Is animal testing justified to save human lives?

Daily Debate #561: "Is animal testing justified to save human lives?". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Carl Sagan.

How is a human any less than an animal? in general, we are all the same species and it's not on animals to change the fact that all lives come to an end

You've just admitted the core problem: we're not the same species. Humans and mice aren't interchangeable. So why should we assume testing on one tells us anything useful about the other? If they're so different we can't swap them, they're too different for reliable data.

According to science we all came from the same species so we are technically in that same group

"Came from" isn't "are." Humans and lab rats diverged millions of years ago, developing entirely different biology. Your argument proves the opposite: evolution made us incompatible. So which is it, common ancestry or reliable test results?

Right so answer my question on why humans should be more valued according to you

I'm not arguing humans are "more valued"—I'm arguing they're *different*. You're equivocating. If animals are so biologically similar they're useful test subjects, they're too similar to ethically sacrifice for us. Pick a consistent position.