Do you believe humans are mammals?

[Lolly]

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. :)

 

:iagree:

 

The first portion of the definition of mammals includes the word animal. If a human is not an animal, they cannot be a mammal. I believe humans are a separate kingdom. However, that would require science to have a belief that is religiously based. Not gonna happen, so humans are stuck into the animal kingdom and classified as mammals. By the scientific definition, it is where we would fit. I have no problems with that scientifically speaking. When dealing with scientific matters, I have no problems setting my religious definitions aside and calling humans animals and mammals in order to study them. However, I know it is just a way to deal with lining the world up for charts and study. In reality, I do not consider us to be animals. Honestly, I am surprised that so few people cannot look at an issue from two different viewpoints. Some of the people I look up to most academically were my college science professors (non-secular school) who are able to see both sides and accept them both. The Linnaeus classification system is simply a means to organize the world into a nice neat chart. Nature hasn't been quite as accommodating (I mean, who believes that platypus really fits in with mammals? They had to change the definition to include it!), which is why the system has changed since I was in college.:glare: Had to relearn the darned thing with different answers when my kids hit high school!

[KungFuPanda]

Ah, I never thought of that, that people would have that impression.

 

I read a very exhaustive (exhausting) bio of Linnaeus to my kids (by Margaret Anderson), so I knew that Linnaeus' father was a minister and plant enthusiast, and his mother's father was a minister as well. In fact, he was a theologian as well. He was employed as a professor of medicine, incidentally, at the university where he worked. Indeed, many scientists of history were quite devout, whether they were Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or something else, and I think it is really unfortunate when religious people assume there is some fundamental divide, or conflict, between themselves and scientists. The whole misperception that scientists throughout history have all been somehow hostile to religion alternately baffles and unfuriates me.

 

Darwin was a minister :D

[Amy in NH]

I don't think it's a matter of belief. Humans are mammals. That is called a fact.

 

From Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Definition of MAMMAL

: any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans

 

Origin of MAMMAL

New Latin Mammalia, from Late Latin, neuter plural of mammalis of the breast, from Latin mamma breast

First Known Use: 1826

 

Hmm.

Backbone: Check.

Placental: Check.

Nourish Young with Milk from Mammary Glands: Check

Skin has hair: Check

 

Yep. Definitely Mammals.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Amy in NH

[Cricket]

I'm not trying to pick on you or your specific beliefs, because I don't know what they are and I wouldn't presume to guess.

 

But I see too much of of the idea (in general) that things that disagree with someone's religious faith simply haven't been proved true by science rather than a willingness to re-examine one's faith in light of scientific understanding.

 

When scientific evidence is dismissed as an attempt by the devil to mislead people, I hold little hope that certain people would ever be open to an actual scientific examination of things.

 

Of course not all scientific ideas of the past have held true. But these days, with the tools we have, we are far less likely to hold forth an idea that seems true even though it has not been adequately tested. In fact, as I'm sure you know, by definition a scientific theory has been proved.

 

I have a religious faith that I hold very deeply. But I simply don't see how science and faith need to commingle and support each other in order to both have credence. Imo, science and faith speak to very different things. I believe in each.

 

Tara

 

I see your point and mostly agree. I don't like when Christians think science is somehow the devil's tool to lead us astray. If God is the designer of the universe, then He is also God of science, which is simply a way of discovering how the universe works. If He is a God of truth, then science and faith will not disagree or contradict each other. I don't think science and faith NEED to co-mingle but I think they will naturally if they are Truth.

 

I think we delude ourselves a little though if we think we are less likely these days to believe something that may not be true. Science has made some people extremely arrogant. It seems to me that the more we learn, the more we should realize how incredibly little we know. :001_smile:

[Unicorn.]

Yes, they are animals.

 

No, they are not acceptable as an ingredient in vegan cupcakes.

 

Cupcakes, however, are an acceptable snack for ogling, errr, observing, handsome gentleman wearing kilts.

[LizzyBee]

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??

 

FWIW, I know families that use BJU and Apologia, and their kids have done fine in secular colleges, including Science classes. :001_smile:

 

ETA: To answer the OP's questions, yes, I believe humans are mammals.

