn't include live young, as the monotremes lay eggs but are classified as mammals.

 

oops, thanks! stupid weird animals messing up my memorized definition from grade school!

[LittleIzumi]

I have exclusively breastfed my kids, so, I'm voting yes from my belief in the power of my mammary glands.

 

:iagree::iagree: Mammary glands, check. Warm-blooded, check. Hair, check. Vertebrate, check. Air-breathing, check. I hadn't seen three ear bones attached to mammal but I've got those, too. Mammal!

[kitten18]

Yes

[Catwoman]

Wow, six pages while I ate dinner!

 

My kids are in a science class with a friend. They are using BJU Science 6. I hate it with the white hot passion of 1000 suns but it has started many interesting discussions (the reason they are in the class is a long, boring story). My kids are dino-loving, evolution-believing Catholics. This book has really opened our eyes to what some people believe.

 

Anyway, the book says we share traits with mammals but we're in a class all our own.

 

I had honestly never ever heard of such a thing. How could a child that is taught this ever go on to study science in college??

 

 

Apparently, the college of choice would need to be Bob Jones University. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

I believe we are mammals.

[a27mom]

Wow, six pages while I ate dinner!

 

L

 

Anyway, the book says we share traits with mammals but we're in a class all our own.

 

I had honestly never ever heard of such a thing. How could a child that is taught this ever go on to study science in college??

 

 

I got excellent grades in all 6 of my biology classes at a highly rated secular university. When one understands what she believes and why she believes it, it is not difficult to learn what others believe with great understanding as well.

 

It is important to be open to learning what others believe though. :)

[ktgrok]

Ok I'll bite.

 

I believe that humans are distinctly different from animals and therefore should be considered outside of the taxonomy used for animals.

 

This is based on my religious belief, that our creation in God's image separates us from animals. Since we are not an animal I would not call myself a mammal.

 

 

But...according to taxnomy we are animals, we meet the definition. It's just a descriptive term that means certain things, none of which have religion implication. You can have a religious belief that humans are different because they have souls, or because they are made in God's image, but being classified as an animal doesn't address that or deny that. Humans also have language, which mice don't have, but we are both animals, because the definition of animal has nothing to do with language. Just as it has nothing to do with souls, God, or anything else like that.

[NittanyJen]

Just for Bill: Give a man a pituitary tumor, and he will lactate.

 

As for the mammal thingie: It's a taxonomic chart of all living organisms. I consider myself to be a living organism, or at least I appear to be alive most days.

 

Are we multicellular? Yes. Are our cells nucleated? Yes. Do we exhibit bilateral symmetry and differentiated tissues? Yes. Do we have a backbone? Yes. Therefore we are vertebrates. Do we give birth to live young? Do we produce milk? Do we have fur or hair? yes yes yes. Therefore, on the chart, we fall in line as mammals. QED.

 

 

If you want to extend the taxonomic chart further, bully for you. Keep in mind that the definition of science is that it is testable. I am a Christian, but I consider that to be a matter of faith, not of science; my faith is not "testable" by the scientific method and therefore issues such as whether or not any given organism has a soul do not belong, for me, in matters of scientific taxonomy, as they are not testable scientifically, and confounding the two is like asking whether the wind is happy.

[Snow]

Humans also have language, which mice don't have, but we are both animals, because the definition of animal has nothing to do with language. Just as it has nothing to do with souls, God, or anything else like that.

 

:iagree:

[ktgrok]

OK, I will state my opinion, but I do not want to start a fight. This is just what I believe, I am not forcing opinions or beliefs on anyone else. While I believe humans share characteristics with mammals, I do not believe that humans are animals because in the Biblical account of creation:

a) God spoke the animals into being

b) God created Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into him

c) Adam is made in the image of God and the animals are not

d) Humans have souls, animals do not.

 

God mentions animals, but not protozoa or fungi. Does that mean that conservative Christians can't believe in fungi or protozoa, because they are not mentioned in the creation story? Or do we just acknowledge that when God was doing the Genesis stuff he wasn't doing it according to modern taxonomy.

[kitten18]

I have exclusively breastfed my kids, so, I'm voting yes from my belief in the power of my mammary glands.

:lol:

 

Wow, six pages while I ate dinner!

 

My kids are in a science class with a friend. They are using BJU Science 6. I hate it with the white hot passion of 1000 suns but it has started many interesting discussions (the reason they are in the class is a long, boring story). My kids are dino-loving, evolution-believing Catholics. This book has really opened our eyes to what some people believe.

 

Anyway, the book says we share traits with mammals but we're in a class all our own.

 

I had honestly never ever heard of such a thing. How could a child that is taught this ever go on to study science in college??

