Happy Atheist Forum

This is not -the- missing link (Chimp/Human) but it does tie a lot of apes together:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html)

It's not about a missing link between chimps and humans that isn't how evolution works. It is however about a possible common ancestor for modern primates (including humans).

"The" missing link does not exist.  It's an old holdover term from back before we had found any transitional forms between us and what we already reasonably knew was an ancestor for both chimps and humans.  Since then, we've found more fossils nailing down our development from this ancestral form than you can shake a stick at.  The term plays into creationist misunderstandings of evolution, so please strike it from your vocabulary.

Quote from: "PipeBox""The" missing link does not exist.  It's an old holdover term from back before we had found any transitional forms between us and what we already reasonably knew was an ancestor for both chimps and humans.

I was under the impression it was the other way around...I thought the transitional forms pointed to a 'missing link' species between chimps and humans?  What I mean is that the transitional forms indicated that chimps and humans share a common ancestor that no other living primate is decended from, as opposed to us branching off from an ancestor shared by several other living primates at differen times?

Quote from: "Kahmoe"

Quote from: "PipeBox""The" missing link does not exist.  It's an old holdover term from back before we had found any transitional forms between us and what we already reasonably knew was an ancestor for both chimps and humans.

I was under the impression it was the other way around...I thought the transitional forms pointed to a 'missing link' species between chimps and humans?  What I mean is that the transitional forms indicated that chimps and humans share a common ancestor that no other living primate is decended from, as opposed to us branching off from an ancestor shared by several other living primates at differen times?

I'm sorry, you're right, there is yet to be discovered a suitable most recent common ancestor that was only shared between humans and chimps.  We've found candidates for the basal species that led to humans, chimps, and gorillas, and we've got a lot of increasingly human fossils following from when chimps and humans diverged, but we do not have fossils believed to likely be the last shared ancestor between chimps and humans.

I had a knee-jerk reaction to that phrase, rather than paying attention to how you used it.  Apologies, and thanks for the link.

I think it's possible that there is already something that is compelling enough evidence but  being withheld from the public for "further study" since it would probably not be widely accepted.


It's pretty odd to me that they can link rock hyraxes to elephants but still wont link humans to other primates definitively.

Quote from: "ProRealism"...still wont link humans to other primates definitively.

 

What constitutes "definitive"?  All the evidence in relation to the topic is pretty definitive to me, especially the genetic evidence.