Humans have for centuries considered them selves unique and simply better than all other animals. Humans have even developed literature and religion to further justify their false belief. Recently in an online think tank this comment came up and a researcher of such questions has determined that experimentation is the only way to prove once and for all the answer to the question.

When discussing this issue with the researchers in an online think tank one think tank member brought up at least eight undeniable facts, observations and previous research already done that clearly indicates humans are no different from animals, yet in denial of the examples given the researcher states and then following is a dialogue of events;

Although I really enjoy the individual ideas and views shared by all walks of life. I myself have a vested interest in seeking out and putting those ideas to the test with the hopes of authenticating results.

Another think tanker; Good because there is no more authenticating results than actual observation and these observations have been duplicated over and over again by all of us. Thus follows scientific methods.

It appears that the researcher did not listen to a word that was spoken or any of the proof given. Yet goes on to state;

It would not benefit our efforts or the concept in question if we remained impartial to this argument.

Another think tanker then considered this and stated; Explain this comment further. Are you saying impartiality is a bad thing for motivation in scientific work? Or are you saying one needs to start with premise and work to prove it? Because that is one major problem with academia they are so busy proving themselves right all the time that they come to the wrong conclusion and deny actual observation. Perhaps you may wish to review your comments, as one might think that they indeed have a touch of academia rhetoric and borderline on BS sometimes actually. You know one might think that?

The researcher then states; Since I did reply to several comments as this conversation expanded, I would like to state for the record, that though the viewpoints are intriguing, we may find ourselves investing more time discussing branch details, than managing the root of this topic.

Again the researcher continues to remain in denial to fact and observation instead wishing to re-define and then go do experimentation without even considering the observations. In fact the researcher is border lining on academic fraud in purporting that we throw away our observations for some other new set of proofs, which indeed the researcher debunker driven parasite academic will create. In fact all this fancy schmancy scientific terminology is for not if one is to deny what they observe. In fact although to the researchers credit they did reply to a few posts on the online think tank forum board, it was more of this same sort of nothing-ness here and basically a complete waste of time and proof of total incompetence of the subject matter. Such a researcher is a fraud and nothing they discuss can be accepted as genuine research. It is all nothing more than Bull Sh_t. However another think tanker called the researcher onto the carpet and stated:

There is no root topic to discuss as I see it; humans are animals. If your root question is what makes humans unique? well then I think the question is flawed, because there is not anything other than the current success of the species that would make them unique as they have infested the planet. Additionally you know much of evolution is luck.

Next the researcher states: Let me assure you however that what I am not asking is for you to withhold your comments or input on the subject. Simply said, I would like to get down to business with the data calculations.

Other think tanker; There is nothing to calculate unless you want to start measuring brain density of animals and humans, DNA similarities and differences (in both animals and humans), and behavior in natural environments. Much of this has already been done almost to the point of over kill.

The researcher next states; Since you have provided here a good starting point, I have to ask. Are we evaluating this problem at upper most level? Will the results satisfy the problem in question?

Other think tanker I had discussed all the observations and knowledge in my personal realm, as well as the main researchers in the field and it seems obvious that if one is to classify what people consider higher-order mammals as animals, then too, humans will fall into that category. But if one purposely sets out to define what human is in a separate category one has cheated, boondoggled and coerced data into a specific category to prove yourself right that humans are unique, which they are not; in fact no evidence suggests they are. And by redefining parameters one would be lying and cheating data. In fact you have completely wasted my time with dribble and bull, not a single shred of evidence that you even know what you are talking about, convincing me that you are a complete and utter fraud and another academic faker. Now then let me sound off: Of course liars figure and figures lie and humans are unique in that they are best of all groupings at lying. If that is science, have fun with it.

Perhaps as a reader of this dialogue you can see the problems with researchers getting in the way of and blocking truth, pretending to have knowledge when they do not and problems with academic fraud. So working the problem backwards to show man is unique, does what? Helps mankind feel good about them selves? Celebrate being human? What is the point in this? Many people look to the animal kingdom and say; boy those animals are dumb. Yet, what is the animals function? They are filling out their niche and indeed probably doing it very well. In fact probably much better than mankind in his dysfunctional world judging by this dialogue and denial of reality based observations by supposed learned men.