>>3518975>Obviously. They're educated guesses, constantly being updated to reflect advances in science.
Still, they'll never capture what exactly happened in the past.>If that's the case, wouldn't it be more reasonable to resist change?
They have to comply to the "advances in science" you've mentioned, or they'll lose credibility, losing firm "intellectual" ground.>For a reason. There's many factors to consider, such as morphology, genetics, and whatever bullshit that doesn't cross my mind.
So, you're more interested in trusting the dogma established by those self-employed "scientific authorities" than your intuition?>I'll use my capacity for thought and speculate that they've originated from a common, normal-looking ancestor that eventually adapted to their respective environments. Just like how humans and the fucking chimps did.
Sure, but how far ago in the past did they diverge? Phylogenetic trees don't give you any answers. Genetic analysis is useless to none as well, since all mammals have a meager difference in their genetics, making it easy to jumble up the tree.