Translation:The animal does not think, the animal eats.
animals do differ from each other. had rabbits. they only thought of stomach and no affection in return. nothing as smart as dogs and cats.
In the US, this phrasing would only be used by a philosopher. In ordinary discourse, one would say "animals don't think, animals eat". If, in Italy, one would make that statement in the singular, referring to "the animal" then a proper translation is to switch it to the plural when translating to English.
I'd agree that the... is it indefinite?... version in English is more correct, except if we're talking about a specific animal, e.g. in a book. Even then, it would be weird to say "animal" unless in certain circumstances: "The wolf comes to the clearing. It looks around for threats. Seeing none, the animal does not think, but starts to eat." That kind of thing. So both versions should be allowed for this, since by stating the natural English version (with plurals) you show that you understand the sense of the sentence.
In English, this sentence is grammatically incorrect. It has a comma splice, which creates a run-on sentence.
if pensare means also to think and torvare means to think ... what is the difference ?
Pensare more so means to ponder, whereas torvare is more concrete thinking.
In the wild animals allways pay attention towards their surrounding while eating their pray, so it definetly does think