The level I was referring to includes the emotional and embodied level of being. You seem to be parroting a Dawkins view of humanity which is a reductionist, i

The level I was referring to includes the emotional and embodied level of being. You seem to be parroting a Dawkins view of humanity which is a reductionist, incomplete view that people are fond of stating as fact because it supports their worldview (and often an escape from a religious upbringing). Apologies for the tone — it was a rushed response. I do not think you are evil or stupid. I do think that by stating your own learned limits of exploration as absolute facts you are making a common mistake of assuming that entire realities can be reduced to something that doesn’t need to be considered. There are some fairly clear classes of emotional response that are probably rooted in evolutionary function, however their evolutionary function is probably substantially altered from the animal roots (if each function has any) due to our recent and unique evolution. Behaviors that appear irrational in a modern synthetic evolutionary view are probably under selection at a different level of abstraction, or they may be evolutionary hybrids or merged palimpsests, but to refer to humans as animals in such a way is almost always done to condemn the behavior of others, excuse ones own poor behavior, and/or end the conversation.