Higher degrees of reason and emotion/feelings... or at least the potential to have what "normal humans would have" without an mental disabilities because I know you could give the exception of a handicap person or person in a vegitative state. To say the feelings of an animal are greater than that of someone close to me or you is ridiculous, although we admit they do have certain emotions and feelings in the first place, and I do not hate animals, I actually find them more loyal and kind than humans, but deep down I know or IMO feel humans are superior to animals given some of the aforementioned reasons, and not necessarily in a top down system where we can do whatever we want to them
There could be another factor here, perhaps a soul that mabye an animal has as well as a human, that cant really be described with words. but perhaps is the overall disposition of the person that is innately beautiful and much more valauble than what an animal offers. Its like when humans say words cant describe how I feel about this person or love is a wordless experienceThe animal is still beautiful but not as much as the human. And just because we cant' describe it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist lol. Im not saying with 100% it exists, but others should not claim either with 100% certainty that it does not exist.
Could be evolution or God. Evolution does or could have fossils proving so but on the other hand some fossils have been proved to be a hoax in the past, perhaps a bad track record, also evolution is in part based on beliefs that these things did happen, and mabye they did, but to say its 100 or 99% true is false and wrong. It relies on theories, beliefs, specualtions in part which the word themselves contradict with the word facts. Scientists have different estimations, and key word is Estimation, not a fact. I dont mind posing it as a theory or even plausible theory, just dont pose it as 100% fact and then claim others are idiots for not believing. Im definitely a believer in micro evolution or really variation within a species, but not sure about macro evolution, abiet, I admit its still possible. Like I said there could be fossils that do show a transition that I havent' researched or seen, for example.
The other argument is God. Saying God is bad or has bad moral values DOES NOT prove he doesn't exist, it just claims that you dont like what God does. If you say show me proof God exists, that's a different story than what "moral values" he should have, and vice versa with evolution. One argument for God's mould of beauty and order of the world is complexity, although evolution can argue the same as well. Also when evolutionist, abiet not all, say nothing came from something, that statement itself is contradictory. I would Think Physical elements/properties in the world always come from something>> where did this come from ? where did that come from? where did matter come from? etc. so for that first one that came one can argue that a non-physical entity had to intervene to make those first physical properties. Im still not sure whether to believe in evolutionists claims about macro-evolution or God, all im asking is you for either side, dont' let people convince you that their theories are often "facts" and thus science and that if you dont believe your're an idiot for having a different opinion. Either side may have evidence using science and other fields of study, but sometimes instead of certain well known facts in science, they are more like "speculations", "theories," "educated guesses" or "what experts, or scientists, or creationists think."