could you find a fossil of homo habilis in China?
337355
no, they didnt exist in China
373140
I think it is Homo Habilus
488840
Your find worth a whole lot to a paleontologist or a geologist or to a museum. \nPlease be responsible with your country's natural treasures and visit the USGS or your nearest university (geoscience department) to protect your find from irresponsible handling. \nIf the skeleton is complete it has an immense value. If you act responsibly you may be cited in local newspapers or even in prestigious scientific journals. This is worth a lot more than the few tens of dollars you can get by selling it.
200642
It seems that anthropologists have bones of austropethicus and ape-like people like the bones of an ape person called "Lucy" The skull cavity was for a large brain but the bone structures were more ape like than human like. There was neanderthal man which was believed to have been exterminated by homo erectus. Also homo habilis. I'm really not sure if people wiped out some smart ape people or if those bones are supposed to be us. But I personally believe humans are not apes. If anything I believe people are more closely related to bears than apes, though genetically speaking I'd be laughed at for that assertion.
40385
The name itself "Homo habilis" was originally given by Raymond Dart.\n\nHomo habilis «HOH moh HAB uh luhs» ("handy man", "skillful person") is a species of the genus Homo, which lived from approximately 2.5 million to 1.8 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene. The definition of this species is credited to both Mary and Louis Leakey, who found fossils in Tanzania, East Africa, between 1962 and 1964. Homo habilis is arguably the first species of the Homo genus to appear. In its appearance and morphology, H. habilis was the least similar to modern humans of all species to be placed in the genus Homo (except possibly Homo rudolfensis). Homo habilis was very short and had disproportionately long arms compared to modern man. It is thought to have probably descended from a species of australopithecine hominid. It may have had a more immediate ancestor in the form of the somewhat more massive and ape-like, Homo rudolfensis. Homo habilis had a brain slightly less than half of the size of modern man. These early human ancestors were small, on average standing no more than 1.3 m (4'3") tall.
891467
The only pyramid I ever heard of in China was the one of the Chinese emperor that was built over a few thousand years ago. It was mounded together. They did sona grams of the mound and found that it was a huge complex  covering a few hundred acres. They were never allowed to dig tin the area. The Chinese government still fears the curse behind the mound ... That if anyone disturbs the finally resting place the country will be destroyed by the emperor after he is awaken.
272319
First of all, there is no such thing as a "missing link," anthropologists have known that for yeras. Humans are a type of ape (in the superfamily Hominoidea, which contains gibbons, siamangs, orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas). The last common ancestor has not been found or definitely defined, but is expected to be found to have existed between 4.5 and 6 million years ago. Examples from that era include the Australopithecus (one species is the famous "Lucy").
1099542
Neanderthal and Monkey.
1023108
The fossil history is false. The scientists don't know what they are talking about. Radiometric dating is flawed. Everything is a lie except the Bible. I am trying out the other side of this argument. It's pretty weak I must say.
