Evolution?

Question

If evolution is true, then why aren't there humans in various stages of evolution today? Scientists claim that we evolved from apes, but there are no skeletons of "the missing link". Why aren't there living examples of "Cro-Magnon Man"?

Please don't make assumptions about my beliefs. I am generating discussion, and I actually agree with many of you.

Answer 1

These might be better as separate questions (as the first two deserve long answers) ... so, sorry this got long ... but here goes:

>"If evolution is true, then why aren't there humans in various stages of evolution today?"

Because that would violate the notion of 'species'. Because a species, by definition, is a group of organisms that share a common gene pool, a species either evolves *AS A WHOLE* or it BRANCHES (splits into two species that can't interbreed with each other). As long as humans are interbreeding throughout the world (i.e. there are no hard boundaries between one population and its neighbors), they are exchanging genetic material (sharing the same gene pool). So if one population of humans evolve, *ALL* humans evolve! (Although this can take some time for genes to travel around the world). There can be small *regional* differences (what are called "ethnic groups", or even "races") ... but the overall traits of the species evolve *AS A WHOLE*.

The only exception to this (besides extinction) is BRANCHING. This occurs if a subpopulation gets isolated from the main species. If this isolation lasts long enough, the genetic changes accumulate to the point where that subpopulation can no longer interbreed with the parent species ... and we have the birth of a new species. This is why we have so many different primate species ... and in fact we have evidence of other branches from our own branch (like Neanderthal) that split off, but have since gone extinct.

But once a species forms by branching from another species, its members evolve *together* ... until such time as it branches again. (And it is increasingly unlikely that humans will branch again.)

So as long as humans remain a single, interbreeding species sharing the same gene pool, there is absolutely no reason why we would *expect* to see humans in various stages of evolution today. In fact, it would completely violate the theory of evolution.

>"Scientists claim that we evolved from apes, but there are no skeletons of "the missing link"."

This is a falsity promoted by creationist literature that either misunderstands, or knowingly misrepresents the fossil record.

First, to clarify what is meant by "we evolved from apes" ... technically, humans *ARE* apes. So it is more correct to say that we share a common ancestor with the other apes ... an ancestor that probably didn't look much like modern humans, or any modern ape species. Was that common ancestor itself an "ape"? We would probably classify it as such (as it was a primate species lacking a tail). But again, it is not any ape species alive today.

The other thing to understand is that the fossil record *rarely* records the exact species that is the common ancestor between two living species. This is because what usually *causes* branching is a population crisis. A population is already small, and/or it is decimated by some catastrophe (climate change, disease, some successful predator), which makes the species vulnerable to getting isolated into disconnected subpopulations. Small populations evolve quickly (since it is easier for genes to spread in a smaller gene pool) ... until they speciate, and find new niches where they can regain some stability. The result is that the populations just before and just after a speciation event are usually small (and therefore don't leave a lot of fossils).

Over 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, and of the extinct species, we have *tons* of specimens ... but this is nothing compared to the species that weren't "lucky" enough to be preserved as fossils. So the fossil record leading up to to the branching between humans and apes is very good, and the fossil record of the various species of intermediate fossils from that branch to today is very good. But the exact species at the branching event itself is one of several candidates (the leading candidate is Sahelanthropus tchadensis), or may be a species we have not discovered yet.

Creationists like to call this "the missing link" ... as if all of the theory of human evolution unravels if this is not precisely identified. But they ignore the fact that evolution is about long-term change ... which *IS* abundantly documented for humans in the fossil record.

Another way to look at it. Creationists love to talk about "gaps" in the fossil record ... exploiting the fact that paleontologists quite honestly admit to the gaps. But those gaps do not invalidate the entire fossil record! The record looks like this (where ... is a gap):
A B C ... E F G H ... K L M O P Q R S (and so on).
Just because we haven't found species D, I, and J, it would be unbelievably dishonest to suggest that there is no evidence of evolution *AT ALL* ... but that is precisely what the creationists claim.

