dogs should be classified as rodents

Ah, I thought you had given up, but I'm glad you didn't. This debate is a fine example of just how idiotic a person can be when they stubbornly refuse to accept clearly set facts or logical new perspectives. You, sir, do not understand things, you do not understand the world in which you live, or the rules which have been set up, the biological rules, the rules of life, they've been put there generations before your time, and you can't twist the classifications of animals around without giving a good reason for doing so. Why do you persist like this? I'm not even saying dogs SHOULDN'T be reclassified as rodents, I'm simply saying that RODENTS are MAMMALS. That's a fact, and it doesn't contradict with your argument in any way, but you keep denying it. https://upload.wikimedia.org... The above, sir, is an image of a mouse. It is a MAMMAL because it has fur. Rodents do not belong to a separate distinction simply because they have bare tails, in fact, if you look closely at the image, you can see tiny little bristles along the tail. They have some hair there. mammals do not have hair everywhere on their bodies. WE are mammals, but we don't have hair on our faces. Still, we are considered MAMMALS, because we have hair, we give live birth, and we nurse our young. This is not rocket science, nor is it airplane science, or car science, or bike science, or even little red wagon science. This is clear cut and to deny facts is to deny the existence of the universe. You can't keep going on like this. MICE ARE MAMMALS. Wikihow is just as unreliable as Wikipedia, it is made by the same people as Wikipedia, and both are edited by people who often get facts wrong. Even so, using Wikihow to learn science is illogical, because Wikihow and Wikipedia are used for different reasons. Wikipedia is a depository of knowledge, Wikihow is a how to guide. You can't learn things if you only look at Wikihow. Also, Wikipedia has strict rules as to how it can be edited, and it takes out any editing that does not use evidence. Since you deny Wikipedia as a legitimate source, here are some OTHER articles which say what I've been trying to say all along, that RODENTS are a type of MAMMAL. https://www.britannica.com... https://www.britannica.com... http://www.dictionary.com... http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... https://www.merriam-webster.com... And if you can't accept those, then you're a lout. The middle ages are not a myth, they were an actual part of history. You should learn more things. Never mind the tomato thing, I was using that as part of a simile. Shrimp are a crustacean, and they are not very related to fish. You can't classify everything that lives in the ocean into one group! The ocean has just as many diverse species as the land, and there are animals, plants, and bacteria down there. They don't all just belong to one group called "seafood." That's like classifying Chickens, Cows, and Pigs into one group, called "All you can eat buffet". That's not how animal classification works, you little troll. Shrimp are not fish, Crabs are not fish. SEAWEED IS NOT FISH SEAWEED IS A PLANT OH MY GOD HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET WHY DID I EVER ACCEPT THIS DEBATE OH THE AGONY Whales are not fish! They are MAMMALS! That's kindergarten level animal classification! They breathe air, they have hair, they have live young, and they nurse their young. This is so easy and you're making it SO, SO hard. Why do you do this? Why? Why can't you accept that things are not the way you thought they were? Whales: https://defenders.org... You say you're smart. Why don't you know basic grammar? Aristotle and Stephen Hawking lived roughly two thousand years apart, Aristotle has been dead for two thousand years. Stephen Hawking is a guy in a wheelchair with a robot voice. They're not connected in any way. Aristotle was a philosopher and a biologist in Ancient Greece. Stephen Hawking is a modern day astrophysicist. You can't connect the two just because they're both scientists, that's as ridiculous as classifying all the animals in the ocean into the same group. https://www.britannica.com... http://www.hawking.org.uk... I can see you having only gone through 8th grade science. I can see you've never been to college, or even high school. That's clear. And you're not an employee of NASA. Nor are you a scientist in any way. You're a dolt. I never brought up the China people. And yes, your family tree is very "wong". Frogs are amphibians. Good job on saying one thing right. Stephen Hawking is not the father of animal classification and it is not NASA's job to classify animals. They study outer space. You don't know anything. I'm going to win, I think. One round left. Better make it good, or I've got this debate won, hook, line, and sinker.