Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Raggedyman

You decide.

Ontology recapitulates phylogeny.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Raggedyman

You decide.

Ontology recapitulates phylogeny.

um....Don't you mean...

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny?

ETA I'd also like to point out that the "Recapitulation theory" (which is actually a hypothesis) is generally discredited.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Raggedyman

You decide.

Ontology recapitulates phylogeny.

um....Don't you mean...

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny?

hahahahahahaha

I humbly stand corrected. Yes.

Thank you.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Raggedyman

You decide.

Ontology recapitulates phylogeny.

um....Don't you mean...

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny?

hahahahahahaha

I humbly stand corrected. Yes.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I knew what you meant though

a reply to: TerryDon79

Yeah, it is "discredited" but there are developmental similarities that cannot be denied or ignored.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am always amused how creationists suggest that they think mankind evolved from fish or monkeys

It really is silly if you think that, see evolution explains we come from a common ancestor
Something further down the tree of life, some animal that existed long ago and was not a fish, not sure what it was though, definetly not a monkey or a fish so they teach us what we must believe according to their assumptions

The truth of evolution is not a monkey or a fish, ultimately our common ancestor was dirt and water

They may complain that Creationists believe we evolved from monkeys and fish, though they have no qualms we have all, all life, evolved from dirt and water

Figure that out if you can

I know, right?

Time + Matter X Chance

but but but abiogenesis is different from evolution!!

Once you have life, there is evolution!

where'd the life come from?

From space!

where'd that life come from?

Chemicals!

what chemicals?

Don't know but it's true!!

Recapitulation theory (which isn't a theory, but a hypothesis) actually dates back to roughly 600BC, by some Egyptian Pharaoh.

Basically they saw something that looked like something else (gills in Ernst Haeckel's case) and drew a conclusion based off of that.

It would be like looking at leaves and noticing they have veins. Humans and all animals have veins. So the conclusion would be that leaves have blood.

See where the problem lies?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: TerryDon79

More importantly, when do we get the paperwork for our tax exempt status?

Ask lois lerner.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yeah, it is "discredited" but there are developmental similarities that cannot be denied or ignored.

In some cases, yes.

But recapitulation theory broadens it way too much.

It's like saying we have tailbones, snakes have tails, therefore we must be snakes. It's way to broad.

a reply to: TerryDon79

But directly shows the similarities for the phylum Chordata.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TerryDon79

But directly shows the similarities for the phylum Chordata.

But as I pointed out.

Just because something looks like gills, doesn't mean they are gills.

This is the reason the recapitulation theory (really a hypothesis) isn't an acceptable biological theory.

If it was accepted as a good theory it would have been mainstream years ago. It would also be another "tick" on the side of evolution. Even evolution theorists don't touch recapitulation theory as it's not a good hypothesis.

a reply to: Raggedyman



Start @ 40 sec mark.

a reply to: Lysergic

Starred for that video.

I wonder if he made a series with all the BS "theories" about?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Agreed. It's been years since I've even bothered arguing evolution versus creation.


Evolution seems such a simple theory and has so much to back it up that I seldom even give it a second thought.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TerryDon79

Agreed. It's been years since I've even bothered arguing evolution versus creation.


Evolution seems such a simple theory and has so much to back it up that I seldom even give it a second thought.

This is the main reason I like science so much.

It doesn't take everything that agrees with it as proof until it is proven (that makes sense, right?)

i dont think fish are even the same species / genus as each other

old.qi.com...

so we cannot have descended from fish as such,because fish dont exist...lol

originally posted by: gambon
i dont think fish are even the same species / genus as each other

old.qi.com...

so we cannot have descended from fish as such,because fish dont exist...lol

Very true.

Last count I remember there were 288 fish genera.

ETA You edited your post

There might be 288 NOW, but how many were there millions of years ago? Everything stems from one organism in one fashion or another.

a reply to: Raggedyman

You know what else is funny? Believing that people came from nothing. 2 people, male and female came out of the void and nothing. That's whats funny. Evolution is HIGHLY more believable than creationism or the sky daddy just made us be. But, too each there own.

a reply to: Raggedyman

We primates all evolved from a lizardy rat,didn't we?I recall reading it somewhere.

Ratty lizard?I'm not sure.

The masterpiece is available to all:

The Open Tree of Life

Man did not evolve from fish. Both Man and Fish have a common ancestor: Gnathostomata

OK, some folk call Gnathostomata 'Jawed Fish' but they are not what we know as modern fishes, and calling them 'Jawed Fish' is perhaps misleading. Never the less, the point is there.

From Gnathostomata two taxons descend: Chondrichthyes the 'Cartilaginous Fishes' from which modern fish descend and Teleostomi from which humans descend (eventually).

Man did not evolve from monkey. Both Man and Monkey have a common ancestor: Simiiformes which includes both Platyrrhini (New World Monkeys) and Catarrhini.

Now Catarrhini includes (among others) Hominoidea (Apes) which in turn includes (among others) Hominidae (Great Apes) which includes Homininae (African Apes) which includes Gorilla, Homo (Humans), Pan (Chimpanzee) and Pongo (Orangutan).

So humans and monkeys are not descended from each other, but they are both descended from some animal classified as a "Simiiformes".

Cousins are not descended from the same parents, but they are descended from the same grandparents.

Monkeys and Humans are 'Cousins' many times removed. Humans and Fish are many many many times removed.