[coldtea]

>The former statement uses rodents and humans, the latter humans and animals.

One just uses "animals" as the universal (generic) thing we all participate in (as a continuum), while the other uses "humans" (or "humanity") for that.

Sure, we're animals too, but not "just another animal", but (what we know of as the) pinnacle of the thinking/empathy/etc spectrum".

We can think of being human-like in this sense as the top degree in that scale that animals can participate too.

(So, "human-like is used a stand-in for "empathetic/thinking/conscious", not as "like an actual human person" -- as it doesn't concern other human attributes -- physiology, looks, etc, only emotional and cognitive ones).