Man could he be a close relative of the monkey? Instead, the monkey is it a degenerate man? Both theories use the same arguments. Those who remember they come from the Light choose the latter hypothesis.

Remember that to Lamarck and Darwin,Go to Dépasser Darwin human and ape descended from a common ancestor. But this thesis is thoroughly discussed.Go to L'évolution en question According to Darwin anyway, the simianie apelike origin of the man is little doubt. Following him, science has classified human being in the family of primates, or apes. For Biblical creationists, it is a blasphemy. For the New Age spiritualists, is an aberration: how could we forget that we are light and lightborn forever? But leave some as the others aside for now because there are worse than monkeys. According to some authors,  man could get off the pig!

Thanks to them for this rewarding idea. They are:

Veyron and Rochette, Edmond le cochon

Joann Sfar, Les Potamoks

Gilbert Shelton, Warhog Man

and Bernard Werber, Le Père de nos pères

Try to discuss the issue with appropriate humor. What other animal has a skin so close to ours, slightly hairy, covering all shades of human skin?

Oddly enough actually, from the warthog to the Chinese pig, pork skin turns from pink to brown and yellow to black, depending on the latitude, exactly like ours. This phenomenon appears to be limited to these two species, pigs' and ours. Another thing: if we came from monkeys, where has our fur gone? Desmond MorrisAmerican scientist he wrote a best-seller in the 70's, The Naked Ape, an essay dealing with the descent and origin of Man has a theory: we have lost our hair turning the water element, as a consequence of a great cataclysmGo to Le grand cataclysme that raised the sea level. Thus we would have strong emotional bond with our cousins, dolphins,Go to Animal, on est mal and they still remember when we swam together.

Desmond Morris is not alone in believing that man is back in the water. Elaine Morgan said it was paddling near the shore that we learned to stand. For her part, the U.S. anthropologist Margaret Mead shares a similar viewpoint. But let us return to our pigs. In pharmacology, when it comes to test substances, the relationship of human's and pork's response is well known. However, it does not come from our genetic, but another factor, largely unexplained, which standardizes the metabolic processes of both species. Should we see another argument for the thesis of our ancestor pig?

Turn now to another subject: where these Jewish and Muslim dietary laws do they come from, which prohibit entirely the consumption of pork? The historical reason for this taboo is hygienic as it is said in most comments. Let's admit it, since everyone saysIt is not a good reason to taking it for granted! Go to page ... But the ban hanging over the pork meat is striking relief when we consider that the pig is our "mother". Another sign we all know the real pig heads literally as figuratively. Is it because we have it some of us have kept his bad temper? And then we all found that some uniforms can make man a real pig.

As every woman knows

in every man there is a feelthy pig.

So we would not be the sons of the bonobo ... Not only. Hard to swallow. Yet a question arises: the man has 99% of genes in common with chimpanzees and much less with the pork. This could be because the genetics of all humanoids reasonable is compatible,Go to Animal, on est mal regardless the origin of their animal lineage. "Everything that rises converges,"  ClaudelFrench poet and writer from the first part of 20th century. said. Thus, the chimpanzee very close to the status of reasonable humanoid would have more genetic similarity to us than we have with our animal prototype, ie the pig.

Enough of this nonsense! Our common with the pork's response is indisputable indeed - so is our kinship with all animals! The man isn't he the crossroads between the angel and the beast?

It could be that these stories of animal-men reflect something else. Imagine these gods flyingGo to Les Egyptiens volants by air planes,Go to page they became bird-men in the eyes of primitive. If they move in water they are fish-men or snakes. And if they do both, they are snakes-vultures as Enki-Ea,Go to page feathered serpents as Quetzalcoatl.Go to page

Another thing: do not forget that the present human races have developed in parallel civilizations, with no real exchange as shown in genetics with the example of the Seven Daughters of Eve.Read "The GMO Man" by clicking the button> There would have been only seven different human types, ie seven women - the seven origin of our present humanity. This means that in a given location, all men, all women had exactly the same physical type. The emergence of a group with a different look, whatever it is, could provoke reactions of fear. Since the newcomers had "magical" powers, their different look was perceived as divine. 

The Mesopotamians as pre-Columbian Indians had swarthy skin or brown eyes and black hair. What looked like these newcomers to frighten them so much? If we believe the different Mesopotamian or Amerindian texts that we have on the subject, their physical desciption is accurate enough. Aquiline nose, high cheekbones, slanting blue eyes, curly blond hair very white and light skin as to the Mesopotamians. Blonde hair, blue eyes, very white skin, slanted eyes and aquiline nose, say the Incas or Aztecs. The sketch of the former godsGo to Dieu, portrait-robot is getting more accurate, as you can see.