Hominid/Ape Evolution: Do we have many transitional forms of apes, monkeys, etc.?

Question

For my entire life I have been so interested in human evolution. The basic understanding of evolution requires one to understand that modern humans did not evolve from monkeys or apes; but that we have a common ancestor about 7-10 million years ago (That number could be wrong; someone correct me if I'm wrong). So, I started to think about that. Have paleontologists, evolutionists, etc. found many fossils of transitional forms of apes and monkeys? Is there any difference in the bone structure of modern primates compared to much older fossils? Thanks!

P.S. Please no BS religious myths as answers here! I'm not interested in your ignorance.

AbortedSaint: I asked for tards like yourself to not answer me here. By the way, I'm sure you know EVERYTHING about your religion huh? I would never act as if I know everything about evolution. Nobody does! So please, keep your ignorance to yourself.

Answer 1

Homo sapiens
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm
The species to which you and all other living human beings on this planet belong is Homo sapiens. Anatomically, modern humans can generally be characterized by the lighter build of their skeletons compared to earlier humans. Modern humans also have very large brains, which vary in size from population to population and between males and females, but the average is around 1300 cc. Housing this enlarged brain has involved the reorganization of the skull into what is thought of as the "modern" appearance -- a high vaulted cranium with a flat and near vertical forehead. The supraorbital torus is lost in most modern humans, and ridging above the orbits in general is very reduced. The widest part of the skull is high on the skull, as opposed to earlier Homo erectus and H. ergaster. The back of the skull lacks the transverse torus of H. erectus and the occipital bun of H. neanderthalensis (Compare the crania of H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens).

The origin of modern Homo sapiens is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed. According to the first, the distribution of anatomical traits in modern human populations in different regions was inherited from local populations of Homo erectus and intermediate "archaic" forms. This "Multiregional Hypothesis" states that all modern humans evolved in parallel from earlier populations in Africa, Europe and Asia, with some genetic intermixing among these regions. Support for this comes from the similarity of certain minor anatomical structures in modern human populations and preceding populations of Homo erectus in the same regions.

A different model proposes that a small, relatively isolated population of early humans evolved into modern Homo sapiens, and that this population succeeded in spreading across Africa, Europe, and Asia -- displacing and eventually replacing all other early human populations as they spread. In this scenario the variation among modern populations is a recent phenomenon. Part of the evidence to support this theory comes from molecular biology, especially studies of the diversity and mutation rate of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA in living human cells.From these studies an approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations can be calculated. This research has typically yielded dates around 200,000 years ago, too young for the "Multiregional Hypothesis." Molecular methods have also tended to point to an African origin for all modern humans, implying that the ancestral population of all living people migrated from Africa to other parts of the world -- thus the name of this interpretation: the "Out of Africa Hypothesis."

Whichever model (if either) is correct, the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago.


Homo neanderthalensis
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm
The original interpretation of Neanderthal anatomy was one of a primitive early human based on a flawed reconstruction of the nearly complete skeleton of an elderly Neanderthal male found at La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France (second photograph from the top). However, Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and 80's, although many authors today have returned to the previous two-species hypothesis. Either way, Neanderthals represent a very close evolutionary relative of modern humans.

Several features of the skeleton unique to Neanderthals appear to be related to cold climate adaptations. These features include limb-bone proportions and muscle attachments indicative of a broad, slightly short, and strong body; a large, rounded nasal opening; and a suite of anatomical traits of the skull (compare the crania of H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens).

In all, the fossil record for Neanderthals is significantly better than for earlier human species. One reason for this is that Neanderthal fossils are relatively young compared to other early human species, and fossils decay over time. But another very important factor is the purposeful burial of their dead. Many Neanderthal sites include the remains of individuals who were deliberately placed in graves dug into the earth. Some of these burials show evidence that may indicate that these graves were adorned with offerings (such as flowers). This cultural advance, which represents an awareness and recognition of life and death, may have first been practiced by the Neanderthals.


