Are they still being used in textbooks today, or is that just a myth?
It's real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YmLWnQGZhQ&bpctr=1467014386
>>8166642
The fuck did i just see
>>8166925
/x/ is for paranormal stuff dummy
>>8166925
This. Haeckel's embryo drawings are grossly exaggerated in terms of the morphological similarities. However, the biochemical basis of development is very similar between even distant organisms.
Interestingly, the same process by which a certain species of worm, Caenorhabditis elegant, develops the exterior of its vagina uses the same machinery as that which goes wrong in Alzheimer's disease.
>>8166626
I graduated form high school in 2014.
Both my zoology and anatomy/physiology classes had that in their text books.
>>8167030
Interesting point... Reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS
>>8167164
This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.
>>8167164
The traits that the ancestor and the chimp didn't share got replaced by the chimp's other trait during the ancestor's evolution to a chimp. Likewise with humans. "More advanced doesn't make much sense. But if you force to have, we are also more advanced than dogs, bit we know we didn't evolve from them
>>8166626
Unfortunately my biology high school books (6 years ago, probably in newer editions too) had that figure in it to demonstrate the concept of a common ancestor.
High school biology teaching is lagging 50 years behind here. Physiology and genetics are lagging 15 years.
Luckily university books here have slightly fresher information in them.
Bump
>>8167180
>he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat
Lol, he did enjoy his boat rides.
So what do you think explains the variations in species?
>>8167164
>chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans
That's incorrect on so many levels.
Humans and chimps have a lot in common, so they do have "features of both". Even if humans and chimps had nothing in common, that wouldn't rule out a common ancestor that had similarities to both. Some number of the common ancestors could lose their human features and evolve into chimps, and some could lose the chimp feature and evolve into humans - that way you can end up with two very different organisms diverging from a single ancestor. I don't see how any of this implies that either humans evolved from chimps or vice versa, nor do i see how it relates to that guy's post.
Bump
>>8167164
>According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left.
Dinosaurs didn't go extinct just because birds evolved, moron.
>>8169709
meteors are just a meme
Yes they do 9th grade middle school
In germany
>>8169888
This is just sad.
