Maybe We Have It ALL Wrong?

I think we came from cats or dogs!
think about it. we have hair.
we Dont live with monkeys do we.
we Do live with cats and dogs.

We all are fishes

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: rickymouse

You could be right...I just thought looking at these skin samples and how similar they are, the notion we evolved from apes doesn't seem logical...as far as looking for a missing link.

Looks can be deceiving. If you look beyond one single thing, you will see it is not only logical, but very highly probable(99.9999%) that humans are apes and evolved from ape genetic lines. You have genetics, and similarities of plenty of other features, and I'd put money on ape skin looking very similar to humans. If I can find one, I'll post it. Humans most certainly resemble chimps and apes more than snakes and other reptiles as you have suggested.

Also, a fundamental problem with your explanation is that over 20 "missing links" have been found as far as hominid ancestors go, so you are barking up the wrong tree. "Missing link" is no longer a valid term, now that we have found that many species of hominid. Every fossil is a "link", no magic necessary.

a reply to: rickymouse

Glucogenesis is the same in humans and apes. Please cite a source so we can find grounds for a discussion, as I can't understand your point right now.

220m years ago, we might find a common ancestor with reptiles. Not very close to us, I think.

a reply to: JUhrman

Your picture is a re-working of the one produced for the theory of `Recapitulation`expoused by the German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel, it and the theory was totally discredited. There was also an attempt to attach this line of reasoning to Lamarckism through the pseudo-Lamarckian views of Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, extremely unfair. What you have there my friend is a true fossil.

Makes you wonder which parts of the current theory will suffer the same fate, because it will happen, probably sooner than later.

a reply to: happytoexist

I've heard of the controversy with the drawings, but haven't seen any valid drawings or pictures that actually debunk them. Are you able to provide the "real" pictures or modern drawings that show these are wrong? Supposedly they are accurate for the most part, but some have criticized certain details here and there. Recapitulation hypothesis has been rejected, but the similarities in fetus' are pretty hard to deny. Humans do start with a tail, and from what I've read fraud has NOT been proven and only creationists still fight it.

Below is a link to a 2008 paper that defends Haeckel written by Robert J. Richards. There isn't really a big difference between the original drawings and modern digital pictures. Obviously they aren't exact but keep in mind these were drawn in the 1870s before a large portion of technology and knowledge about the cell and embryo development were prevalent. The Recapitulation hypothesis may not be valid, but the drawings are pretty darn close.

home.uchicago.edu...