Changes

== History ==

== History ==

Universal common ancestry is an ancient idea.  Many ancient [[pagan]]s held that humans were related to animals.  [[Anaxagoras]], for instance, argued that humans are related to fish, but became humans because the water became too crowded, and the fish kicked humans out of the water.  Many ancient American Indian cultures also believed humans were descended from animals.

Universal common ancestry is an ancient idea.  Many ancient [[pagan]]s held that humans were related to animals.  [[Anaxagoras]], for instance, argued that humans are related to fish, but became humans because the water became too crowded, and the fish kicked humans out of the water.  Many ancient American Indian cultures also believed humans were descended from animals, and some commomorated these beliefs through [[total pole]]s.<ref>http://www.hud.gov/local/shared/working/r10/nwonap/totems.pdf</ref<

More recently, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the idea of universal common ancestry regained popularity in [[Europe]].  In 1745, French mathematician and scientist Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759) wrote:

More recently, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the idea of universal common ancestry regained popularity in [[Europe]].  In 1745, French mathematician and scientist Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759) wrote in his book ''Venus Physique'':

:"Could one not say that, in the fortuitous combinations of the productions of nature, as there must be some characterized by a certain relation of fitness which are able to subsist, it is not to be wondered at that this fitness is present in all the species that are currently in existence? Chance, one would say, produced an innumerable multitude of individuals; a small number found themselves constructed in such a manner that the parts of the animal were able to satisfy its needs; in another infinitely greater number, there was neither fitness nor order: all of these latter have perished. Animals lacking a mouth could not live; others lacking reproductive organs could not perpetuate themselves... The species we see today are but the smallest part of what blind destiny has produced..."  

:"Could one not say that, in the fortuitous combinations of the productions of nature, as there must be some characterized by a certain relation of fitness which are able to subsist, it is not to be wondered at that this fitness is present in all the species that are currently in existence? Chance, one would say, produced an innumerable multitude of individuals; a small number found themselves constructed in such a manner that the parts of the animal were able to satisfy its needs; in another infinitely greater number, there was neither fitness nor order: all of these latter have perished. Animals lacking a mouth could not live; others lacking reproductive organs could not perpetuate themselves... The species we see today are but the smallest part of what blind destiny has produced..."