Homo heidelbergensis
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/heid.htm
Homo heidelbergensis is the species name now given to a range of specimens from about 800,000 years ago to the appearance of anatomically modern Homo sapiens (the species to which we belong). The species name was originally proposed for the fossil mandible discovered at Mauer, a town near Heidelberg, Germany. It is a nearly complete early human mandible that is very robustly built, but lacks a chin. Additional finds of early humans with morphological attributes of both modern humans and Homo erectus have shown that the transition from early and middle Pleistocene forms and the morphology of modern humankind was not a neat transition that could be easily explained.

For many years, scientists placed any problematic specimens displaying mixtures of "erectus-like" and "modern" traits into a confusing category: "Archaic" Homo sapiens (basically meaning any Homo sapiens that didn't look quite modern). Recently, it has been proposed to separate these individuals into a distinct species. For this purpose, the Mauer mandible, and the species name Homo heidelbergensis has seniority.


Homo erectus
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html
To understand what we mean today by "Homo erectus", some history of paleoanthropological thought is needed. The first early human fossil found outside of Europe was the Trinil 2 fossil skullcap from the Solo River in Java, pictured to the right. The fossil was placed in the species Pithecanthropus erectus by its discoverer Eugene Dubois. Almost 40 individuals have been recovered from Java to this day, roughly equivalent to the number of fossils found at the caves of Choukoutien in China. The Choukoutien fossils found were originally assigned the species name Sinanthropus pekinensis. It was not until the 1950's that Ernst Mayr proposed that all of the specimens from these two roughly contemporaneous locales, along with others localities from Europe and Africa, represented a single species, Homo erectus. Since the 1950's, however, the early African populations of what Mayr termed Homo erectus have once again been split into a separate species Homo ergaster.
Homo erectus exhibits many features particular to the species, including a long skull shaped with thick cranial walls. The back of the skull is marked with a protruberance known as a transverse torus. Over the eyes is a large and prominent browridge, or supraorbital torus, which joins the rest of the frontal bone at a depression called the sulcus. Cranial capacities of Homo erectus average around 1000cc, which is far greater than earlier australopiths and even early Homo. The dentition of Homo erectus is nearly identical to modern humans, although the cheek teeth do remain larger, and the mandible is generally more robust.

The species Homo erectus is thought to have diverged from Homo ergaster populations roughly 1.6 million years ago, and then spread into Asia. It was believed that Homo erectus disappeared as other populations of archaic Homo evolved roughly 400,000 years ago. Evidently, this is not the case. Recent studies into the complicated stratigraphy of the Java Homo erectus sites have revealed some surprising information. Researchers have dated the deposits thought to contain the fossils of H. erectus near the Solo River in Java to only 50,000 years ago. This would mean that at least one population of Homo erectus in Java was a contemporary of modern humans (Homo sapiens).


Homo ergaster
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erg.html
By 1.9 million years ago, another lineage of the genus Homo emerged in Africa. This species was Homo ergaster. Traditionally, scientists have referred to this species as Homo erectus and linked this species name with a proliferation of populations across Africa, Europe, and Asia. Yet, since the first discoveries of Homo erectus, it had been noted that there were differences between the early populations of "Homo erectus" in Africa, and the later populations of Europe, Africa and Asia. Many researchers now separate the two into distinct species Homo ergaster for early African "Homo erectus", and Homo erectus for later populations mainly in Asia. Since modern humans share the same differences as H. ergaster with the Asian H. erectus, scientist consider H. ergaster as the probable ancestor of later Homo populations.
H. ergaster had a rounded cranium and a prominent browridge. Its teeth were much reduced in size, especially when compared to Australopithecus. Several features that distinguish H. ergaster from H. erectus are thinner bones of the skull and the lack of an obvious sulcus, or depression, just behind the browridge.

By 1.6 million years ago, an advance in stone tool technology is identified with H. ergaster. Known as the Achulean stone tool industry, it consisted of large cutting tools, primarily hand axes and cleavers. Originally thought to be responsible for the spread of early humans beyond Africa, it is now known that the migration out of Africa predates this tool industry.

At the top-left is the amazingly well preserved KNM ER 3733 cranium. Second from the top is the type specimen of the Homo ergaster species, the KNM ER 992 mandible. At the bottom is the famous Turkana Boy KNM WT 15000, a nearly complete skeleton dating back to 1.6 million years.
(Visit the link to view the refered specimens.)