A final point (at the risk of flogging this horse too much) is that *EVEN IF NOT A SINGLE FOSSIL HAD EVER BEEN FOUND, the evidence for evolution, including human evolution, is overwhelming*. The DNA evidence alone is compelling, even stronger than the fossil evidence. But I'll leave that evidence for another question.

For more, see the following (an outstanding, and honest, tour of the hominid fossil record):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

>"Why aren't there living examples of "Cro-Magnon Man"?"

Cro-Magnon man is basically just a modern human. It is just a name given for some of the earliest fossils of Homo sapiens found in Northern Europe. So to see an example of Cro-Magnon Man, just look in the mirror.

Answer 2

1. You need to read up a bit on what evolution is and what it entails - as a general rule, it's not a good idea to get information on something from someone who doesn't believe in it. Too much incomplete and inaccurate info.
2. Evolution is a process that can happen to every living thing. Something similar even happens to non-living things (see how airplanes and autos have changed over the past 100 years or so). To focus exclusively on humans is not wise.
3. Your assertions are inaccurate: (a) human populations presently exist with a variety of different sets of traits; sure looks like evolution in action to me; (b) scientists claim that humans evolved from proto-human hominids - ape-like creatures, not living apes; (c) there exists a variety of hominid fossils at various stages between the most ape-like and the most human-like sort - I'm not sure what you want in the way of a "missing link", do you know what you actually mean by that? And finally, (d) why _should_ there be any living examples of 'Cro-Magnon Man'? I don't see any Teratorns flying around, and yet we have vultures and condors (their descendants) still with us. The presence or absence of any ancestor species has essentially nothing to say about evolution as a process.

Answer 3

What makes you think that we are not in the process of evolution today ? Evolution started with th beginning of time , and will continue forever.
Please name the scientist who claims that we evolved from true apes . " Ape-like" is not an ape .
Scientists cases all over the world have tons of fossils of the "missing link". Many many skeletons are too apelike to be considered human , and too humanlike to be considered apes. The "missing link" is a religious idea dreamed up to ridicule evolution , along with the monkey idea .
That same group of Holies were missing a lot more than "links". If they really wanted to be Holy , they should , at least , be truthful and honest .
If you want examples of Cro-Magnon Man , look around , he modern man .

Answer 4

going by your question as to why there aren't humans in various stages of evolution....the homo sapien is the species that has outlasted cro-magnon, homo erectus, etc. during the ages when any species were coexisting, there were mixed couplings. Also, while neanderthals were too dumb to follow migratory food, or to get away from natural disasters, the next successive species continued on. If your into creationism, where is your proof, your just going on faith and word of mouth. we all know how well they don't work. And if the world only started with 2 people, then why would god have to put a mark on Cain, so that others would not harm him. Who were the others? at that time there was only a possibility of about 10 humans on earth and only 2 that were older. God is a joke. like you.

Answer 5

> why aren't there humans in various stages of evolution today?
LOL. There are. What do you call those blond-haired blue-eyed people from Norway and Sweden? Did you notice that they're similar to, but not identical to, the Australian aborigines?

> there are no skeletons of "the missing link".
Your ignorance is showing. There's quite a range of fossil specimens of extinct hominids and extinct apes.

> Why aren't there living examples of "Cro-Magnon Man"?
They were conquered by, and interbred with, other people migrating out of Africa and Asia. Many people of European descent have Cro-magnon alleles and mitochondria. What more do you want?
Edit: Did you notice how there aren't any Amelekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites today? It's because they were conquered by, and interbred with, people migrating into the region. Check your Old Testament for particulars; the books of Joshua and Numbers.

Answer 6

They didn't say that we evolved from apes, they say humans and apes have a common ancestor. There are several fossils that could be "the missing link," or that at least are close. It could be argued that there are humans in various stages of evolution, but they are close enough together that no one notices. Every little tiny gene mutation is proof of evolution at work, so it could be argued that EVERYONE is living proof of evolution.

