Monkeys??!

[Sharifa]

i heared about the missing link too..
close ur eyes and imagine it what do u think about it

[deathsorter]

probably it would look like a man and an ape at the same time...
it could have a bodily posture just like as human and could have other bodily attributes just like apes...

[victor]

Um, I think that:
-he can stand in two feet (bipedal) but still like bowing.
-his hands is long like apes and can reach his knee or more below than that.
.....I can't imagine again...it's too funny to have it written here.. maybe next time I'll write again...

[Silverbackman]

First off we should not use the term "monkey". Apes is a better term because humans have no family relations with monkeys.

Apes such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans are not just close reletives as we previously thought. In fact humans are so close to those animls that humans are classified as apes believe it or not. Some scientists think chimpanzees and gorillas should be lumped into the homo genus, though this is a minority opinion. We did not evolve from chimps, gorillas, or orangutans we share a common ancestor with them.

[Dr.Stein]

Most taxonomists classified human and big apes in Ordo Primates, that's the lowest category that human belongs to the same group with them, because then human belongs to Familia Hominidae and big apes belongs to Pongiidae.

[Silverbackman]

Most taxonomists classified human and big apes in Ordo Primates, that's the lowest category that human belongs to the same group with them, because then human belongs to Familia Hominidae and big apes belongs to Pongiidae.

Actually the classification you talk about is a bit outdated. According to the classifications of Collin Groves Humans are a great ape within the great ape family. Some more receant classifications say that orangs should be excluded into a different subfamily (or family), while humans, chimps, and gorillas have one subfamily! So despite the fact that humans have so many anatomical, structeral as well as superficicial difference, genetics say other wise considering humans and chimps share 95%.

Of course 95% is pretty recent, 98.4% was back when this classification was set so there is a possibility that it has gone back to the old classification, but the difference being modern taxonomists use subfamily nows. Still, we are a naked ape.

[Dr.Stein]

Lol... Yeah, bacteria only have one chromosome so that is why it would be impossible for them to ever have meiosis. Can you believe i actually met a teacher that didn't know this?

Yup, that's why no male and female bacteria or micro- and macro- bacteria

[Dr.Stein]

Most taxonomists classified human and big apes in Ordo Primates, that's the lowest category that human belongs to the same group with them, because then human belongs to Familia Hominidae and big apes belongs to Pongiidae.

Actually the classification you talk about is a bit outdated. According to the classifications of Collin Groves Humans are a great ape within the great ape family. Some more receant classifications say that orangs should be excluded into a different subfamily (or family), while humans, chimps, and gorillas have one subfamily! So despite the fact that humans have so many anatomical, structeral as well as superficicial difference, genetics say other wise considering humans and chimps share 95%.

Of course 95% is pretty recent, 98.4% was back when this classification was set so there is a possibility that it has gone back to the old classification, but the difference being modern taxonomists use subfamily nows. Still, we are a naked ape.

Awawawaa sorry, I have not been in Zoology since 2000
In 2002 I studied Palaentology and Anthropology, and yes their classification is different from people from basic systematics. I also got surprised to read about human history, their first existance, you know the story "The Hero" by Gould (if I am not mistaken, I'll read again later).. That is nice to hear, like a fairy tale, but that's what they believe hihi...

[Speadskater]

people can create.. think.. talk ...etc. while monkeys are not..

well chimps can think, use sign language, and they are as smart as a 4 year old... our evolutionl happened millions of years ago. An ape like creature started walking on two legs, they started eating meat and getting smarter, we made better and better tools until now.

anyone correct me if I'm wrong...

[deadfish]

if the link is "missing" ,is it possible that it doesn't exist and we've all creatively used our brains to create such a link?

and...even if they find a so-called "missing link"...they'll have no way to prove it...there is currently no way to date a fossil unless you go by the geologic column which is circular reasoning in itself......
unless I'm mistaken, which is more liely than me being right.

AND.......if I'm wrong about that whole fossil dating thing(not the part about the geologic column..that thing was created by Lyell and I've researched it) and there is a way to date fossils...let me know.....

[mith]

Yes, dating by using the the rate of radioactive decay of isotopes such as carbon-14
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... ating.html

it's also not circular reasoning to say that the link would be found(if found at all) in the rock strata between the earliest humans(australopithecenes etc...) and the early primates.

[123Herpatology]

I recently paid a visit to the San Diego Zoo, and the information panel claimed that another primate, the Bonobo (Pan paniscus), which was once considered a type of chimpanzee, was more evolutionarily related to humans then a chimpanzee. The ground dwelling primate have more established social skils, can walk upright easier and more frequently, and have smaller heads and hands then a chimpanzee. They even have hair that parts right down the middle of their head! Here's an image of a female bonobo walking upright, tell me what you guys think [/img]