If there is no connection in between humans and animals then how come all have same structure of face?
611844
It's genetic. We are all related to the animals. Look at the chimp in the zoo. Look at the face and the ears.
613073
Most mammals have pretty much the same nervous system set up as we do.  \n\nThere might be a few differences in the number and size of some of the major sensory nerve bundles.  Humans don't have much in the way of an olfactory nerve, while other critters would have much larger nerves to carry more information.
703850
Human beings are animals, so trying to differentiate them is silly (or arrogant).  Besides, this isn't a question, it's a (long-winded) statement.
12704
Glenn, I appologize if this comes off pretentious, but I would like to address part of your question. Unfortunately, it's not the part you probably want answered, but I feel it's the most important part of your question.\n\nWhen it comes to biology/evolution, to ask the question "why" is unanswerable. It's not the way things work when it comes to evolution. Things are the way the are now because of millions of years of selective pressures dictated all current living things into their current constructions.\n\nIn fact, the question "why" is nearly impossible to even consider when it comes to biology. Things are the way they are not for any particular reason. Maybe there were organisms that had developed a large "blowhole" like structure that was at the end of their nasal cavity. But for whatever reason, which may or may not had anything to do with the having two small nares or a bigger blowhole, environmental pressures allowed one organism to succeed and pass along their traits (including the nairs) and the other became extinct.\n\nWe can talk about structure's function that it provides, but that structure was in no way "designed" that way to provide that function. In fact that function may or may not have been essential to that organism surviving and passing along that trait. Some traits are simply along for the ride. In those cases it's other structures that provide increased fitness which allows certain organisms to outcompete and prosper through evolutionary time. \n\nIn the case of having two nares at the opening of the nasal cavity, I have no idea if this was a critical structure for the propogation of organisms on earth. I can make the guess, however, based on the fact that many animals do have similar structures, that this feature was present early on in evolutionary time. The fact that this trait has been maintained suggests one of two possibilites: either these stuctures do have some level of importance for organisms' fitness or 2) there is no real pressure otherwise that has forced a change from this trait that developed early on.\n\nIf there have been some insight gained which is true, I'm not aware. Hopefully someone who has that expertise will find your question and answer. In the meantime, I hope you will consider why the word "why" is not an appropriate place to start the path to finding out.
968966
A "dot" and a "rag". \nNo, seriously, in most cases animals need to be of the same species (not "family" as a previous answer stated) to be able to produce offspring. However some species of the same genus can mate with each other and produce offspring, such as horses and donkeys, lions and tigers, some smaller cat species, dogs and wolves etc. Mostly the interspecies breed is infertile. This possibility is probably not as unnatural as one think but might rather point out that our (scientists') definition of a species as the basic classification unit of life, still contains elements of artificiality.\nYour mentioned species are not known to interbreed, though.
374150
Almost all mammals have two sets of teeth (this is called diphyodonty). One of the hypothesis to explain the existance of these two dental generations is related to the way our teeth work.\nThe teeth of adult mammals occlude (=come together) in very precise patterns that are related to the type of food and the way this food is chewed, and are very important for feeding efficiency. If the definitive teeth were to erupt in a young individual that is still growing, the growth of the skull and jaw bone could make the upper and lower teeth lose their occlusion, with negative consequences.\nSo the hypothesis proposes that the first generation or milk teeth appear during the first years (in humans, much earlier in other mammals), when the young one is feeding on breast milk, and then it is not so important that they become separated when the child keeps growing. \nOnly then they're replaced by the definitive ones. And remember, only incisors, canines and premolars have two generations. The molars (the most important for mastication) only erupt once, and they do so later, when the person is much more grown. In fact, the last molars or "wisdom teeth" sometimes do not erupt at all in humans.\n\nMore about mammalian teeth, jaws, and milk, at the Animal Diversity Web:\nhttp://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/topics/mammal_anatomy/tooth_replacement.html
774951
good, i totally agrees with you,are humans a higher form of animal?think again,after the tsunami in Asia,there is not a single animal found among the dead,even the birds are able to know earthquake before man,the only animals that is in the dark is human,so who is the lower or higher form,you be the judge
345826
Not everything has to be an adaptation, but assuming it is, there is likely an adaptive value to demonstrating emotion in a social animal such as humans. I don't know the specific answer to your two questions, but you might start with Darwin's "Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals", he discusses it there, I'm sure there's been work since.
1147104
because humans are animals\n\n...not plants
9647
The lack of trust between human and human. This can actually be traced back to the worsening performance of human being in caring for others, not being considerate, and step on other's back in order to climb higher.\n\nBelieve it or not, if it is not human, animals are living happily ever after on planet earth.\n\nToday, we are just working hard to solve the problems created by ourselves. The sad truth is, the speed of solutions are far behind the speed of the creation of new problems.
292034
We all had a common ancestor.  It just so happens that apes evolved differently to suit their environment than humans; we didn't evolve from each other, just divergently from our ancestor
1024565
Complexity? Other than extinctions, most species still exist as they have. We have observe no mutations of single celled creatures, no transition phases in the fossil record, or anything else that would support evolutionary theory.\n  The evolutionary course of the horse for instance is still found in the tapir of South America. I could go on , and on.\n  Did you know the tooth they based Peking man on was actually from an extinct pig?!? However school books have not been revised. Evolutionist are still presenting this as "proof".
13903
Humans are conscious whereas animals don't seem to be as conscious.  That is because (I believe) Genesis is true when it says that God created man in his own image. People are different than animals and we didn't come from them.  Notice also that people wear clothes (unique in life).  \n\nLove is also not explained by naturalistic theory, it should not be present if we naturalistically, by chance came from non-life (which is impossible anyway).
669232
I don't understand that either because I sure don't.  Animals may be less evolved than we are but they still have emotions and feelings and can show them.  To me, I would rather be around animals and appreciate them more than I do most humans!  They are more simplistic than we are and don't have the same egos we do but they are equal in every way and deserve respect, compassion and love just as we do.  They are a living breathing spirit just like we are and need to be treated as such.
821737
i can understand why they do it but...\n\ni dont agree because animals are not humans and they do have different d.n.a to us.
758790
An object is "anthropomorphic" if it has been given human attributes; these usually include the capacity for rational thought, emotions, and an upright posture. An anthropomorphic animal, therefore is a hybrid that is somewhere between a human and the original species. \n\nExamples of furries abound, and these can surely cement the concept for any readers that stopped to re-read the above paragraphs... Most cartoon characters are furries (e.g. Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, Wile E. Coyote, etc.). Many cartoon characters are quite removed from the actual animals; their caracatured forms still retain many animalistic traits, however, and this identifies them as furries. Many comic book characters (e.g. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Omaha the Cat Dancer, Usagi Yojimbo), movie characters (e.g. the Rippers in "Tank Girl", Barf in "Space Balls"), and mascots (e.g. the San Diego Chicken and Smokey the Bear) are also, at a basic level, anthropomorphized animals. Finally, furries are also commonly found in artwork, literature, and mythology (I won't bother to list examples here; I think you've got the idea by now). These are diverse categories, and this is one reason that it is hard to develop a comprehensive notion of what constitutes a "furry". \n\nThe diversity of furries is due, in part, to the degree to which they are anthropomorphized. Some characters (such as Mickey Mouse) are modified and humanized to such a degree that they only bear a passing resemblance to the animal from which they were derived. Others, such as Smokey the Bear, still closely resemble an animal in appearance.
542027
Reminder: 5n Theory, all continents used to be attached to one another- so in theory this is highly possible- if two of every species has moved from place to place. Also remember, animals have a good sense of unusual events happening, like earthquakes and things, so they might have had the sense to know where to go. Then you might ask about the unicorns, but it is said that they were too stubborn to get on the ship... dragons and pegasuses... I have no idea about.