Edited November 8, 2012 by LizzyBee

[LizzyBee]

Darwin was a minister :D

 

Didn't he, over the course of his adult life, become an agnostic or athiest? Maybe that's a false impression that I picked up somewhere; if so, feel free to correct me. :D

 

ETA: I googled and found an excerpt from his biography. http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

 

The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

Edited November 8, 2012 by LizzyBee

[curlylocks]

FWIW, I know families that use BJU and Apologia, and their kids have done fine in secular colleges, including Science classes. :001_smile:

 

:iagree:

[Carrie75]

I opened this thread just to see the tags.

[Denise in Florida]

Yes. I didn't know that question was up for debate. Now I'm curious about what you read.

 

:iagree::iagree: yep

[EKS]

No. (Only joking.)

Edited November 10, 2012 by EKS

[LizzyBee]

:iagree:

 

Also, too many people think they can wrap their heads around another person's thoughts on a complex matter based on one paragraph on a message board, when truly understanding one another would likely require more of a sit down over dinner or tea over several days.

 

:iagree: Do you think SWB would consider hosting a WTM conference about these matters??? :D

Edited November 8, 2012 by LizzyBee

[KidsHappen]

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

 

:iagree: Ditto. I have spent years of my life putting my mammary glands to their proper use so I would say I am a mammal.

[QuirkyKapers]

Yes to the op's question

[KidsHappen]

Man :D

 

Bill

 

Ah, but men still have mammary glands and they can sometimes produce milk due to other medical problems and they can be induced to produce milk with some effort so I say still mammal.

[KidsHappen]

 

I am going to assume that is praying hands but warn that it really looks like something else. ;)

[Walking-Iris]

I get others beliefs. I honestly, truly do. But I would just like to say that a humans ability to learn and create, write and read etc. as well as our ability to have complex religious beliefs has to do with our brain. Differences in brains have nothing to do with being a mammal or not.

 

A whale can swim and make beautiful noises/sounds that a donkey cannot. And yet both are mammals!

 

A cat can learn to use a litter box and a squirrel likely can't. Yet both are mammals!

 

A bear knows to hibernate and dog does not. I could go on. That has to do with what each species is capable of learning. And yet all give birth the live young and produce milk for that infant.

 

Humans are mammals.

[KungFuPanda]

Didn't he, over the course of his adult life, become an agnostic or athiest? Maybe that's a false impression that I picked up somewhere; if so, feel free to correct me. :D

 

ETA: I googled and found an excerpt from his biography. http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

 

My statement remains true. :D

[a27mom]

I'm not trying to pick on you or your specific beliefs, because I don't know what they are and I wouldn't presume to guess.

 

But I see too much of of the idea (in general) that things that disagree with someone's religious faith simply haven't been proved true by science rather than a willingness to re-examine one's faith in light of scientific understanding.

 

When scientific evidence is dismissed as an attempt by the devil to mislead people, I hold little hope that certain people would ever be open to an actual scientific examination of things.

 

Of course not all scientific ideas of the past have held true. But these days, with the tools we have, we are far less likely to hold forth an idea that seems true even though it has not been adequately tested. In fact, as I'm sure you know, by definition a scientific theory has been proved.

 

I have a religious faith that I hold very deeply. But I simply don't see how science and faith need to commingle and support each other in order to both have credence. Imo, science and faith speak to very different things. I believe in each.

 

Tara

 

I definitely don't see science as a tool of the devil. And believe me I get highly upset w/ "Christians" who support that idea.

 

I see your point and mostly agree. I don't like when Christians think science is somehow the devil's tool to lead us astray. If God is the designer of the universe, then He is also God of science, which is simply a way of discovering how the universe works. If He is a God of truth, then science and faith will not disagree or contradict each other. I don't think science and faith NEED to co-mingle but I think they will naturally if they are Truth.

