If that isn't small then what about 80% or 90% differences.
Those are larger.
But the differences between us and chimps, at least genetically, are on the order of 1-2%.
Still you don't want to admit that there's a huge gap between humans and animals
but you're willing to think that there's a huge gap between the speed of the cheetah
and the Pronghorn antelope.
What I am attempting to point out is that the size of the gap depends on what variable you measure. In many ways, we are very similar to other animals. In a very few ways we are more different, but still less than many people suspect.
For example, the picture of the chimp you gave suggests you think that the gap between us and chimps is 'huge'. Why? because they have hair and we don't have as much? Or because they have a better memory than we do? or because we have complex language and they don't?
Be specific about what you consider the 'huge gap' to be in relation to and how you judge that gap to be 'huge'.
Here is a related issue, though. is an inch a 'huge gap'? If we are talking about planetary distances, not at all. If we are talking about gaps in spark plugs, it is huge. In other words, context is important in determining whether a gap is 'huge' or not. The same size of gap might be 'huge' in one context and minuscule in another. When you ask to compare humans and other animals, the default context is the biology of us and them. And, in that context, the gap between us and other animals isn't so large. But, if you want to look at things like language, the gap is larger.
You also seem to want to compare modern, technological humans to other animals as opposed to pre-modern, non-technological humans. if you go back to humans that lived 10,000 years ago, the gap isn't nearly as large as it is now. Why? Because we simply didn't have the knowledge at that time. Again, just what is expected given how we evolved.
Last edited: