This is a debating site, not an opinion site. So give us something to debate.

Was it the film that impressed you, or just the novelty of the fancy glasses.

So now you are adding it needs DNA that is specific only to humans, and also be a self sufficient organism?

What about individuals cells then? Most could be self-sufficient in an environment with proper water and nutrition. A sperm cell can survive for up to 4 days in the proper culture. An ova can do the same, but longer. That satisfies both your conditions. Is that then a human?

I find that I down vote people who persist in arguing, rather than debating. My debate style involves pointing out how people misuse logic and come to false conclusions; you know, I actually debate. So when I downvote someone, it is because they have ceased debating and are either proselytizing or sunken down into arguments.

Define sentience then.

Is it the use of tools? The awareness of time, and planning ahead? Manipulating one's environment to better its chances at survival? Or as you put it, feeling emotion, being self-aware, "consciousness"?

Animals have demonstrated all of these.

And your argument is ill-defined. What are you saying is consciousness? Most people define it as an "alert cognitive state" which most animals are.

Well, of course I agree that a chimpanzee is not a human, and a part of a human is not a human.

My argument was rather with your statement that "all it takes to be human is human DNA" as both my examples had human DNA, and therefore according to your logic, would both be human.

For a movie that prided itself on several "scientifically plausible" situations, there were a few gaping holes that I couldn't get past it. It explains the Avatar program as being a mixture of the genetic material of the human who controlled it and the Na'vi. They show the avatar bodies growing in vats. Later, the global "spirit" is explained as a bio-botanical neural network. These "scientifically plausible" explanations are unnecessary, and leave the rest of the movie's phenomena unexplainable.

For example, they never explain the physics behind the floating mountains behind the sci-fi movie techno babble "flux fields". The most likely explanation would magnetism, but what natural phenomenon could possibly create a magnetic field strong enough to levitate whole mountains, and still allow metallic ships to fly through, with only some sensor interference. And is there really enough precipitation to actually sustain waterfalls? Really? I think not.

Also. Unobtainium? Seriously? That's what you name the precious metal? And is it a new mineral, or a new element? What possible molecular structure could justify a price tag of 20 million dollars per kilogram?

To be clear, I'm not saying the movie sucked because it was unrealistic. It's a science fiction movie, and I understand movies in that genre are very typically "unrealistic". The movie sucked because it cherry picked which parts it would "scientifically explain" and left gaping holes where they chose not to explain it. If you're going to try to make some parts of the movie scientifically plausible, then make the whole movie scientifically plausible.

Especially when the "bad guys" are such caricatures. Those weren't actual characters in a real universe, those were cartoon villains portrayed by live actors. No complexities in their personas. The bad colonel was all bad "the ends justify the means", the greedy corporate guy was spineless and willing to do anything to get his bottom line.

According to your argument, a chimpanzee is then 98% human. The difference in relative "humanity" between a homo sapien and a Starfish is a a paltry 40% or so. Both chimanzees and starfish are definitely not Human, so your argument logically falls apart.

Also, extending your argument that "all you need to have to be human is human DNA" a vat grown organ, kept alive by machines and actual human interaction, would be human according to your example. Again, we can definitively state that a vat grown human is not actually a human.