 

I think we delude ourselves a little though if we think we are less likely these days to believe something that may not be true. Science has made some people extremely arrogant. It seems to me that the more we learn, the more we should realize how incredibly little we know. :001_smile:

 

Yes. Thank you. I don't think you have to have a faith to do science. But in the case of my faith, I can not separate it from anything in my life, not from science, not from doing the dishes even.

 

Anyway it is interesting that people are still responding to this. I didn't realize that people care so much about taxonomy that a different point of view was so intolerable. I never had such a negative response when I discussed these things w/ friends who are scientists. (I assure you they are real ones w/ PhD's from well known secular universities). Guess it is the platform of the discussion. And possibly many of you have been attacked by people who are anti-science in the name of religion. It makes me sad that others behave that way.

 

Btw since you can't read tone. Please understand that I am quite calm, just slightly bemused and amused at the intensity of response.

[K&Rs Mom]

I am going to assume that is praying hands but warn that it really looks like something else. ;)

 

I thought it was the two happy faces high-fiving. But now that you point it out, oh my.... :lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

I am going to assume that is praying hands but warn that it really looks like something else. ;)

I thought it was a high five. It was one of many that came up upon googling "high five smiley"

[NittanyJen]

I am going to assume that is praying hands but warn that it really looks like something else. ;)

 

. . . well . . . they do have pretty big grins . . .

[momto2Cs]

What else would they be?

 

:iagree:

 

Where would amphibeans fit in on the taxonomy charts? Or human beans for that matter, which I have also heard of?

Edited November 9, 2012 by momto2Cs

[StephanieZ]

BELIEVE?

 

Yes, I also believe that the world is round.

 

Humans ARE mammals. It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of scientific fact.

[4ofus]

:iagree:

 

Where would amphibeans fit in on the taxonomy charts? Or human beans for that matter, which I have also heard of?

 

Oh, human beans!! The most delicious of all giant foods! Much yummier than those vile snozcumbers. Am I right, or am I left?

[WishboneDawn]

BELIEVE?

 

Yes, I also believe that the world is round.

 

Humans ARE mammals. It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of scientific fact.

 

Sort of. It's a matter of scientific classification. We're classified as mammals by a certain model of looking at the classification of life and that model serves us well. But it's not fact in the sense that a ball, dropped from a certain height, will fall or be pulled toward the earth; a natural rule that would exist without us.

 

You're right that it's not a matter of belief. But it's more a matter of whether you accept the evidence for the model that classification provides. I do.

 

I'll also say that that is why when you move from science to philosophy or theology you can feel free to scrap that model for another since your concerns, arguments and frame may have changed.

 

I do not think that means that you can give religious reasons for not buying into the science behind the classification system though.

 

If any of that makes sense.

[Monkey Island Academy]

I opened this thread just to see the tags.

 

:lol:

[StephanieZ]

Sort of. It's a matter of scientific classification. We're classified as mammals by a certain model of looking at the classification of life and that model serves us well. But it's not fact in the sense that a ball, dropped from a certain height, will fall or be pulled toward the earth; a natural rule that would exist without us.

 

You're right that it's not a matter of belief. But it's more a matter of whether you accept the evidence for the model that classification provides. I do.

 

I'll also say that that is why when you move from science to philosophy or theology you can feel free to scrap that model for another since your concerns, arguments and frame may have changed.

 

I do not think that means that you can give religious reasons for not buying into the science behind the classification system though.

 

If any of that makes sense.

 

Of course whether humans are mammals depends on the definition of mammal. There are NO scientific definitions of mammals that do not include humans.

 

This line of argument would also allow us to argue over whether the word 'ball' (when used in the sentence "The child picked up the ball.") is a noun. We could say, well, it depends on whether we buy into the grammar classification system in use . . .

 

And, we could also argue over the defnition of "is" . . .

 

Humans ARE mammals by EVERY (scientific and not religiously corrupted) defintion of the word mammal.

 

OF COURSE people are more than welcome to have their own religious beliefs and abandon scientific facts. Most religions require just that! :)

 

Nonetheless, on a board dedicated to education, when asked, I will assert that humans are definitely mammals -- using the conventional definitions of each of those words.

