[Preechr]

You say I'm being to subtle. I say you're being to complex. I'm also saying you debate like a teenager that just read its first really thick book on an obscure subject. I also said in my second post that I was re-explaining my admittedly simple point because you responded to my first post with childish insults which led me to believe you weren't catching on. It seems you still aren't. You're just stuck on seeming smart.

Whatever. You are the smartest person ever. Feel better?

I just pushed a boy scout into a wood chipper. Is my backyard human now, too? All the insects seem to be quite organized, and there's human DNA all over the damn place.

I'll repeat this one more time, just for you. For all your fluff and thunder, however you wish to catagorize a human as worthy of your consideration, it's just not that complicated of a thing to do. Instead of focusing so much on all the trivia you actually know at this time, it seem apparent that you need to start considering what you, and science, does not know at this time.

Time. That is the key. Time is much more important than the criteria you describe. You insist on catagorizing things according to their usefulness, while ignoring that the degree of usefulness of human beings in general is extremely slight in the big picture.

Time is a constant, and your self-centered, snap-shot criteria completely ignore that. I started my contribution to this under the assumption that you guys would GET such a rediculously simple idea. You and I are not important as individuals, no matter how scientifically you argue silly points. We are only important as humans to the human race. If you wish to catagorize some humans out of the race, have fun with that. It's your choice to do so. That makes you inhuman by choice, where those that you cast off as "clumps of cells" never got their choice.