If man is an animal biologically, but so unlike an animal cognitively, the obvious implication is that some aspect of the human mind is not biological:
Only man has the capacity for abstract thought, and this is what essentially distinguishes us from non-human animals. The fact that we share so much biologically with animals means that the enormous differences between the human mind and the animal mind do not have a material origin. That is, the profound differences between humans and animals is not in the substance of our bodies.
Ironically, if humans and animals were biologically more different, materialists could claim that the material biological differences rather than immaterial spiritual differences account for our powers of abstract thought. It is precisely the biological similarity between humans and animals that precludes such an argument.Michael Egnor, “Human-ape similarity shows humans are exceptional” at Mind Matters News
When everything is the same except the one thing that matters most, we can be sure we are onto a real difference.
Also by Michael Egnor on human exceptionalism
Can animals “reason”? My challenge to Jeffrey Shallit: He believes that animals can engage in abstract thinking. What abstractions do they reason about?
University fires philosophy prof, hires chimpanzee to teach, research A light-hearted look at what would happen if we really thought that unreason is better than reason
Why apes are not spiritual beings: Apes do not have language, which enables humans to think about abstract ideas
How is human language different from animal signals? What do we need from language that we cannot get from signals alone?
Apes can be generous. Are they just like humans then?