Oh boy. Are you aware of the BJU beliefs about Catholics?

There is no way I would allow my children to use a BJU text.

[Parrothead]

:lol:

 

 

Oh boy. Are you aware of the BJU beliefs about Catholics?

There is no way I would allow my children to use a BJU text.

:iagree:But, I know you have your reasons. I can only imagine the amount of brain bleach you have to use.

[Snow]

:lol:

 

 

Oh boy. Are you aware of the BJU beliefs about Catholics?

There is no way I would allow my children to use a BJU text.

 

They have a formal position on Catholics? Sheesh! People are so weird.

[Parrothead]

They have a formal position on Catholics? Sheesh! People are so weird.

Oh, yeah.

 

Search the forums. This has been discussed in depth before.

[kitten18]

:iagree:But, I know you have your reasons. I can only imagine the amount of brain bleach you have to use.

Yes. I don't mean to sound critical, just want to make sure you are aware.:001_smile:

[delaney]

Bill the only thing I could think of to answer you about mammary glands was this movie line from Meet the Fockers

I have nipples Greg, can you milk me? :lol:

[Ellesmere]

Wow, six pages while I ate dinner!

 

My kids are in a science class with a friend. They are using BJU Science 6. I hate it with the white hot passion of 1000 suns but it has started many interesting discussions (the reason they are in the class is a long, boring story). My kids are dino-loving, evolution-believing Catholics. This book has really opened our eyes to what some people believe.

 

Anyway, the book says we share traits with mammals but we're in a class all our own.

 

I had honestly never ever heard of such a thing. How could a child that is taught this ever go on to study science in college??

 

My sympathies.

 

In answer to last question, a child either goes on to BJ University (as mentioned, or to a sister school) or successfully flees. Happily, the latter does happen. And then he or she swears never to touch a BJU text again.

[twoxcell]

As far as classification goes yes, but I do not think of humans as equal to animals. We are in a class of our own so to speak.;)

[Mom-ninja.]

I don't have fur either.

 

Bill

 

My dh does. :tongue_smilie:

[twoxcell]

um,mammal is just a descriptive term for a creature that gives live birth, lactates, and has fur. We give birth to live young, lactate, and have fur, therefore we are mammals. There is no belief or unbelief about it.

:iagree:Oh and by the way we don't use BJU.

Kinda funny the post above me said a similar thing to what I said. I didn't read the whole thread first.

[Slartibartfast]

My dh does. :tongue_smilie:

 

Mine too! :lol:

 

Bill, sorry you may be an amphibean.

[stripe]

Ladies, I do believe that is the most quoted I've ever been on here!

 

I figured the real question was whether humans are animals.

 

I have to tell you, I have seen a bit too much online about men who breastfeed. I know some of you wanted to scrub your eyes after I find that old man who likes to wear cheerleader skirts and sells them online, so I'm just warning you...

 

From 1995 Discover magazine

http://discovermagazine.com/1995/feb/fathersmilk468

 

An article about a Swedish dad trying to stimulate lactation

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/09/04/father-uses-breast-pump-in-hopes-of-lactating/

 

And personal testimonials such as

 

 

While my husband David had no interest in nursing our son, we both were intrigued with the idea.

 

...Although Raphael had written about milk production through nipple stimulation, perhaps, we thought, David could do it simply through suggestion. He began telling himself that he would lactate, and within a week, one of his breasts swelled up and milk began dripping out. When we excitedly showed my father (a physician) David’s breast he said, “Obviously there’s something physiologically wrong with David.” The fact that David had willed himself to do this, did not impress him

 

From http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/misc-articles/milkmen-fathers-who-breastfeed/ which contains lots of other citations including a case of spontaneous lactation by a newly widowed father too poor for a wet nurse that is supposedly from the Talmud, and a photo of a visibly male goat with swollen udders

 

Then she taught the children to spell amphibean. I kid you not.

 

Reminds me of The Borrowers...

[Lovedtodeath]

I got excellent grades in all 6 of my biology classes at a highly rated secular university. When one understands what she believes and why she believes it, it is not difficult to learn what others believe with great understanding as well.

 

It is important to be open to learning what others believe though. :)

[mommymilkies]

There are really people who don't believe this????

[a27mom]

But...according to taxnomy we are animals, we meet the definition. It's just a descriptive term that means certain things, none of which have religion implication. You can have a religious belief that humans are different because they have souls, or because they are made in God's image, but being classified as an animal doesn't address that or deny that. Humans also have language, which mice don't have, but we are both animals, because the definition of animal has nothing to do with language. Just as it has nothing to do with souls, God, or anything else like that.

