You are right---despite your sarcasm.

Implicit in your snotty little reply is the notion that appearances determine essence.  For you an acorn is not an Oak because it does not look like a tree.  A fertilized egg is not a chicken because it does not have the appearances of a  chicken. 

Appearances, sir, have no bearing on essence. An acorn is an oak--in the form of an acorn. An acorn is an oak in seed form.  A fertilized egg is a chicken--in the form of a fertilized egg.

If we are going to determine what is and is not human based solely on appearances, they what appearances from your view make someone human and why should we accept your arbitrary opinion as to what appearances constitute human?