 

(And, I have a BS & MS in biology, so I am quite confident in my scientific background to argue this, even though I believe that any well educated 8th grader should be able to conclusively argue that humans are mammals.)

[Catwoman]

Cupcakes, however, are an acceptable snack for ogling, errr, observing, handsome gentleman wearing kilts.

 

Finally, someone mentions something that has actually been scientifically proven as an absolute fact! :D

 

I thank you on the behalf of all of the scientifically-minded, cupcake-loving, kilt fans here on the forum. Keep up the good work. :thumbup:

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Sort of. It's a matter of scientific classification. We're classified as mammals by a certain model of looking at the classification of life and that model serves us well. But it's not fact in the sense that a ball, dropped from a certain height, will fall or be pulled toward the earth; a natural rule that would exist without us.

That's what I was thinking!

[momto2Cs]

Oh, human beans!! The most delicious of all giant foods! Much yummier than those vile snozcumbers. Am I right, or am I left?

 

:smilielol5: Exactly what I was thinking!

[Julie Smith]

Oh, human beans!! The most delicious of all giant foods! Much yummier than those vile snozcumbers. Am I right, or am I left?

 

You got to love that giant, ... even if he wears thongs.

[KungFuPanda]

Leave it to Jiminy Cricket to explain it in a way that makes EVERYBODY happy:

 

 

 

[WishboneDawn]

Of course whether humans are mammals depends on the definition of mammal. There are NO scientific definitions of mammals that do not include humans.

 

I agree.

 

This line of argument would also allow us to argue over whether the word 'ball' (when used in the sentence "The child picked up the ball.") is a noun. We could say, well, it depends on whether we buy into the grammar classification system in use . . .

 

And, we could also argue over the defnition of "is" . . .

 

I'm not making the argument you think I'm making. I'm not attempting to diminish the idea that humans are mammals, just taking issue with how you used fact. I'm not engaging in some sort of creationist rhetoric.

 

I agree that if you're engaged in a discussion about biology, the idea that humans are mammals isn't up for discussion. If you're engaged in that discussion but take issue with the idea that humans are mammals, I think you're out of luck. You're talking science and science as a whole has accepted the model that has human classified as mammals.

 

But it's a human classification. Nature recognizes no such thing just as it doesn't really recognize species or era as we've defined them. That's an important distinction to make so that people understand science is about how we explore and know about our world, about how we use our senses to know about our world. If that's understood then it should be understood that science has it's limits, the limits of our sense and the natural world around us so that they won't try to stretch and bend science to fit their own ideas or religious beliefs.

 

I think the idea that it's a human distinction is also important because so many people get hung up on the idea of species. They insist one species can not evolve into another never understanding that species in not some concrete fact of nature but a human distinction that simply takes one quick snapshot of a population as it travels through time, environments and changes.

 

Humans ARE mammals by EVERY (scientific and not religiously corrupted) defintion of the word mammal.

 

The use of the phrase "religiously corrupted" is a little ridiculous. Terms have different meanings depending on the conversation and context. The term "theory" is a great example. It's everyday use is very different from it's scientific use but one wouldn't argue that the everyday use is corrupted.

 

To hopefully clarify a bit I think when talking about religion and philosophy the issue would actually be with animal, not mammal. That's because in the best discussions in those spheres folks are talking about issues within humanity to do with other humans or with ourselves or with an idea of the divine. There, animal becomes something to describe a familiar other, not human. People come to science with that idea spills over but that doesn't mean that in the other context, they weren't using the term incorrectly.

 

OF COURSE people are more than welcome to have their own religious beliefs and abandon scientific facts. Most religions require just that! :)

 

No actually. Not even most Christian denominations require that. The history of science and natural philosophy before it is absolutely riddled with religious folks who were in fact driven by their faith to discover more about the world and creation.

 

Nonetheless, on a board dedicated to education, when asked, I will assert that humans are definitely mammals -- using the conventional definitions of each of those words.

 

(And, I have a BS & MS in biology, so I am quite confident in my scientific background to argue this, even though I believe that any well educated 8th grader should be able to conclusively argue that humans are mammals.)