 

Yes according to taxonomy we are animals. I happen to believe taxonomy "makes an error" here. I do believe there are "religious" implications to classifying humans with animals. I would prefer not to elaborate on that because it will just lead to other hot topics.

 

Now I want to clarify, if one is teaching taxonomy and does not point out that humans are classified as mammals "according to taxonomy" they are making an error. But it in a class where a religious perspective is appropriate there is an argument against taxonomy that could be presented.

 

Also I just want to note that I am not defending BJU. I have never looked at it, and would likely never use it, i have only heard of it. it does not sound like something i would agree with. I also prefer to use secular curriculum and incorporate a Biblical perspective.

 

I really hope this is coming across in the calm matter of fact tone that my mind is in. I am really not trying to argue, just explaining the point of view.

[bookfiend]

Yes according to taxonomy we are animals. I happen to believe taxonomy "makes an error" here. I do believe there are "religious" implications to classifying humans with animals. I would prefer not to elaborate on that because it will just lead to other hot topics.

 

Now I want to clarify, if one is teaching taxonomy and does not point out that humans are classified as mammals "according to taxonomy" they are making an error. But it in a class where a religious perspective is appropriate there is an argument against taxonomy that could be presented.

 

Also I just want to note that I am not defending BJU. I have never looked at it, and would likely never use it, i have only heard of it. it does not sound like something i would agree with. I also prefer to use secular curriculum and incorporate a Biblical perspective.

 

I really hope this is coming across in the calm matter of fact tone that my mind is in. I am really not trying to argue, just explaining the point of view.

 

:iagree: taxonomy is just a classification system and under this classification, I am a mammal. Here is the verse that argues against classifying persons and animals in the same category.

 

1Cr 15:39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

 

 

 

This is all that I will be posting as I am also not interested in debate tonight.

[Laurie4b]

Some are reptiles: lounge lizards, serpent-tongued, etc.

[Caitilin]

Some are reptiles: lounge lizards, serpent-tongued, etc.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Pamela H in Texas]

I believe that humans are distinctly different from animals and therefore should be considered outside of the taxonomy used for animals.

 

I believe that humans are different than animals also. I believe it is a very important difference. And I AGREE that humans *should* be outside the taxonomy used for animals.

 

You could disagree that *should* be the definition; but what is, is.

 

ETA: Katie stated this better, I think:

But...according to taxnomy we are animals, we meet the definition. It's just a descriptive term that means certain things, none of which have religion implication. You can have a religious belief that humans are different because they have souls, or because they are made in God's image, but being classified as an animal doesn't address that or deny that. Humans also have language, which mice don't have, but we are both animals, because the definition of animal has nothing to do with language. Just as it has nothing to do with souls, God, or anything else like that.

Edited November 8, 2012 by 2J5M9K

[swellmomma]

yes

[Barb_]

:iagree: taxonomy is just a classification system and under this classification, I am a mammal. Here is the verse that argues against classifying persons and animals in the same category.

 

1Cr 15:39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

 

 

But, but...this is poetry, not science. If so, where are the frogs? Surely their flesh is different from fish, birds, and humans? Reptiles? As Kgrok mentioned upthread, fungi? Protozoa? Men are surely different than any other animal in the poetic sense, and further down the taxonomy also in the scientific sense. But higher up, where we are separating animals into large classes, humans meet the qualifications for mammals. Just like birds, fish, men and animals are all in the same kingdom, Anamalia, regardless of the consistency of our flesh. Large groups in taxonomy are all about how organisms are similar, not how they are different. The differences take us further down the taxonomic sequence. It is not a value judgement on the elevated status of the human spirit, it is just a scientific classification based on characteristics anyone can interpret with his senses. Humans may be different in the poetic sense or the spiritual sense, and I do believe our sentience not to mention our language abilities set us apart in the scientific sense. But that doesn't mean humans are not organisms and don't belong on the taxonomy. Set us apart at the end of the taxonomy, not within our major grouping. No matter how one tortures the logic, that just isn't science.

[Spy Car]

Just for Bill: Give a man a pituitary tumor, and he will lactate.

 

Pituitary tumors: the difference between Man and Mammal :D

 

Bill

[Julie Smith]

Ladies, I do believe that is the most quoted I've ever been on here!

 

I figured the real question was whether humans are animals.

 

I have to tell you, I have seen a bit too much online about men who breastfeed. I know some of you wanted to scrub your eyes after I find that old man who likes to wear cheerleader skirts and sells them online, so I'm just warning you...

