Evolve

[King Phenomenon]

Be careful, apes and monkeys are not the same thing. They are both types of primates, but there are biological differences.

Chimps, Gorillas, and Bonobos are apes, but are not monkeys. The Australopithecines in our ancestry were also apes, not monkeys. WE are apes, but are not monkeys.

In particular, there is no time when we stopped being apes and started being human. We ARE apes still.

We have very good records for the last couple million years or so, which includes the transition between the Australopithecines to modern humans.

I just read this on Wikipedia it was interesting

"Determining which species of australopithecine (if any) is ancestral to the genus Homo is a question that is a top priority for many paleoanthropologists, but one that will likely elude any conclusive answers for years to come. Nearly every possible species has been suggested as a likely candidate, but none are overwhelmingly convincing. Presently, it appears that A. garhi has the potential to occupy this coveted place in paleoanthropology, but the lack of fossil evidence is a serious problem. Another problem presents itself in the fact that it has been very difficult to assess which hominid [now "hominin"] represents the first member of the genus Homo. Without knowing this, it is not possible to determine which species of australopithecine may have been ancestral to Homo."[8]

They use the word coveted ha ha

 

[SomeRandom]

I just read this on Wikipedia it was interesting

"Determining which species of australopithecine (if any) is ancestral to the genus Homo is a question that is a top priority for many paleoanthropologists, but one that will likely elude any conclusive answers for years to come. Nearly every possible species has been suggested as a likely candidate, but none are overwhelmingly convincing. Presently, it appears that A. garhi has the potential to occupy this coveted place in paleoanthropology, but the lack of fossil evidence is a serious problem. Another problem presents itself in the fact that it has been very difficult to assess which hominid [now "hominin"] represents the first member of the genus Homo. Without knowing this, it is not possible to determine which species of australopithecine may have been ancestral to Homo."[8]

They use the word coveted ha ha

Well scientists are not above word play

 

[King Phenomenon]

According to Wikipedia scientist don't know which species is ancestral to homo so that's what makes me find evolution hard to believe. Is this irrational?

 

[SomeRandom]

According to Wikipedia scientist don't know which species is ancestral to homo so that's what makes me find evolution hard to believe. Is this irrational?

Wikipedia is hardly an accredited source. It can be edited by anyone. It’s not terrible, but I wouldn’t exactly rely upon it to teach science of all things.
And you referred exclusively to one potential ancestor. That doesn’t do much to discredit anything.
I’m pretty sure scientists know more about our ancestors than a wiki page.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Wikipedia is hardly an accredited source. It can be edited by anyone. It’s not terrible, but I wouldn’t exactly rely upon it to teach science of all things.
And you referred exclusively to one potential ancestor. That doesn’t do much to discredit anything.
I’m pretty sure scientists know more about our ancestors than a wiki page.

Yeah I've heard Wikipedia was like that so that's why I asked here to find out if it was true

 

[Valjean]

What's it based on then? In layman's terms.

It's based on selection of the most advantageous traits from among reproductive variants.

Chance? Chance just creates the variation nature selects from.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yeah I've heard Wikipedia was like that so that's why I asked here to find out if it was true

Well the quote is found in the references section. So I mean you could look over the entire linked page of information if you so desired.
But really all the quote says is that this particular pool of potential ancestors to homo (or pan) is debatable. Which isn’t that surprising in biology. Everything is up for debate in science, right?
That’s how the self correcting mechanism works. For a long time we thought dinosaurs were all big slow moving reptiles. Due to updated evidence we now know that there were theropods, fast moving agile ancestors to birds. Many even had feathers in some form or another.
Scientists never stop questioning. Theories update all the time.
Gaps are mere hurdles, not unclimbable mountains.

 

[King Phenomenon]

It's based on selection of the most advantageous traits from among reproductive variants.

Chance? Chance just creates the variation nature selects from.

Advantageous according to whos standards? 5 billion species have gone extinct so far. Do you know the lifespan of all the species that have existed and all the variables that go along with them that would provide evidence that selection is top dog when it comes to evolution?

 

[Valjean]

Surely most species are threatened by another so why didn't they evolve?

Not sure I'm following what you're asking. Clarify?

Most species do evolve.

Where is all the missing links if all we have is a catalog of different species that have lived?

That's not all we have, by a long shot.

What do you imagine a missing link is? Isn't every species a link -- most intermediate between different but related species? The "catalogue" is a genealogy, not an assortment.

So do the fossils form a believable timeline in our evolution?

Absolutely! They can be dated, and the progression through archaic forms to our current form is clear.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Not sure I'm following what you're asking. Clarify?

Most species do evolve.
That's not all we have, by a long shot.

What do you imagine a missing link is? Isn't every species a link -- most intermediate between different but related species? The "catalogue" is a genealogy, not an assortment.

Absolutely! They can be dated, and the progression through archaic forms to our current form is clear.

1. Just curious why some species went extinct and didn't evolve

2. Scientist don't know the evolutionary ancestor of Homo so that's a missing link

 

[Valjean]

That's interesting. I assume you're talking about skulls and if you are how many more do you think it would take to to have somewhat of a complete timeline?

Why just skulls? Joints, limbs &al can be very revealing, as well.