 

It's just the use of fact that I had a bit of an issue with. I've been in discussions about evolution (which I completely accept) where people who were supposedly on my side of the issue and well educated in science started making truth claims. Something science does NOT do. And from outside the world of science I'm well aware that when many people hear "fact" they think "truth" so I guess I wanted to open that up a bit and try to define terms a little better.

 

On a board dedicated to education, a little more discussion of terms is not a bad thing.

 

But I never got to college so what do I know?

 

ETA: I will add that, on the original point, a text that's supposed to be about science should be about science and should be stating that humans are classified as mammals. This is why I don't go anywhere near any science program that is labeled Christian, creationist or even claims neutrality on the issue of evolution. If you claim you're program is about science, then there is NO neutral position, there is only evolution.

Edited November 9, 2012 by WishboneDawn

[jewellsmommy]

I am going to assume that is praying hands but warn that it really looks like something else. ;)

 

 

I am sooo glad that I was not the only one who thought they saw something *different* at first glance :lol:. I even called my dh over to see if he noticed. He did. So then I had to wonder if we were just being too...uh... animalistic? :lol:

[StephanieZ]

I agree.

 

 

 

I'm not making the argument you think I'm making. I'm not attempting to diminish the idea that humans are mammals, just taking issue with how you used fact. I'm not engaging in some sort of creationist rhetoric.

 

I agree that if you're engaged in a discussion about biology, the idea that humans are mammals isn't up for discussion. If you're engaged in that discussion but take issue with the idea that humans are mammals, I think you're out of luck. You're talking science and science as a whole has accepted the model that has human classified as mammals.

 

But it's a human classification. Nature recognizes no such thing just as it doesn't really recognize species or era as we've defined them. That's an important distinction to make so that people understand science is about how we explore and know about our world, about how we use our senses to know about our world. If that's understood then it should be understood that science has it's limits, the limits of our sense and the natural world around us so that they won't try to stretch and bend science to fit their own ideas or religious beliefs.

 

I think the idea that it's a human distinction is also important because so many people get hung up on the idea of species. They insist one species can not evolve into another never understanding that species in not some concrete fact of nature but a human distinction that simply takes one quick snapshot of a population as it travels through time, environments and changes.

 

 

 

The use of the phrase "religiously corrupted" is a little ridiculous. Terms have different meanings depending on the conversation and context. The term "theory" is a great example. It's everyday use is very different from it's scientific use but one wouldn't argue that the everyday use is corrupted.

 

To hopefully clarify a bit I think when talking about religion and philosophy the issue would actually be with animal, not mammal. That's because in the best discussions in those spheres folks are talking about issues within humanity to do with other humans or with ourselves or with an idea of the divine. There, animal becomes something to describe a familiar other, not human. People come to science with that idea spills over but that doesn't mean that in the other context, they weren't using the term incorrectly.

 

 

 

No actually. Not even most Christian denominations require that. The history of science and natural philosophy before it is absolutely riddled with religious folks who were in fact driven by their faith to discover more about the world and creation.

 

 

 

It's just the use of fact that I had a bit of an issue with. I've been in discussions about evolution (which I completely accept) where people who were supposedly on my side of the issue and well educated in science started making truth claims. Something science does NOT do. And from outside the world of science I'm well aware that when many people hear "fact" they think "truth" so I guess I wanted to open that up a bit and try to define terms a little better.

 

On a board dedicated to education, a little more discussion of terms is not a bad thing.

 

But I never got to college so what do I know?

 

ETA: I will add that, on the original point, a text that's supposed to be about science should be about science and should be stating that humans are classified as mammals. This is why I don't go anywhere near any science program that is labeled Christian, creationist or even claims neutrality on the issue of evolution. If you claim you're program is about science, then there is NO neutral position, there is only evolution.

 

I stand by what I wrote.

 

The only thing I'd like to add at this point is that science DOES endeavor to study the truth and facts. Facts are truth. Science studies what is real, what is true, about the world we live in. It is the ENTIRE point of science. Science, and the scientific method in particular, is aimed at discovering the truth about the universe.