*****
There are many other human ancestors listed on the site below (See sources). All of the above listed websites are hyperlinks from the main one below. Really good reading.

Basically, human characteristics (as opposed to apes) mostly revolve around bipedalism, but there are anatomical differences in the skull, spine, pelvis, knee, and feet for this to happen. Also, the opposable thumb. Another uniquely human characteristic is the teeth. Earlier humans had larger, heavier molars, and their jaws were clearly designed for chewing rough, coarse food items, because of the more prominent attachment points for the muscles.

Look for me to update this, as there is more, but I'll have to find it.

Answer 2

Monkeys- Have tails small Apes- Dont have tails bigger We developed from previous worldwide monkeys that are all extinct of direction we and all the different apes alive right this moment are the alive descendants. additionally to adapt from the previous worldwide monkeys have been the monkeys we see todays. So human beings, chimpanzees, gibbons and so on (apes) and new worldwide monkeys the monkeys your regularly see right this moment the two sprung of in 2 distinctive procedures you spot we are no longer with reference to the hot worldwide monkeys we proportion an ancestors a very long some time past ok and that ancestor/ ancestors is extinct. additionally if human beings can stay to tell the story why cant apes and monkeys. Like a family individuals tree its no longer a million line at present down with one surviver a era there distinctive offspring and it gets wider. You and your sibling are distinctive yet comparable/appropriate human beings yet got here from an analogous discern. like apes and monkeys got here from an analogous ancestor of the previous worldwide monkey. Now apes and human beings. I say race isn't any differnce yet heres an occasion. a white couple have a 2 little ones the two little ones each have 2 little ones out of the 4 2 our mixed race 2 our white and those 4 have 2 each additionally 2 seem organic black 2 mixed race 4 white the two who seem organic black wont appear like the 4 organic white and the mixed race 2 will seem in between yet all of them proportion an ancestor all of them survived and not one of the 8 are an offspring of the different. know how we are no longer descendants of any author residing right this moment yet proportion a particular ancestors with apes. Monkeys developed into apes while they got here down from a tree and gained evolution in a balancing without the want of a tail issues no one is ordinary with of made this variation as no one became there to be sure. Our ape ancestor turnt into human beings in hassle-free terms by way of fact they adapted to stroll then communicate direct and project remedy final got here subculture and those are the only transformations from us and something of the animal kingdom all of us know this got here approximately however the question is what made it got here approximately what have been our ancestors doing and we will discover out.

Answer 3

We have common ancestors with chimpanzees about 6 million years ago, a common ancestor with all apes about 12 million years ago - and with all monkeys about 40 million years ago.

There are many, many transitional fossils the so-called 'missing link' is a myth propagated by creationists - if there weren't any transitional fossils DNA would be enough to prove evolution with the fossils as well its only very wilfully deluded and ignorant people who reject the facts of evolution.

Try typing in mammal evolution in to your favourite search engine and taking a careful look at what you find. Or better yet find out where there's a good natural history museum and take a guided tour.

Answer 4

i don't think so. but in what i have studied in biology we still came from apes... well not actually apes but the same ancestors as the apes... we have a lot of similarities. The modern primate has different bone structure compared to the older ones because everything improved as time went on... so most probably idts

Answer 5

We ARE apes. Yes, lots of fossils of extinct hominins (human ancestors) exist. In our genus Homo neanderthalis, H. erectus, H. habilis, and the new one H. floresensis from Flores. The common ancestor of Homo and Pan (chimps) is younger than you say - closer to 5 MY BP. The extant great apes are all about the same distance as we are from the monkeys.

PS - just ignore the religious nuts, the scientific world has passed them by long ago. Their 'arguments' are deceit with no basis in reality.

Answer 6

Let me get this straight, you believe in evolution but you don't know all the doctrines of it, and you aren't even sure if there are transitional fossils (By the way there aren't any... not of apes, not of humans, not of any creature).
Sounds to me like you've put your faith in the wrong belief system.

Answer 7

It's all fine and great to ponder the past and how we got here, but I think the more interesting question is about hybrids between humans and other animals. that's the future.

Answer 8

Check this out >> http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=0a6377ca-5687-4a9a-b38e-e713a862bdb6&f=06/64&fg=copy