Humans left trees 4.2 million years ago

Meh i think they are guessing here considering ..... The former species is 600,000 years older than the latter and is believed to be its ancestor "believed" does not make for a solid conclusion ....TiP

Meh i think they are guessing here considering ..... "believed" does not make for a solid conclusion .... TiP Very true. With Darwin's theory of evolution, if we did evolve from apes or chimps, then the missing link will be found eventually. We dig out new fossils every day along with variants of existing species.

Very true. With Darwin's theory of evolution, if we did evolve from apes or chimps, then the missing link will be found eventually. We dig out new fossils every day along with variants of existing species. One, we didn't evolve from apes and chimps, but we probably have a common ancestor. Two, I doubt there will ever be a fossil discovered that turns out to be the "missing link" that everyone is wanting. I may sound pessimistic, but even if something was found that could satisfy the requirements of being a "missing link" many people would argue that it isn't. Why do I think this? Because of ho... [More]

Very true. With Darwin's theory of evolution, if we did evolve from apes or chimps, then the missing link will be found eventually. We dig out new fossils every day along with variants of existing species. Like Andami pretty much said, there is no such thing as a "missing link". But there are transitional fossils. In the way that people use "missing link" the following can almost all be called that. Sahelanthropus tchadensis Orrorin tugenensis Ardipithecus ramidus Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus afarensis Kenyanthropus platyops Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus garhi Aust... [More]

Like Andami pretty much said, there is no such thing as a "missing link". But there are transitional fossils. In the way that people use "missing link" the following can almost all be called that. Sahelanthropus tchadensis Orrorin tugenensis Ardipithecus ramidus Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus afarensis Kenyanthropus platyops Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus garhi Australopithecus sediba Australopithecus aethiopicus Homo habilis Homo georgicus Homo erectus Homo ergaster Homo antecessor Homo heidelbergensis Homo neanderthalensis Homo sapiens problem is until you hit homo ... [More]

I think if man screws the world up completely, we should just climb back up into the trees and be done with it. If there's any left.

Like Andami pretty much said, there is no such thing as a "missing link". But there are transitional fossils. In the way that people use "missing link" the following can almost all be called that. Sahelanthropus tchadensis Orrorin tugenensis Ardipithecus ramidus Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus afarensis Kenyanthropus platyops Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus garhi Australopithecus sediba Australopithecus aethiopicus Homo habilis Homo georgicus Homo erectus Homo ergaster Homo antecessor Homo heidelbergensis Homo neanderthalensis Homo sapiens Precisely, missing link is a t... [More]

One, we didn't evolve from apes and chimps, but we probably have a common ancestor. Two, I doubt there will ever be a fossil discovered that turns out to be the "missing link" that everyone is wanting. I may sound pessimistic, but even if something was found that could satisfy the requirements of being a "missing link" many people would argue that it isn't. Why do I think this? Because of how many times people have claimed of discovering the "missing link." Just Google "missing link between apes and humans" to see what I mean. Like Andami pretty much said, there is no such thing as a "missing ... [More]