 

There are moral/philosophical truths, religious Truths, and there is scientific truth. All of these fields (and others) pursue the truth. It is the entire object of science, absolutely. Of course, scientists are always approaching the truth, and scientists (unlike most religious denominations) readily admit that their truth (for today) may well be revised in the future, when science has futher progressed.

 

The revision (or rejection) of hypotheses, and even a rare and ground-breaking revision (or rejection) of a well-established theory (Newtonian mechanics or Darwinian evolution) are expected and sought.

 

Personally, I think this is one of the great beauties of science, that a scientist admits (and actually relishes) the ambiguious nature of truth. This ambiguity is welcome to me, and it colors my perspective of other aspects of the universe -- including religion. I personally think this inherent malleability of truth in science is one of the primary reasons why fanatical religions have historically (and even today) been averse to science.

 

So, yes, science does study truth, and, as much (if not much more) than any other discipline, it establishes facts.

 

1+2=3

 

But, if you change the defnition of the symbol "+" to mean multiply, well then 1+2=2.

 

Likewise, humans are mammals, in fact, absolute truth, using the established definitions of the words and the established scientific facts about the human species. The only way that it is NOT a truth is if you change the definitions of one or more of the words: humans, are, or mammals.

[WishboneDawn]

I stand by what I wrote.

 

The only thing I'd like to add at this point is that science DOES endeavor to study the truth and facts. Facts are truth. Science studies what is real, what is true, about the world we live in. It is the ENTIRE point of science. Science, and the scientific method in particular, is aimed at discovering the truth about the universe.

 

There are moral/philosophical truths, religious Truths, and there is scientific truth. All of these fields (and others) pursue the truth. It is the entire object of science, absolutely. Of course, scientists are always approaching the truth, and scientists (unlike most religious denominations) readily admit that their truth (for today) may well be revised in the future, when science has futher progressed.

 

The revision (or rejection) of hypotheses, and even a rare and ground-breaking revision (or rejection) of a well-established theory (Newtonian mechanics or Darwinian evolution) are expected and sought.

 

Personally, I think this is one of the great beauties of science, that a scientist admits (and actually relishes) the ambiguious nature of truth. This ambiguity is welcome to me, and it colors my perspective of other aspects of the universe -- including religion. I personally think this inherent malleability of truth in science is one of the primary reasons why fanatical religions have historically (and even today) been averse to science.

 

So, yes, science does study truth, and, as much (if not much more) than any other discipline, it establishes facts.

 

1+2=3

 

But, if you change the defnition of the symbol "+" to mean multiply, well then 1+2=2.

 

Likewise, humans are mammals, in fact, absolute truth, using the established definitions of the words and the established scientific facts about the human species. The only way that it is NOT a truth is if you change the definitions of one or more of the words: humans, are, or mammals.

 

I think probably we pretty much agree with each other, just have some differences in a bits of language.

 

My alternate idea about the bolded though lately is that science is trouble for some in religious circles because it tells us there are ways we can know by using our own five sense and a good bit of reason. If people understand that then they suddenly don't need that authority figure telling them what they need to believe. Not that they don't need religion mind you (I'm a quasi-Christian), but that they're capable of establishing what's important to them and what's right on their own.

 

This is the kind of discussion we need a kitchen table for so we can thump it and rattle the teacups when we are making a point. :D

[eloquacious]

So, I asked my husband his opinion, and his response was:

 

"You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel."

 

Personally, I would have gone with "you are a human animal," but okay.

[Lovedtodeath]

So, I asked my husband his opinion, and his response was:

 

"You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel."

 

Personally, I would have gone with "you are a human animal," but okay.

 

I am sooo glad that I was not the only one who thought they saw something *different* at first glance :lol:. I even called my dh over to see if he noticed. He did. So then I had to wonder if we were just being too...uh... animalistic? :lol:

Dirty Minds. :toetap05::Angel_anim::laugh:

[WishboneDawn]

So, I asked my husband his opinion, and his response was:

 

"You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel."

 

Personally, I would have gone with "you are a human animal," but okay.

 

:lol: