What is the new phylogeny of humans?
480663
How can there be a new phylogeny? I thought that the phylum for humans is chordata. If our phylogeny is different than that of chordata, then we would be composed of differently right? Maybe I'm not understanding the question very well...
1166114
We did evolve from a previous species, one that diverged from an ancestor that was common to apes, but it's possible that the human line was never, strictly speaking, the SAME as an ape...it depends on how severe the genetic mutation was...\n\nddead: I like how you point out all of the hoaxes and don't state that there have been many skeletons found and recorded for Home habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis (while not necessarily man, still the same genus and possibly one that bred with sapiens), and you don't even mention the whole genus Australopithecus, a commonly cited group of ancestors...\n\nEvolution hasn't been proven, but there is a theory and ongoing science to support this theory, part of which is actual physical evidence...Creationists have stories and faith, but I guess that's enough for them...
121035
This is a difficult question to answer. There are fossil gaps, and gaps in our understanding of human evolution. But no one "missing link", especially one that we have a picture of. This is the fantasy of the media.
363668
We didn't come from apes. Apes and humans have a common simian ancestor, but the species evolved separately.
772826
Homo sapiens is the species name for humans.\nHomo sapiens sapiens refers to the subspecies of humans known as modern man.
81500
This question makes no sense.  Homo sapien doesn't even refer to sex at all but the genus of species Homo sapiens (Humans)(Latin for "wise man"): they are bipedal primates of the superfamily Hominoidea, along with the other apes—chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.
273011
The two most closely related species to \nChimpanzees (Pan troglodites) are the Bonobos or Pygmy Chimps (Pan paniscus) and Humans (Homo sapiens).  Chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to Gorillas and Orangutans. Some anthropologists argue that the two species are so similar genetically that they should be classified together in a single genus.
479869
Pan paniscus, pygmy chimp, bonobo... whatever you call them, yes they are our closest genetic relatives. Behaviorally they are a lot more human-like as well. It's eerie watching videos of them sometimes, because they can walk fully upright without bent knees for several steps (the common chimp walks with bent knees when it walks upright).\n\nHowever that does not mean that they are our ancestor, because they've been evolving for 6+ million years as well since we split from a common ancestor. Chimps and humans shared the last common ancestor; before that, the common ancestor was to gorillas, chimps and humans.\n\nThere are a few types of chimps, including Pan troglodytes (I think that's spelled correctly) which is a very close relative to the pygmy chimp.
620806
The unnececery killing of any animal is a "murder". Never the less please allow me to add some comments.\n Evolution is a proven fact! There are more scientific evidence about Evolution and NONE about the Hebrew myth of creation! \nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past!\n By the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
657805
DNA evidence. There's like 98% match between a human and a chimpansee.\n\nFossil record - they keep finding ancestors of modern species, which helps draw out the evolution tree.\n\nBacteria developing resistance to drugs.\n\nDifferent breeds of dogs, horses, agricultural plants and animals.
180075
Can't see the whole answer, but #1 looks right so far.\n\nMnemonic below:\nKing Phillip Came Over For Good Spaghetti=\nK P C O F G S=\nKingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species
753449
“Ape-Men”—What Were They?\n\nFOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”1\n\n2 True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.2 Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”4\n\n3 Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in Chapter 6, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.\n\n4 From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?\n\nHow Much Fossil Evidence?\n\n5 From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?\n\n6 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”5\n\n7 After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”7\n\n8 Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”8 Science magazine adds: “The primary scie
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.
1097944
According to current theories of macroevolution, humans did not descend from apes, monkeys, or any other species currently in existence.  A large amount of research (genetic comparisons, fossil record, comparative taxonomy, etc.) suggests that humans and modern apes had ancestors in common.  \n\nOf course, we would probably consider those common ancestors to be more like apes than humans.  (Perhaps apes would consider them to be more like us?)  This is not unexpected.  Different members of a species can and do differentiate along different paths.  Some paths are pretty straight: they don't change much over time.  Some paths wind all over the place.  The paths that survive are those that are best adapted to survive in their particular environment.  Humans are so successful as a species because we've developed the capacity to adapt to almost any environment on Earth.  That's evolution!\n\nIf you want to learn more, check out the link below!
1181995
Humans and monkeys evolved from the same common ancestor.\nNow humans and monkeys are seperate species. \nComparisons between chimp and human DNA show the two species share 95 per cent of their genetic material.\nMonkeys aren't going to change into humans - this has nothing to do with Darwin's theory on human origins.
1174856
Gala, you are spouting the common creationist misconception that humans evolved from apes. This is not true at all. Rather, humans share a common ancestor with apes. Also, there have been findings of humans much older than 6000 years old.
122743
Hello Sir, \nIt is nice to see people from all over the world asking questions, there is a greag book called The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes. It is a book that uses DNA dating to date almost all European humans back to Seven women. I believe evolution is a valid theory that has plenty of proof.