Do animals have souls?

If by free you mean: #2 Free Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
or in other words - independent of all factors - then I dont think this even exists. I agree.

1) I wouldnt say 'all species', only the ones capable of agreeing to have sex.2) Rape is a social phenomena - thats whats so social about it (definition of 'social' below). Social Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
#4, also take a look at 'social Darwinism'.or maybe this:
Social - Wikipedia

Not really, I think the noun is what your looking for:
I Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Self Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster I dont know what that means. You cant. You can only experience your understanding - I'm sorry if that was a bit poetic, I'll explain - in order to understand something you must experience it (there is no, as far as I know an understanding of the world independent of experience) therefore by trying to understand something (by experiencing it) you inevitably affect it and thus recive an "incorrect" (very tentatively) understanding of it. This is very vague...try to focus on one aspect and choose your words as they are defined - or else I will not know what you mean.

Assertions.Please provide the logic behind it.
As I see it the sense of self is crucial in order to understand the relationships between yourself and the outside world, enabling you to consiencly change your actions in order to better your life and thus survive and procreate and pass on you "self-conscience"-genes. As I stated - you can only answer this question by experiencing the world - because thats really the only tool you have (AKA science). I'm not sure what you mean by "unclear". You cant interact with yourself (maybe you can intraact ) . The only thing you can do is derive the properties of what you are perceiving through honest (I'll explain) interaction.
Whet I say honest I dont mean 'without bias', I mean with minimal bias. very vague. I dont understand what you mean by 'nature' here.

This is kalimero - or as he is in france "calimero" Your not making any sense. Thats not even an arguement. What does that mean?!? All I said was that the exploration of the world aroud you and a logical derivation of how it works through this exploration is called science. You cant experience genes (unless under a microscope) - you can experience their expressions, which are not nesseserily influenced completely by the genes. What you experience is a combination of many different influences. It doesnt have to. Though I see no reason why genes cant explain "self". Really?

The microscope stuff was a joke (sorry), and a bad one too.
When I said "experience their expressions" I meant the parts of a living organism that are determened by genes (every part to a degree obviously), that includes the genes of the person experiencing the experience - and the way that person experiences is also a result of his genetic makeup. I see your point. But I do think that the way people experience the world is at partialy determened by their genes and so hypotheticaly you can partialy (I left that out for some reason) explain perseption by genetics. Just like you can partialy explain interactions in gases by: PV=nRT, but that is by no means enough - its just idealizing the situation. From there you can add more variables to make your hypothasis more accurate.

Really? It has no proof, unlike "soul"?!?definition of self (noun):
Self Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webstertesting for recognition:
Mirror test - Wikipediaevidence of the functionality of 'self':
Page has gone | New Scientist Not to imply that 'self' is "non physical" - just because you explain one "non physical" thing doesnt mean you explain them all.
I dont think that there is even such a thing as "non physical" - mthamatics might be abstract but it has a physical basis. Yes but not only genes. Kalimero is an expression - of genes and many more things. Yes, nice to meet you. I am Kalimero. I = self = what I said above.

You do understand that this is the science forum?
You should try to base your arguement on evidence or at least some kind of logic I can debate. "Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration." "Avoid bare assertions."

Kalimero am I, I am my self. I have provided the definition for these.

Assertions! please provide evidence. That is a very general question - hard to answer, but I think I'll try:
I am the product of interactions between a comlex of neurons.
Consciousness - Wikipedia
Take a look at the 'Cognitive Neuroscience' section.

You are evidence?!?! please explain how this prooves a sole. Yes - whats your point?

And YOU are not a product? (of evolution, of neural connections...)
What evidence do you have to support this claim (a soul)? and this time bring objective evidence - remember this is the science forum.

You mean the tiny window called science (tested and reviewed), as opposed to your untested, unfalsafiable, unrewiewed, religously dogmatic opinion (its an opinion because of the above). How exactly can a method that embraces critical thinking and peer review, and puts evidence before opinion, be dogmatic. I agree that there is not such thing as completely objective evidence, science is tentative because of this, that doesnt mean you dont have to present evidence but insted be ready to be peer reviewed until you hypothiesis dies a sudden death. No kidding.

The thing you refer to as a "who" is composed of "what"s (as I have already shown), therefore a "who" can, ultimatly, be explained by (probably) a collective of "what"s. Philosophy has little to do with it. Enough of this! lets talk definitions. Notice that the word 'who' (definition #1) is a pronoun and therefore comes to replace a noun - an object - a "what" (if you insist):Who Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Pronoun - WikipediaThere is no difference between them, except that the pronoun avoids repetitions.

I have already given you evidence and stated that I did so: I am just following the logic that is derived from my evidence.