I accept "minor" (but not "ridiculously"), and point 2. As I said in comment http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2687417 I understood my comment wasn't clear enough. My edit should have added clarifications, not whining. Sorry.
I deny point 3. The probability I assign to downvote due do religious disagreement is very low. I was nevertheless surprised. My comment was the second ever written on that thread. It was very short. It wasn't really meant to spur answers. And the contribution, though very small, is real.
I don't understand "not supported by the article". It explicitly talks about the continuum between Homo Sapiens and all other Homo species. If they hadn't disappeared, we could have seen it, and may have revised our long standing assumption that we are special among all animals. In that respect, they do recognize we are not so special, at least not a priori special. But still, they used the vocabulary in a way that does assume we are a priori special. All this is pretty obvious for me, but I suppose that "Humans are animals" is not a thought that most cache. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cached_thought
I deny point 3. The probability I assign to downvote due do religious disagreement is very low. I was nevertheless surprised. My comment was the second ever written on that thread. It was very short. It wasn't really meant to spur answers. And the contribution, though very small, is real.
I don't understand "not supported by the article". It explicitly talks about the continuum between Homo Sapiens and all other Homo species. If they hadn't disappeared, we could have seen it, and may have revised our long standing assumption that we are special among all animals. In that respect, they do recognize we are not so special, at least not a priori special. But still, they used the vocabulary in a way that does assume we are a priori special. All this is pretty obvious for me, but I suppose that "Humans are animals" is not a thought that most cache. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cached_thought