Quarkmoon,
Basically, in saying that humans are "above" other animals, you are arguing that whatever inherent value animals have, it must be less than the inherent value of any human being. This, you claim, justifies humans in treating animals as nothing more than resources for human consumption or other exploitation.
This is no different from claiming that women have less inherent value than men, or black people have less inherent value than white people.
Equal inherent value is a prerequisite to any workable moral system. If we do not start from an assumption of equal inherent value for all human beings, then some humans will be excluded from the moral community and their interests in not suffering ignored. To say that a human has moral significance, but less value than other human beings is a contradiction. It would justify some humans treating other humans merely as economic resources, because they are "lower" than the privileged humans who are fully-fledged members of the moral community.
Similarly, if we do not accord equal inherent value to animals, then any kind of animal rights is a sham. If humans are "above" animals, then animals have no real rights at all. Any human can exploit the animal solely as an economic resource - treat it as a "thing" rather than a being of intrinsic worth.
Taking another tack, note that all sentient beings value themselves, even if nobody else does. In other words, they are not indifferent to what happens to them. They take an active interest in not suffering and in their continued existence. This is true of animals as much as it is true of humans, which leads rational people to regard animal suffering as relevant in the first place.
If we accord equal inherent value to all humans, irrespective of their characteristics, and at the same time deny equal inherent value to animals, then our failure to apply the principle of equal consideration is arbitrary and unjustifiable.
You claim that all humans can "survive and thrive outside of [their] natural habitat." In fact, there are many "habitats" in which survival is impossible for humans. But more importantly, many humans do not have this capacity at all. For example, consider young children or babies, or mentally disabled people. Do you regard their inability to "survive and thrive" on their own sufficient justification to deny them equal consideration in the matter of moral rights, and in particular in the right not to be treated solely as a resource for others?