The missing link of Homosapiens?

Question

By theory of evolution, man evolved from apes, then the following order could be true Monkey-Ape-Cave man-Present day man and the ape from sea, like fishes-amphibians-mammals etc. etc...

Now my question is we still find Fishes, Whales, Amphibians, ..... Monkey, Ape, ..... Modern man but where did the Cave man dissapear altogether from this chain?

Do we need to reconsider the theory of evolution?

Answer 1

"Do we need to reconsider the theory of evolution?"

No. Some of us need to UNDERSTAND the theory of evolution.

(Sorry, I don't mean to be snarky. But it is astounding to me how many objections to evolution are based on a faulty understanding of what the theory actually says ... a misunderstanding actively promoted by creationist literature and web sites ... they WANT people to be confused about evolution, which is why they do everything they can to sabotage it being taught accurately (or taught at all) in schools. So my comment is not directed at you, only at the people who have managed to undermine your understanding.)

The key mistake in your question is the word "chain". Life is not a "chain", life is a *tree* ... a constantly branching tree.

This is so *basic* to understanding evolution, that I have to say it again:

LIFE IS A CONSTANTLY BRANCHING TREE. If you do not understand this, then you cannot understand evolution.

Once you do understand this, then this provides the basis for answering your "Cave Man" question.

If by "Cave Man" you mean Neanderthal, (Homo neanderthalensis), then that is a *branch* that lived for a while, co-existed with Homo sapiens, but went extinct. They are not our ancestors.

If by "Cave Man" you mean Homo erectus (the ancestor to both H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens) then what it did was continue to evolve (change) over about a million years as the lone species in this branch, until it split into two branches (actually into several branches ... there are other less well-known branches that also went extinct).

Gettng past the "chain" metaphor also eliminates the "missing link" question (links in a chain). There is no such thing as "the missing link", but instead scientists talk about "transitional forms" ... which are not "missing" at all. (Transitional forms abound in the fossil record of humans.)

In short, getting past the "chain" metaphor, and understanding branching, answers ALL those "Why are there still X?" questions, and ALL those "What happened to Y?" questions.

Branching, branching, branching. That is absolutely key.

Answer 2

You seem to understand the concept of different species arising from one species like branches growing from a tree or, if you prefer, a chain that has other chains attached to it. And like a tree, you might draw a line on the bark from the tip of one branch to the trunk and say, "this is the path the tree had to take get to this particular tip".

The part of the picture you seem to be missing, however, has to do with when any particular branch splits and when it doesn't. So here's how it goes:

When you get right to the core of it the whole thing is about DNA and genes. Pretty much every animal starts as a single cell and then the cell multiply and differentiate into whatever the creature is, and it's the DNA that tells it how. So a very important issue in evolution is the question of when a group of critters is able to share their DNA and when they are not. And by sharing, we mostly mean having children.

Take humans now. We are all one species, regardless of race, height, geography, and so on. And though some genes are common in some places than others (Irish people have more green eyes), because every now and then someone moves someplace new and has children with some other group of people there are few genes that NEVER occur somewhere, even if they are rare.

This means that if some new gene arises, everyone has a chance of getting it. It can move freely through the population as long as people do. And if it's a massive advantage then probably soon everyone will have a copy. The 'old' humans who didn't have that gene will be entirely gone, replaced by the 'new' ones.

On the other hand, if there were a small village in a remote area somewhere that NEVER had children with outsiders and retained this tradition for a long, long time, then even if a new gene comes along for the rest of the world these guys don't get to share it, because they never mix genes with other people. Then we would have two kinds of humans, the 'new' ones and the 'old' ones... both at the same time.

If differences keep accumulating between these two separate and distinct populations, then they'll become more and more different and eventually they'll be completely different species - they won't be able to have children together even if they try because their genes will just be too different.

And that is why there are still both chimps and humans, but not cave-men. At some point, the ancestors to chimps and humans (who probably much more resembled a chimp) got separated into two groups and couldn't share genes any more. One group became modern chimps. The other group became cave-men, and since the cave-man populations were never completely separated genetically long enough, they all became humans or died off.

Hopefully that makes a lot of sense (it generally does to biologists!). Peace.

Answer 3

sigh

Before suggesting we reconsider theory of evolution, you need to get clearer about it -- how can you say it's wrong if you don't understand it accurately?

So, there were swimming critters.

Some of those critters started spending more and more time on land.

...

There were land critters ... eventually mammals among them ... primates among them (that is, some descendants, over thousands of generations, developed primate characteristics -- it's not that some of the critters -- pop! -- became primates).

As for ape -- > modern man part.

Many of the links are not missing at all, quite a few have, in fact, been found.

As another answerer said, it isn't as simple as you're suggesting, as there were a number (we don't yet know how many) of hominid species living around the same time; many died out, this one didn't.

Sorry I haven't done a very good job here, but if your really do want to understand this stuff, here's a web site.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/human-evolution/dn9990

Read that page, and click the links for more details (some things you can't read without subscribing, which means giving them money, but a lot of it is free).

The site is a UK publication, New Scientist, which is news of the world of science.

It's reputable, and a great source for all things science.

And the people who write the articles actually understand evolution, making it a better source of information and understanding than sources who reject evolution.

Answer 4

Apes are still around because they evolved from our common ancestor too. We humans got smarter. The great apes, including chimpanzees, got stronger. They are stronger than us humans. (A 180-pound chimp would wipe the floor with a 180-pound human, even a college wrestler.) I don't expect you to believe that, but if you try hard enough you can understand it.

