An online think tank had brought up the point that human emotional characteristics and thought processes are so similar to the other animals we find in nature or even as pets, that we could assume that humans are only slightly smarter animals. That is to say that religious dogma aside; humans are not divinely made and hold no special valuation outside the classification of the animal kingdom.

One think tanker taking up such discussion stated; "To properly evaluate whether or not there is sufficient distinction to unequivocally classify humans from animals we would need to gather and measure all possible elements as samples and create a minimum of 3 groups instead of 2.

1) the animal group

2) the human group

3) the combination group

Surely to I would concur, yet would ask those who believe humans are so much different and better to prove it rather than participating in the actually experiment or asking my fellow taxpayer to pay for it, as I am convinced by my own observations and so often reminded that humans are not anything special. Yet, have proceeded to the top of the food chain thru cataclysmic events, luck and their ability to re-produce at the proper rates for their next nearest competitors and environment.

One does not have to observe a human grouping or society for long to see that humans are animals. So, whereas your experiment would seem to wish to prove humans are different, I believe that those who actually believe that should be the ones to prove it, as it simply is not so. I would surely like to review such data.

The think tanker further stated: "The focus here is the combination group. Since almost every human characteristic is shared or seen in other living things the use of a 3'rd group to pool combination data is necessary under minimum conditions.”

Ah ha, now we are talking, indeed perhaps humans are able to use their emotional and social interactions and apply more combinations than other animals. I very much agree with your third group pool in this case, this makes sense indeed. Perhaps this online think tank is about on the verge of making sense of this highly debated subject, what say you? Consider this in 2006.