dogs should be classified as rodents

Rodents ARE mammals. mammals are animals with fur who have birth without eggs and nurse their young. Rodents easily fit into all three categories. MAMMAL is a CLASS, RODENT is an ORDER. As you can see, on the top line of this Wikipedia articcle, it states that "Rodents (from Latin rodere, "to gnaw") are mammals of the order Rodentia." https://en.wikipedia.org... Rodents are absolutely mammals. They're not insects, or birds, or fish. Mice are by all means mammals. So are rats, and chinchillas, and capybaras. They're rodents and mammals. Your ignorant mind clearly can't absorb easy things like that. Dogs cannot be classified as rodents. They have already been classified as something different, and we are not going to reclassify them simply because you think we ought to. They are part of the genus Canis. https://en.wikipedia.org... They have whiskers, and incisors, and they're pretty small. But we do not just classify animals based on outward appearance. We also classify them on a number of other factors, such as bone structure, internal organs, DNA structure, cell structure, size, and relatives. Where we place them on the animal chart all depends on what animal they're most closely related to, and they're more related to wolves than to mice. We have a comprehensive animal family tree constructed, to place dogs where they do not belong would be confusing. Your classification of dogs would, perhaps, be acceptable in Medieval England, where tomatoes were considered poisonous even though they weren't. Your classification would NOT be acceptable in the modern era. Many animals have incisors. We have four incisors. Rodents must have LARGE incisors that continuously grow. Dog incisors stay at a relatively normal size. Many dogs are small. Many dogs are big. There are big fish and small fish, but just because a fish is small does not mean it is a shrimp, it is still a fish. Some dogs can reach a massive height. You misspelled "Characteristic". And why do you bring woolly mammoths into this? They seem random and irrelevant. You do know they're extinct, right? That article you posted SAYS they're mammals. Please, only post articles which help YOUR claim. I do not like dogs. They poop, they bite, they bark. However, That is not the topic of this debate, so I will not go much into it, but it is only an opinion that they are "Man's best friend". They come from wolves, and wolves are savage creatures not meant to be kept in a civilized home. Cats don't make loud noises, they don't bite, and they poop in a litter box. Anyway, I'll get back on track... Stephen Hawking's field of science was not to classify animals, he talks about space and AI. Aristotle was not the first man to land on the moon. He was an ancient Greek philosopher and scientist. You are an idiot. Now, I'll point out some flaws in your fake family tree. Dogs are not near lions or tigers, they are the ancestors of cats. Sea lions are nothing like lions. Sea lions are nothing like algae, algae is a plant. algae and frogs are only related habitually, but not genetically. Toads are amphibians, Grasshoppers are insects. Grasshoppers are insects, Mice are rodents. Mice are rodents. Kittens are not rodents. Kittens and "momma cats" are the same species. Momma cats are not related to puppies, one is a cat, the other is a dog. Puppies are baby dogs. Sneakiness is not an ELIGIBLE characteristic used in the classification of animals. You stupid fool.