A complete timeline? How complete a timeline would you find convincing? Doesn't every new link create two more 'missing' links?
Are you aware of what we already have?

I read this in an article on the web and I really can't find any more information about it.

. "If you want a complete record, you are effectively asking for a fossil from every organism that ever lived. Second, why would you need a complete record? One does not need billions and billions of transitional forms and predecessors to see that the theory of evolution is sound. The thousands that we currently have should suffice, and they do".

So this isn't really helping me much. Actually I would like to see a book like that or actually see them in person.
that would be cool

Look at any textbook on beginning biology, or a freshman Physical Anthropology textbook for specifics of hominid evolution.
There are whole libraries of evolutionary biology. There are dozens of technical journals, with new research and discoveries in every new edition. The internet's full of information, and even YouTube has hundreds of explanatory videos.
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Advantageous according to whos standards? 5 billion species have gone extinct so far. Do you know the lifespan of all the species that have existed and all the variables that go along with them that would provide evidence that selection is top dog when it comes to evolution?

What do lifespans and multiple species have to do with it?
When wolves have puppies there will be variation among litter mates, in color, coat length, &c. If an Ice age happens the light colored, long furred ones will be selected for, When it ends the darker, shorter furred ones may be more successful. That's how it works.

"Advantageous" means reproductive advantage, which increases the incidence of the trait in question in the general population.
Keep in mind that advantage or "fitness" is environmentally dependent. Organisms evolve to better fit their environment -- which is always changing. The older models may become extinct as new features become prominent.

 

[Valjean]

1. Just curious why some species went extinct and didn't evolve

Some couldn't evolve fast enough to adapt to environmental changes. Some couldn't compete with another species that evolved to better fit their particular niche. Many succumbed to an epidemic of ultra-predatory organisms that wiped them out.

2. Scientist don't know the evolutionary ancestor of Homo so that's a missing link

There are "missing links" between every species and its predecessor -- and descendant.
There are millions of evolutionary ancestors in the chain from microbes to Homo. Which particular link are you looking for?

 

[King Phenomenon]

Some couldn't evolve fast enough to adapt to environmental changes. Some couldn't compete with another species that evolved to better fit their particular niche. Many succumbed to an epidemic of ultra-predatory organisms that wiped them out.


There are "missing links" between every species and its predecessor -- and descendant.
There are millions of evolutionary ancestors in the chain from microbes to Homo. Which particular link are you looking for?

I know they got a Lotta links but like somebody said here before will probably never have them all which is cool

 

[Valjean]

Actually I don't think pictures would be much help. A Video might be but probably not either. I think the best would be to have somebody physically show you them and explain the differences and how they're connected and what's missing to really get the best understanding. I think that would be awesome I'd like to do that but I doubt I probably ever could. All the science teachers should have replicas made so they can teach their students. I think that would be neat

That would be pretty tedious and time consuming, though, and all the relevant specimens aren't in the same museums. Then there is the genetic, anatomic, physiological, stratigraphic and atomic dating evidence that doesn't lend itself to direct observation.

A book or video can illustrate an entire timeline or show a genetic or chemical sequence that can't be observed directly at one time.

 

[Valjean]

Since evolution is most certainly NOT "based on chance," you have already demonstrated that you know nothing about it at all, and that -- while you could have gone and done just a tiny amount of research about that comment, you did not -- you aren't going to want to learn anything about it in future either. Just another person lackling knowledge about something that you simply want to go away.

Therefore, no other answer than this will be forthcoming from me.

I can't understand how he got through high school without all this being taught to him. It underlies and ties together all of biology. It's basic.
How can one get through school without biology or life science classes?

 

[Valjean]

Well hopefully someone here can give me a quick breakdown of the biggest missing parts as far as human evolution is concerned

Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=human+evolution

 

[Quintessence]

I can't understand how he got through high school without all this being taught to him. It underlies and ties together all of biology. It's basic.

It isn't basic. Biological evolution is only occasionally taught in high school life science courses. I can't speak for the situation now, but I grew up in a good school district and took advanced biology. Even in those courses, biological evolution was not covered. Or, it was covered so poorly I don't remember it being covered.

 

[Valjean]

I know they got a Lotta links but like somebody said here before will probably never have them all which is cool

We have almost no extant links between Latin and French, but we know that the former evolved into the latter.
It was not a series of distinct steps. At no point did a child not speak the language of its parents.

Biological evolution is the same. It's a spectrum; a gradual gradation. No organism is not the same species as its parents. Tiny changes accumulate over time.

 

[Valjean]

It isn't basic. Biological evolution is only occasionally taught in high school life science courses. I can't speak for the situation now, but I grew up in a good school district and took advanced biology. Even in those courses, biological evolution was not covered. Or, it was covered so poorly I don't remember it being covered.

But wouldn't this be like teaching English lit. without first knowing the alphabet, or trigonometry without knowing addition and subtraction?

Evolution ties all of biology together, it makes no sense without evolution!

 

[Valjean]

According to Wikipedia scientist don't know which species is ancestral to homo so that's what makes me find evolution hard to believe. Is this irrational?

Yes. Evolution has been directly observed in both Nature and the lab. Evolution is real.

As for human evolution, there have been many, many species of hominid. All but one are now extinct. Which particular lineage led directly to our current species is still subject to debate.