Cave men became extinct. So did mammoths, dodos, dinosaurs and passenger pigeons.

Here is a little something extra for you, what the Cajuns call "lagniappe", like the free cookie the baker gives the kids when Mom buys a big birthday cake:

Back in 1776, monarchists (Monarchists are people who want to be ruled by a king or queen, not butterfly fanciers.) argued against democracy as a form of government. They said it was absurd to believe that "All men are created equal" because anyone could see men came in different heights, weights and colors. Case closed.

My point is not about democracy. It is about debate. Before you argue about something, you should understand it. If you don't understand it, you'll look foolish. One night on the "Saturday Night Live" TV show, Gilda Radner argued vehemently against the "Deaf Penalty", instead of the "Death Penalty". She looked absurd and we all laughed until the beer came out our noses, which was what she wanted. You don't want people to laugh at you.

In a serious debate, you should understand the other side. Note that I didn't say "Believe". Understanding is not the same as believing. If you were to study 20th century European Political history, you would have to understand several forms of government: communism (the USSR), fascism (Germany, Italy), socialism (Lots of countries), socialist democracy, capitalistic democracy and constitutional monarchy. You would not believe in all of them; you COULD not believe in all of them at once. If you tried, your head would explode. You would, however, have to understand their basic concepts.

If you were to study comparative religion, you would have to understand what Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists and Confucians believe. You would not have to convert to a new religion every week, but you would have to understand the other ones. You would not get very far in your studies if you dismissed all the other ones as "wrong". They believe their path is the right one just as strongly as you believe your path is the right one.

99% of the biologists alive today believe that species evolve, and that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life. Christian biologists, Jewish biologists, Muslim biologists, Hindu biologists, Buddhist biologists; Australian, Bolivian and Chinese biologists; 99% of them believe it is the best explanation. Yes, it is only a theory. Planetary motion - the theory that the earth went around the sun, not vice versa - was only a theory for a long time. Some people still don't believe it.

Your question has been answered, hundreds of times, by people more versed in biology than I. It gets answered ever week here at YA.

If you are truly curious, ask your minister to give you a short, reasoned explanation of evolution. Tell him you don't want to believe it, of course; you just want to understand it. If he says he can't because it is wrong, he is as ignorant as those monarchists I mentioned above.

By the way, this question gets asked so often that some answerers have made a drinking game of it - much like the TV show "Frasier", when Frasier, Niles and Martin all watched "Antiques Road Show" together. In the episode, every time someone said "veneer" they would all take a drink; Niles and Frasier of a premier crux, Martin of Raineer Ale. You may get some answers that say "Swig" or "Gulp" or "Thanks for the excuse to drink". That's what they mean. If you do a search on "still monkies" and "still monkeys" you'll get roughly 2 - 3 per day since YA started.

Answer 5

"Cave man disappear altogether"

Certain links disappear. This means two things they evolved completely, or they did not further evolve at all and remaining were not able to survive.

It may have disappear like Dinosaurs.

Time to time archaeologist find some thing that initially is identified as missing link(cave man), but further investigation rules them out, so we may still find this missing link. This is not the only missing link there are many missing links.

In physics, theory of propagation of light has quite a few theories and all pan out and then there is some thing do not pan out, cannot be explained, by each theory, they all break down in some case.

Answer 6

The theory of evolution does not need to be reconsidered simply because we cannot find modern living caveman specimens. There are no living wooly mammoths or megladons, but that does not change the fact that they are evolutionary precursors. The fish, whales, amphibians, etc. that you are referring to are as different from their ancestors circa the caveman age (in most cases) as we are from cavemen, so it is not true to say that other species on earth have living fossil ancestors.

For very interesting reading of supposed DNA analysis of the missing link, Wikipedia "Pangboche Hand" and follow up on Bigfoot, the Yeti, etc.

Answer 7

A very interesting question. And also very interesting answers, i agree with the friend above that stated evolution is like branching out of trees. Sounds good. But we dont have enough evidence to prove anything as yet. The cave might have gone extinct. have you heard about a particular tribe that lives on one of the andaman & nicobar islands? these are primitive tribes still living secluded from the rest of the world, reports stated that this tribe is nearing extinction. It could be something similar to that.
One very valid proof that supports the theory of branching out is although we all belong to the homosapien race, we still find differences in features of humans from different parts around the world....

Answer 8

This is why we need to push for higher standards in science education.

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT STATE THAT HUMANS CAME FROM MONKEYS OR APES OR WHATEVER THING YOU PEOPLE THROW OUT NEXT AS YOUR PROOF OF CREATION.

The of evolution hypothesizes that al organisms shared a common ancestor, and for closely related organisms such as primates that ancestor was not all that long ago.

Seriously, stop taking biology classes taught at sunday school and actually get a real science education. It will do you wonders.

Answer 9

yes ,it should be reconsidered,it's application related to human evolution is kind of "absurd &obsolote",; ( take for
example the different blood types in the human race),where are the exactness or similarities that we share with apes?to be more specific with the blood type O ? however
that does not mean that "the evolution
theory" could not be applied to other areas in the biology
field,but it should not be considered the "worship" theory
in biology either.

Answer 10

an experiment in the us examining fossil evidence involved the burial of a dozen of so cattle in a desert. decades later the site was dug up and only 1 ankle bone was found....
not try not knowing the location and thousand or even millions of years
in short fossil evidence is difficult to interpret due to this.
mankind may have evolved in a single site now covered in water in which no scientist would even dream of looking, environmental changes completely destroyed the evidence or most likely hasnt been discovered yet