What a fun thread. Why would anyone want to point it down? (I have pointed it back up, but only made it to 0.)

The answer is that 'value' does not have anything to do with comparing 'us' to 'not us'. Philosophically, one of the big changes that Ayn Rand worked in my personal life was that I could begin with a reasonable 'premise' that I was valuable to myself and that I did not need any external validation for that to be true.

Now - on to the fun stuff: The progression from 'ape-like critter' to 'our slightly dim cousins' to 'us' is a fascinating one. Many of the theories of the early 20th Century have been overturned. Chief among those theories is the image that there was a man-ape who had an ape-like body but an advanced brain. (You can still find illos of this hypothetical creature, looking like an upright chimp but gazing at the stars.)

We have discovered, however, that the body led the brain, not the other way around. That is to say, that dentition, fingers, and feet changed, showing that the hominid had started to eat more meat in his diet and was walking erect...then the brain started to grow (now that it had the additional energy source from protein). So, there was a time (~3M years ago) when hominids that looked a lot like us physically, but who had chimp-sized brains, were wandering around.

What is more, there is not ‘one’ human race. We think of ourselves as Homo sapiens, but there is genetic evidence that we interbred recently (~50K years ago) with three different sub-species. Even more interesting, about 700K years ago, we apparently interbred with some archaic hominins in Africa. So our ‘genetic tree looks a lot like a bush that has been grafted back onto itself multiple times.

There are over 500 paleoanthropological samples that show hominins in various stages of evolution into humans. (I say this to refute the ‘no intermediary forms’ BS, in case someone throws that at you at some point.) Ancestors with the genus “Homo” had physical traits that overlapped with previous genera; our cousin species overlap with modern man in every measured respect. It does not look as if there is a ‘point’ at which we ‘became human’. It seems to be a gradient, where physical and cranial morphology change in spurts (and sometimes go backwards) until we get to fairly recently...maybe as recent as 20,000 years ago.

Of course, by 20K years ago, we are dealing with tribal societies with extensive tool kits, including boats, atlatls, clothing...obviously human beings.

So, at what point in this process did we get soul? It is a lot easier if we dispense with such a need: Occam’s Razor answers that we do not have this hypothetical attribute for which there is no concrete evidence. A soul is not necessary.

Jan

Humans can chop a bole or eat soup from a bowl, mine and burn coal, be on the dole, feed a foal, have a goal, dig or have a hole, take a loll, have a mole, want a pole or take a poll, play a role or eat a roll, walk on a sole, hear or pay a toll, and watch a vole in the grass.

Not much of that is available to "other animals." The "other animals" lives are consistently linear and repetitive, day to day, confined and controlled by their environment.

None of that needs or identifies a "soul", which comes from 'Magical Thinking with Cloud Logic' and at best, describes the emotional life of a non-rational or ill-educated human.. Even trying to discuss such an imaginary entity re-enforces the old adage that 'A Mind Is A Terrible Thing to Waste'.

Interesting question, I gave you back the point that was taken from you.

Clarke's 2001 a Space Odyssey nailed it, I think (first few chapters) for secular humanists. Man, for whatever reason, suddenly developed the ability to remember and, because of that ability, began to learn and eventually how sate his own diverse self-interests (subsistence and security). This facet of its existence, unlike animal impulses, placed Man apart from the animals and began its domination.

All that said, the essence of human beings, in my view, is far more substantial than a bag of chemicals that happened to repeatedly hit the cosmic lottery many times over many millions of years. That said, yes I believe there is a soul.

Anyone watch the Childhoods End mini-series on sy-fy channel or happen to have read the book. Good stuff. Much to think about.

Man has a conceptual faculty. And he has a sort
of a soul; it is his free will to focus his mind on what is before him, or not.(Once the decision is
made, it does not stay made; to be applied con-
sistently, it must be made constantly). That may
be an electric charge in the brain, or something
like that; but I don't think it can be a whole per-
sonality by itself, independently of a body; a
free choice, hanging there in space, with no
choices to make and no standards by which to
make any, would be a contradiction. But this
conceptual faculty, united with a free will, makes
man superior to other animals.

The premise of the question is that the value of humans is based on their having a soul and other animals not having souls.