“And what constitutes who is in which kingdom?”
That’s a good question and it has occupied a BUNCH of people over a LONG time to make the associations (and to break them).
“If I have a degree in science and i say that humans and animals are in the same kingdom because they have certain characteristics in common, then poepl would simply accept whatever I say.”
No, they would not. You would propose that humans and, say, dogs shared X many characteristics so they should be in a group, and people would come out of the woodwork to find flaws in your logic, your conclusion, your observations, and anything else. You’d fight to defend, they’d fight to attack, and in the end the majority would either accept or deny your suggestion. j
“Humans and plants have certain characteristics in common; we both need food, water, mate, and grow. But does that make us plants?”
It’s a starting point. That bit where we breathe oxygen and plants breath Carbon dioxide would come up quickly in the discussion.
“Sorry but calling a human an animal doesn't make him one”
‘S not how it works. Rather, they’ve spent a SHITLOAD of time coming up with a very specific definition of ‘animal,’ and humans fit that definition, exhibiting the characteristics without exhibiting any deal-breakers like breathing chlorine or shitting gasoline.
"nor does it make himcapable of being the descendant of an animal or breeding one.”
No, but it does make the theory a lot more possible than claiming we descended of plants. Or cement mixers.
