When it’s said that humans are classified as animals, is it saying that humans are non human animals?

Question

Animals by the definition of how the word in used in conversation. Is it stating humans are non human animals? Or just based off certain characteristics that humans have and that animals also have?

So it’s not saying that humans are animals by the same definition of the word animal that we use in everyday conversation to refer to non-human animals like dogs or cats?

Answer 1

If we look at the phylogenetic tree (a diagram showing how all organisms are connected through evolution) and within the Eukaryotic branch (the branch that identifies all organisms that have a membrane bound nucleus), there is the branch called "Animals". Within this branch there are smaller branches that classify other types of organisms. These smaller branches contains all classic animals you think of, like cats and dogs, but also humans. Humans are considered mammals because we have hair and are warm blooded, like cats and dogs.

So, when people in a conversation say that we humans are animals, they are just referencing the phylogenetic tree that states that all mammals are animals, and since we humans are considered mammals, we also must be considered animals.

Another way to think about it is saying that all humans are animals, but not all animals are humans. This is similar to saying "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares". Another example is that an elephant and dolphin are both mammals and animals, but they are not the same thing. A human is a mammal and an animal, but no other animals are going to be humans, because this name "human" is only identifying a organisms that looks like and is a human.