997393
hey check out this link,it will really help:\n\nhttp://www.extinctanimal.com/prehistoric.htm
434237
MISSING LINKS: \n\nAll of the "missing links" on this page are examples of poor anthropology being used in an attempt to convince the public that God does not exist. Unfortunately, this rush to judgment is a consistent and erroneous theme of the evolutionary science community. The only thing missing from their studies was thorough research.\n\n• NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, only part of an arm was recovered. Yet, the scientific community fabricated an entire ancient society around an arm bone. Scientists have since found quite a few Neanderthals and after careful study have concluded that these ancestors were regular humans with bone disease, probably rickets.\n\n• PILTDOWN MAN: For more than 50 years we were led to believe that this ancient creature was another supposed ancestor of modern man. Two scientists eventually took a closer look and found out that Piltdown man was a fraud. This invented creature was a composite of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a small child. The original "discoverers " had stained these bone fragments to gain recognition and promote the falsehood of evolution.\n\n• NEBRASKA MAN: One ancient tooth was discovered in Nebraska. Eager evolutionists built a whole\nimaginary society and lifestyle around this single tooth! When they found the rest of the skull some two years later, it was clear that the tooth belonged to a pig. For many years, evolutionists described Nebraska Man as a missing link.\n\n• JAVA MAN: This prehistoric man was found on the island of Java and was reported to be the missing link between man and ape. After serious study it was found that the two pieces of Java Man were from two different skulls from two different areas of the island. Both were from the same species, probably an Orangutan, but they were not the parts of a man. Recent human skulls have now been discovered in the same layer of rock.\n\n• PEKING MAN: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, exactly matching the result when people of that region hunt for monkey brains. Also, modern human remains were found at the same site.\n\n• LUCY: Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind's ancestor.\nLucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations.\n\n• LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a monkey.\n\n• KENYA SKULL: Recently it was reported that scientists had discovered a fossil of a skull in Kenya that evolutionists claim has more human-like features than "Lucy." This means that evolutionary scientists must once again revise their theory of man's origin. Ken Ham, Executive Director of Answers in Genesis says that the newly discovered fossil - which he says is nothing more than the skull of a chimpanzee - only pokes more holes in the argument for evolution.\n\n• ARCHAEOPTERXY: Originally thought of as a transitional fossil between the reptiles and birds, it is now considered by most evolutionists to be a true bird. Also true birds have been found lower in the fossil record, making them older than Archaeopteryx.\n\nChinese paleontologist Xu Xing contends that Archaeopteryx is a combination of two fossils: one of the body and head of a birdlike creature and the other of the tail of a dinosaur. Xing says he has found anoth
973157
Lots. Recently there are several theropod fossils with feathers discovered in a fine-grained Chinese deposit, things like Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx and Beipiaosaurus (look them up on wikipedia). These are younger than the famous Archeopteryx, which has a reptilian skull, teeth, digits, claws, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis and tail, and a few bird traits like a wishbone, wings and feathers. However, older theropods and Archeopteryx have many similar skeletal features and the feathered therapods add further support to the relationship. In younger sediments than Archeopteryx, there are several fossil species with more birds-like traits, such as Sinornis and Shenzhouraptor and dozens more (wikipedia "fossil birds").
98203
>>>>>They have never found any.\n\nThere are many transitional fossils.\n\n\nThe only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.\n\nTransitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.\n\nThe following are fossil transitions between species and genera:\n\n   1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.\n\n   2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).\n\n   3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).\n\n   4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).\n\n   5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.\n\n   6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).\n\n   7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).\n\n   8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).\n\n   9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).\n\n  10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).\n\n  11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
573949
try wikipedia, search fossils
652503
There were different species of the Genus Homo, but they are all now extinct.\n\nMost scientists recognize the species of Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as being the members of this group.  There is some debate as to whether or not there are other species that belong in this group, such as Homo floriensis (aka the Hobbit man that was in the news last year).\n\nThere are a number of physiological and morphological differences between these species, and there also appears that there might have been mental and technological differences as well.\n\nAll of the living humans are in the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.  We are all very closely related, with only extremely superficial phenotypic differences between the 'races' of mankind, mostly related to geographic isolation and population dynamics.\n\nTracing genetic lineages, these 'races' become even more superficial.  East Asians, Chinese, Native Americans and Western European whites are all more closely related to East Africans than East Africans are to West Africans.\n\nDiffering primarily in degree of skin melanism, hair structure and a few proportions of different facial features, there is no basis for assigning these different geographic populations to separate species.
845147
This is a Ancient Chines Secret.
379209
Nobody knows, but there are a number of hypotheses.  One of the more interesting is that our own ancestors out-competed them.  We once thought that all the hominid fossils found were ancestors to modern humans, but recent dating has shown that many many hominid species were contemporaneous, and a fair amount of evidence that one species would die out fairly quickly when another moved into the same geographic space.