As to why there are no longer obvious examples of evolution, the other species have died out. There is now fossil evidence that at one point there were multiple pre-humans that coexisted. Some people even theorize that these different groups might have interbred to produce more modern humans, but most scientists disagree. It is more likely that they existed together, but basically ignored each other because of different social and behavioral patterns.

Answer 7

The whole point of evolution is that the changes in a species give it an advantage over how it was before - so it is the norm that "old versions" of a species should die out. There are exceptions, of course. For instance, the coelacanth.
As for the "missing link" we have many skeletons spanning from Lucy to us. Would you really only be happy if we had a skeleton for each 100 years? That's unlikely to happen.
And remember - we didn't evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor with modern day apes.

Answer 8

Nobody claims we evolved from apes. Humans, apes, monkeys and lemures all evolved from a common ancestor. It does not exist today but it probably resembled a lemur.

We are kind of Cro-Magnon man. Cro-Magnon were/are homo sapiens. Homo Sapiens Cro-Magnon. Or European Homo Sapiens. We are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Not two completely different species of humans then. But your question is valid for Homo Neanderthalensis. What happened to them? Well they suffered from their inability to comprehend the world surrounding them. Their brains were dramatically different from ours. When we appeared we began to drive Neanderthal man from their hunting ground. We outsmarted them. We outmaneuvered them. They thought they could just move to another place. Migrate. And the problem with those pesky new beings was solved. But they failed to realize they were living in a finite world (something we need to realize too). They ran out of space and food. And all it takes for a species to go extinct is for the mortality rate to exceed the birthrate. Simple maths tells you you are doomed if that happens. (Homo Sapiens probably evolved from Homo Erectus. Neanderthal man was probably a species of its own.)

There are many claims for a "missing link" between humans and simians. Sahelanthropus tchadensis may be such a link. A skull has been found and aged to about 7 million years old. Species goes extinct when they cannot survive in a certain environment anymore because it has changed and they are unable to adapt. It may be a climatological change or a new competing species has evolved that changed living conditions. Species don´t just turn into another species like popcorn. Evolution is gradual and slow. The original species may very well remain if they do not compete with the new. Humans and apes are not the new and the old. Apes are not our ancestors. We all branched off into different trees of species long ago. Since then there has been many species of monkeys, apes and humans that has come and gone. We should take care to make sure the apes living today (gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans) and, indeed, ourselves do not become members of that club of species gone.

Answer 9

First: How original a question? People have never thought of asking that before. Congratulations on an original post.

Sarcasm aside.

1) We DID NOT evolve from apes (although my dad is pretty hairy). We have a common ancestor (not the same thing).

2) There are transitional forms of humans EVERYWHERE. You just have to look (grab the back of your head and pull it out of your............sand).

Do you have "wisdom teeth"? How many? Some don't have any grow in. Some only one or two. People like myself had all four grow in (I told you my family was ape-like)
(Here's a clue...that's being transitional)

Touch the top of your head. Rub it back and forth across (side to side) your skull. Do you feel a little ridge (bump) running from the front of the skull to the back? Maybe, maybe not. Some people have it. Some don't. It's a remnant of a distant ancestor that needed strong muscles attached to a skull ridge to chew tough vegetation. (Again...that's a transitional physical characteristic)

You need to study science a little bit more. It's good to question, but be sure you look in the right place for answers.

Answer 10

"The Missing Link" is simply a metaphor for species of organism for which no fossil has yet been found. There is no specific 'missing link' fossil for which scientist are looking. Nor could there be. Scientists don't go looking for a specific fossil that they theorize is out there, instead they go out digging into the rock strata and they find things as they are digging. Then they peice together all the fossils they find and eventually a pattern emerges. The pattern that is most striking is the fact that the simplest organisms are found in the deeper rock layers and the most complicated organisms (mammals for example) are found in the upper rock layers. This certainly suggest that organisms developed more complexity thru time.