If we are related to monkeys....?

Question

by a common ancestor where is this ancestory? I mean is there an exact specimen that has been found proving this? I mean the final link that shows the ape/man transition?

Answer 1

Not only have they not found any link to prove the point, but they have found no other links for any other animal, insect or any other life form for that matter, Darwin himself knew this but went ahead and published anyway, hoping that the proof would be found in the fossil record at a later date., but it did not materialise. Hence the unwillingness of a great number of people to accept Darwins theory, which after all is just a theory, like any other theory.

Answer 2

DNA contains a "ticking clock" based upon a nearly constant rate of mutation (evolution) that happens.  Some genes have an ~ one letter change every 10,000 yrs (CGTA swapping).  Therefore a judgement as to how long ago 2 species shared a common ancestor can be made.  When one says we are related to monkeys or fish & even fruit flies, they are correct. We are just more closely related to primates than others.

Many hominids (some just upright walking apes) existed 6 million yrs ago & many were just dead end evolutionary experiments, so to speak. With the limited number of fossiles available & our limited ability to measure their cognitive ability we can't be absolutely sure when the transition happened & debate will always center upon just when the transition to Homo happened.

Strangely, the Chimp & Bonobo seem to have evolved further from the common ancestor than Homo has.  The Human chromosome #2 is almost an exact copy of 2 Chimp chromosomes that fused sometime in the past to produce hominids (some think) but the exact time & species is debatable.  When answering a question such as yours, it would be misleading to proclaim we have absolute proof of all lines of evolution... I can only tell you what all the evidence we've been able to gather indicates.  

Typically, about the time someone makes a statement identifying the transition, we discover something that casts doubt on that statement.

Edit: It is even possible that a fertile hybrid of 2 hominids created the 1st of the homo line.  We've recently identified several species that are the result of hybrids.  While all scientific evidence supports evolution, we don't have the DNA to check these early changes.

Sarah K:

If you wish to throw out DNA, then evolutioists are evolved from creationists, as we have proof that Darwin's ancestors were creationists!  Some consider the creationists to be on the losing side of the Ape/Homo evolution scale.

Answer 3

The common ancestor of man and apes has not been found or at least recognized. There are a few reasons why: The common ancestor likely lived in a densely forested area, from which fossils are rarely formed or discovered. Also, even if it were found, it would be difficult to recognize. That is because the common ancestor is not just a mosaic of humans and other apes, but a species derived and adapted to its environment, thus having individual and unique traits not found in humans or modern apes.

No link, however, needs to be shown to convince any reasonable person that man evolved from (non-human) apes.  There are plenty of morphological, genetic, and fossil evidence to suggest this. Additionally many hominins fossils (hundreds of missing links) have been found that display unique "ape-like" characteristics, such as thin tooth enamel, long arms, long faces, large canines, etc.

Answer 4

We aren't just related to monkeys. Human beings are primates, too.  We are similar enough to chimpanzees that you could get a transfusion from one.  The molecular evidence is that chimpanzees and gorillas split off from the human line between 4 and 8 million years ago.  There aren't fossils of chimpanzees and gorillas, so far; this is probably because they live in rain forests where fossilization doesn't occur.  Though I suppose it could argue that chimpanzees and gorillas were specially created while humans evolved...that would be a good one to use on creationists!

Talking about a single "missing link" is misinformed.  There are gaps,sometimes large ones, in the fossil record; there is also evidence that evolutionary changes occur much less gradually than had been believed (see the below article by Science Daily).  The chances of finding the specific individual who represented the change from, say, australopithecine to hominid is vanishingly small.  There are many fossils that display both human and ape characteristics.

You should realize that there's some confusion and controversy in the field.  There's no single accepted line of descent in these fossils; they are still being studied, and we may never really have a straight line descent.  What looks more likely now is more of a "bush" model than a tree; in a bush the lines cross and re-cross and are a big jumbled-up mess.  It's possible that different species of hominids interbred and so there will never be a specific single ancestor to both gorillas and humans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolut...

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.htm...

ETA:  Just saw your addendum about DNA.  Since you are talking about relatives and so forth, how exactly can one discuss this question without referencing DNA?  Yes, there is DNA evidence that we're related to, say, squirrels; it turns out it doesn't take much of a change to DNA to create a large change in an animal.  DNA evidence is being studied for these questions for a number of reasons:

1.  Morphology (how something looks) isn't very reliable in ancestral terms.  We don't know if differences are just individual variation or if we have different species.

2.  DNA sequencing has allowed us to study specific descent; that's why we can talk about "mitochondrial Eve," controversial though she may be.

3.  DNA testing had not been widely available until recently; it's a new avenue of research that has not been fully explored (and it's probably faster and cheaper than a season at Koobi Fora).

The fossil record and new theories based on DNA research suggest that there may not be a single individual responsible for the changes leading to homo sapiens.  It may not be changes in even a single species.  Several hominid groups may be ancestral to humans, which might account for certain characteristics disappearing and reappearing.  You've been given some good answers here; don't close up against what people are trying to tell you.

Answer 5

Common ancestor is common sense from the fact that we share the same DNA.  It is silly to insist on a single ancestor because populations don't exist as a single specimen.  You can only say that a fossil is a likely candidate as an ancestor unless you have DNA.  Some people get confused because you can have a single female as a common ancestor because evolution selects a particular mitochondria.  That doesn't mean there was one person at that time that contributed.