 

From 1995 Discover magazine

http://discovermagazine.com/1995/feb/fathersmilk468

 

An article about a Swedish dad trying to stimulate lactation

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/09/04/father-uses-breast-pump-in-hopes-of-lactating/

 

And personal testimonials such as

 

 

While my husband David had no interest in nursing our son, we both were intrigued with the idea.

 

...Although Raphael had written about milk production through nipple stimulation, perhaps, we thought, David could do it simply through suggestion. He began telling himself that he would lactate, and within a week, one of his breasts swelled up and milk began dripping out. When we excitedly showed my father (a physician) David’s breast he said, “Obviously there’s something physiologically wrong with David.” The fact that David had willed himself to do this, did not impress him

 

From http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/misc-articles/milkmen-fathers-who-breastfeed/ which contains lots of other citations including a case of spontaneous lactation by a newly widowed father too poor for a wet nurse that is supposedly from the Talmud, and a photo of a visibly male goat with swollen udders

 

 

Reminds me of The Borrowers...

 

Where were you Stripe, on my recent thread about a situation with a new born baby and the mother was not around to feed the baby?

 

The thread would have been so much better with you around. :)

Edited November 8, 2012 by Julie Smith

[a27mom]

But, but...this is poetry, not science. If so, where are the frogs? Surely their flesh is different from fish, birds, and humans? Reptiles? As Kgrok mentioned upthread, fungi? Protozoa? Men are surely different than any other animal in the poetic sense, and further down the taxonomy also in the scientific sense. But higher up, where we are separating animals into large classes, humans meet the qualifications for mammals. Just like birds, fish, men and animals are all in the same kingdom, Anamalia, regardless of the consistency of our flesh. Large groups in taxonomy are all about how organisms are similar, not how they are different. The differences take us further down the taxonomic sequence. It is not a value judgement on the elevated status of the human spirit, it is just a scientific classification based on characteristics anyone can interpret with his senses. Humans may be different in the poetic sense or the spiritual sense, and I do believe our sentience not to mention our language abilities set us apart in the scientific sense. But that doesn't mean humans are not organisms and don't belong on the taxonomy. Set us apart at the end of the taxonomy, not within our major grouping. No matter how one tortures the logic, that just isn't science.

 

Maybe part of my ease with not including humans as mammals is that I spent time w/ a fabulous and absolutely non-Christian neuroanatomy professor who waxed on about how Linnaean taxonomy isn't science either, or at least not anymore. Of course that would lead to the statement that mammals don't exist at all which is getting a bit heady for this time of night and this type of platform.

 

Here is an interesting article about the validity of Linnaean taxonomy http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973966/. It is pro Linnaean but as it points out traditional taxonomy is not sacred even amongst those who we all would be willing to classify as scientists.

 

Thanks for the interesting discussion. It's getting late and I am tired so I will be bowing out now. I am sure by tomorrow this will topic will be appropriately cold.

 

God bless

[jentancalann]

But, but...this is poetry, not science. .

 

 

1 Corinthians is poetry?

[OrganicAnn]

Don't make me show my mammary glands to prove I'm a mammal.

[Aelwydd]

1 Corinthians is poetry?

 

Poetry, poetic language, lyricism -- that is, dealing in subjective language while conveying metaphysical truths.

 

It is not scientific or objective language being used, because there is nothing described or explained that can be observed or measured by the five senses.

[A.Balaban]

Don't make me show my mammary glands to prove I'm a mammal.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Aelwydd]

Don't make me show my mammary glands to prove I'm a mammal.

 

I've got a lovely set of beads for the first poster willing to flout her mammalian stuff. :D

[Spy Car]

This thread is getting good :D

 

Bill

[NittanyJen]

Pituitary tumors: the difference between Man and Mammal :D

 

Bill

 

:lol:

[zaichiki]

The kids had a co-op class on animal classification & the teacher instructed that humans were not mammals. That they shared characteristics but were exclusive & above the animal kingdom.

 

It was the first I'd ever heard of such a thing & was like :ohmy:.

 

Then she taught the children to spell amphibean. I kid you not.

 

So, apparently, it is up for discussion somewhere. Just not at my house. We spell according to the dictionary as well.

 

Actually, I think worse than the "humans are not mammals" instruction in an animal classification class was the spelling mistake. I mean, the teacher *did* say humans" shared characteristics" of mammals, so that could be an easy clarification for your kiddos. BUT then the teacher went ahead and taught a MISspelling. MY kids would lose faith in the teacher at that moment. They'd likely be suspect of the accuracy of any of her future teaching (because she couldn't be bothered to make sure her spelling was correct before actively teaching it).

 

I'd have to take them out of that class that very day.

[Aelwydd]

Well, you know a man came up with the mammalian classification thing since it's all about the boobs. :lol: