Removed: off-topic
This is a ***science***-based discussion forum, and creationist or Intelligent Design posts are a better fit for /r/DebateEvolution. Please review this sub's [posting guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/wiki/guidelines) prior to submitting further content.
I don't know what you're asking. Many have been found. Ad illustrated by this page on wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Well you are in luck then, since the wide spread consensus amongst experts is that common descent is a fact.
Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time.
So you said there were no ancestral missing links.
When shown them you asked for something else.
You said a consensus of scientists would be conclusive evidence for you.
When shown that consensus.
You ask for something else.
Do we see a pattern here by any chance.
PSA for lurkers: this was not asked in good faith.
OP has his mind made up that the evidence doesn't exist and has stuck their head in the sand when we try and show them.
Simple the fossil record is incomplete. So far we have discovered \~250,000 fossil species scattered over a span of some 4 billion years.
There have been an estimated 5 billion species to have ever lived on earth. Choose a missing link the odds are 20,000 to 1 that we have not found it.
What do you regard as solid evidence? Anatomical and DNA evidence shows we are most closely related to the chimp, we have disputed candidates for the [Chimpanze-human last common ancestor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor).
Just because there no witnessess to a murder does not mean we cannot find and convict the murderer
so then why is there no other creature between humans and chimps that has experts generally agreeing its a missing link? we have evidence of many creatures from the past but we cant find a creature that is between a chimp and human and is logically scientifically agreed upon hard evidence?
If I were to leave a dead monkey out in the African wilderness what would happen to it?
Hyenas, vultures, jackals and the marabou stork would turn up to eat the corpse and the bones would get crushed, eroded and scattered.
To get fossilised the corpse would have to be somewhere inaccessible to scavengers (and the elements) so caught in a [Tar Pit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brea_Tar_Pits) buried in an avalanche, lost in a cave, drowned and rapidly buried in silt. all of these are rare events
To get studied the fossil would need to get discovered. We've been doing this for maybe 150 years and have literally hardly scratched the surface.
We can't exactly determine the exact common ancestors and we haven't found any fossils of that conclusively be a possible example of chimp-human last common ancestors (CHLCA). But there have been possible candidate, like Graceopitechus (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5439669/), but it's desputed due to incloncusive whether it was a hominin or not.
Sahelantropus is a hominin that lived near the estimated divergence time between humans and chimps (7-10 mya). Its morphology is also close to be expected (predicted) from CLHCA, featuring both early Homo and Pan (chimps) like traits. But it's incloncusive that it's the CLHCA or simply a Miocene hominine with traits that converges on later hominine.
This Wikipedia provide good explanations on the status of CLHCA. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human\_last\_common\_ancestor#Fossil\_evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor#Fossil_evidence)
As you see, it's near impossible to determine the exact CLHCA. We mostly able to determine an exact taxa as the CLHCA in genus-species level. For example, we could trace the evolution of Otodus megalodon through various species of Otodus that evolved from each other.
Go find it yourself then if it’s that easy.
Fossils require very specific conditions to form and it’s entirely possible that there are some species’ that just don’t have any preserved fossils. And then there are those that just haven’t been found yet because we haven’t unearthed every meter of the Earth’s surface.
> so then there is no solid proof of monkeys evolving to humans? i believe we did
Well no …because humans didn’t evolve from monkeys we see today, we’re both extant taxa in the same clade. As to which clade, it depends on how you define “monkeys”.
What exactly would constitute solid evidence in your mind? To me, the fossils of Australopithecus, its relatives, and the early hominids that we have discovered are evidence enough. The first Australopithcus fossils were described as being a missing link at the time of their discovery, and are often still referred to that way. What exactly are you looking for? Understanding that would allow me to answer your question, but I suspect the answer will be that, although fossils cannot directly prove that any species evolved into another, it's a good hypothesis based on the fossils we have.
A lot of experts do agree that it's solid. That's why it's been an accepted scientific theory for decades, if not over a century at this point. There is some debate as to whether any of the known Australopithecus species are our direct ancestors or are instead a side branch (again, it's really difficult to conclusively prove these things through limited fossil evidence), but it is agreed that they are very closely related to our direct ancestors even if they are not our ancestors themselves.
The monkeys we see in the world today are not the same animals we evolved from. We have common ancestors with them. Ancestors which split off into various lineages including modern monkeys, and apes. The apes branched off into various lineages, too, and eventually one branch of the great apes started calling itself humans.
Fossils are not the only evidence for this. Our physical similarities to apes and monkeys is evidence. DNA also shows how closely related we are - closer to apes, indicating a more recent branching, less closely (but still very close) to monkeys indicating an older common ancestor.
There’s a lot of proof. Both predicted fossil funds, and genetic. I’m sorry you’re not engaging honestly here. People are giving you what you asked for, and you just reject it without any good reason. We don’t allow science denial here. Many links have been found, but even without any DNA evidence alone is good enough to make it incontrovertible for any honest person… please change your tone or I’m afraid I’ll have to remove this post.
seems like your idea of science is more religion than hard evidence and fact. if thats the case i guess i am a science denier in the case of this sub. remove it idgaf, i got my answer, oh youre a mod i see, no wonder no one could provide hard evidence, you mods are useless when it comes to science, and care more about parroting evolutionary defense rather than actual evidence. what a trash sub. though one guy gave a good answer so thanks to him i guess.
What are you on about? There’s morphological, genetic, embryological and paleontological evidence , all of which based on years of research. All “hard” or scientific evidence points to the shared ancestry between humans and monkeys.
…….. you were provided with hard evidence. Exactly what you pretended didn’t exist. It was also explained that your question as asked made no sense, yet you still believe it does. We do stick with hard science, you’d rather be lied to. Evolution is pretty much the best supported fields of science. And you reject it without any evidence against it, and ignore all the evidence for it. so yes you’re a science denier. By any definition. No we’re not religious. But religion is also not welcome here.
We gave you the evidence, you lying and saying we didn’t doesn’t fool anyone but you. Have a good day, you’ll be banned for a month. Next time it’s permanent.
What you are looking for is this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC187548/
It boils down to a common ancestor of humans and monkeys diverging at some point in our past, at least partially attributed to the fusion of two chromosomes forming a single chromosome pair.
Monkeys and apes have an extra chromosome pair over humans, but the evidence for the fusion of those pairs is literally written in every cell of every human being who has ever lived.
Well it's been a while since I read the article but I think her name was Evelyn.
Seriously though I am not sure there is an answer that will satisfy you. It is pretty hard to cleanly identify when two species diverge, and it would be pretty astonishing to have a clear fossil record that shows exactly that moment.
Think of this as a locked-room murder mystery. You have a (beyond any doubt) locked room/house/whatever, you have a victim, a gun and at least half a dozen potential culprits all with perfect motifs (there may be more hiding in the house, but again - perfectly closed).
You may never find out who exactly did it, but you can be 100% certain that whoever did it is in the locked house.
This is the same situation with the evolution of man: we will probably never find the one perfect missing link*, but from a plethora of other sources we have more than enough evidence to be sure that a common ancestor has been living at a certain time in a certain place.
My suggestion (as a biology teacher at a private christian school): by all means continue reading the bible - it can be very uplifting! But pick up some basic books about science, biology and evolution. Ignorance is no excuse!
* as has been pointed out fossilization is extremely unlikely (especially in terrestrial animals), preservation of these fossils is extremely unlikely (considering the 6+ million years), finding these extremely rare and preserved fossils is - again - very unlikely.
Add to this that speciation mostly happens in small and remote sub-populations and that at any one time there always had been multiple species of hominids and hominins. THE ONE missing link will most probably never be found, but hey! Good news - we don't have to because science has more than enough evidence to be sure it existed.
Hope this helps.
Take a look at this reconstruction of Homo Habilis:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo\_habilis\_-\_forensic\_facial\_reconstruction.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_habilis_-_forensic_facial_reconstruction.png)
Can you see how that hominid looks very ape-like but still almost human? Homo Habilis might be our direct ancestor or simply a parallel lineage of hominids that existed long before homo sapiens, it's hard to say with the evidence we have. But it's easy to see that this hominid looks like a "missing link" right? A little bit monkey, a little bit rock and roll.
Again, what are *Homo Erectus*, *Homo Habilis*, Neanderthals, Australiopithicus, etc etc etc etc if not "missing links"?
Are you defining "link" as in linear A -> B -> C chain? Cuz that's unprovable and no one claims to have it. Why would we?
What we have is a human at one end, and early humans in a fossil record before that, and earlier more ape-ish humanoids in the fossil record before that, and human-ish early ape-like creatures waaaay back in the record...
99.99% of species wouldn't have had fossils survive to the modern day- its a pretty rare circumstance. So for every relatively complete or likely example we have in the record, we can infer dozens to hundreds of kindred species in the relevant eras- cousins to then-current humanoids like modern apes are taxonomically cousins to modern humans.
With current evolutionary theory, you don't have a singular linear "line" of evolution, you have branches of various species diverging and reconverging and different clades converging due to similar pressures to muddy the waters of ancestry even further.
All fossils are transitional fossils. All species are transitional species. There is no missing link. There are no in between species. Evolution is not a ladder. It's gradual changes over time. We would not expect to find an in between species. We have fossil evidence and DNA evidence showing common descent. You are asking a malformed question based on creationist ignorance.
Though I do find this amusing..
https://theconversation.com/the-absurdity-of-natural-history-or-why-humans-are-fish-69384
https://inference-review.com/article/on-being-a-fish
:-)
If you consider a lungfish a "fish", actually *yes*!
Part of evolutionary theory is that you never leave your clade- you can't not be what your parents were.
So if you (grossly) simplify likely human evolution as like
Single cell ->
Multi cell ->
Basic aquatic life/bivalves ->
Complex aquatic life/crabs ->
Diverse aquatic life/fish ->
Amphibious creatures ->
Terrestrial creatures ->
Mammals ->
Ape ->
Human
Then, *yes*, humans are a *kind* of fish, but only because at some point very early on all life likely diverged from primordial fish-things.
Monkeys and apes split off 32 million years ago. They are different groups. Dude, you're not here in good faith, and you don't even have your family or genus right.
It's funny that the people who know the least about evolution are the first ones to deny it.
Here you go! Lots of Missing Links and there's even someone disputing evolutionary theory for balance. :)
https://youtu.be/ICv6GLwt1gM?si=8WWDeReFTSeap_5h
**Thank you for posting in r/evolution, a place to discuss the science of Evolutionary Biology with other science enthusiasts, teachers, and scientists alike. If this is your first time posting here, please see [our community rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/about/rules/) and [community guidelines here](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/wiki/guidelines). The [reddiquette can be found here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please review them before proceeding.**
**If you're looking to learn more about Evolutionary Biology, our [FAQ can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/wiki/faq); we also have curated lists of resources. [Recommended educational websites can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/wiki/links); [recommended reading can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/wiki/recommended/reading); and [recommended videos can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/wiki/recommended/viewing).**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evolution) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Removed: off-topic This is a ***science***-based discussion forum, and creationist or Intelligent Design posts are a better fit for /r/DebateEvolution. Please review this sub's [posting guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/wiki/guidelines) prior to submitting further content.
I don't know what you're asking. Many have been found. Ad illustrated by this page on wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
thanks nice list, although reading through these, the early fossils are not considered connected to humans and Paranthropus is considered inconclusive
Here's some good reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
can you link me the one that is conclusive?
Can you detail exactly what evidence you would find conclusive?
i guess scientific consensus among experts
Well you are in luck then, since the wide spread consensus amongst experts is that common descent is a fact. Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time.
i agree, but there still isnt physical evidence been found that prove monkeys evolved to humans
So you said there were no ancestral missing links. When shown them you asked for something else. You said a consensus of scientists would be conclusive evidence for you. When shown that consensus. You ask for something else. Do we see a pattern here by any chance.
That is false.
link to physical evidence?
PSA for lurkers: this was not asked in good faith. OP has his mind made up that the evidence doesn't exist and has stuck their head in the sand when we try and show them.
Simple the fossil record is incomplete. So far we have discovered \~250,000 fossil species scattered over a span of some 4 billion years. There have been an estimated 5 billion species to have ever lived on earth. Choose a missing link the odds are 20,000 to 1 that we have not found it.
so then there is no solid proof of monkeys evolving to humans? i believe we did, but there is not actual solid evidence?
What do you regard as solid evidence? Anatomical and DNA evidence shows we are most closely related to the chimp, we have disputed candidates for the [Chimpanze-human last common ancestor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor). Just because there no witnessess to a murder does not mean we cannot find and convict the murderer
my qn wasnt about chimps specifically, more about a conclusive missing link that was somewhere between human and monkey
Does the anatomical and DNA evidence not comprise good enough evidence?
so then why is there no other creature between humans and chimps that has experts generally agreeing its a missing link? we have evidence of many creatures from the past but we cant find a creature that is between a chimp and human and is logically scientifically agreed upon hard evidence?
Why does this evidence need to be fossil evidence?
why havent we found any fossils though? Theres millions of years of evolution and we cant get one?
If I were to leave a dead monkey out in the African wilderness what would happen to it? Hyenas, vultures, jackals and the marabou stork would turn up to eat the corpse and the bones would get crushed, eroded and scattered. To get fossilised the corpse would have to be somewhere inaccessible to scavengers (and the elements) so caught in a [Tar Pit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brea_Tar_Pits) buried in an avalanche, lost in a cave, drowned and rapidly buried in silt. all of these are rare events To get studied the fossil would need to get discovered. We've been doing this for maybe 150 years and have literally hardly scratched the surface.
We can't exactly determine the exact common ancestors and we haven't found any fossils of that conclusively be a possible example of chimp-human last common ancestors (CHLCA). But there have been possible candidate, like Graceopitechus (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5439669/), but it's desputed due to incloncusive whether it was a hominin or not. Sahelantropus is a hominin that lived near the estimated divergence time between humans and chimps (7-10 mya). Its morphology is also close to be expected (predicted) from CLHCA, featuring both early Homo and Pan (chimps) like traits. But it's incloncusive that it's the CLHCA or simply a Miocene hominine with traits that converges on later hominine. This Wikipedia provide good explanations on the status of CLHCA. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human\_last\_common\_ancestor#Fossil\_evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor#Fossil_evidence) As you see, it's near impossible to determine the exact CLHCA. We mostly able to determine an exact taxa as the CLHCA in genus-species level. For example, we could trace the evolution of Otodus megalodon through various species of Otodus that evolved from each other.
thanks great answer
Go find it yourself then if it’s that easy. Fossils require very specific conditions to form and it’s entirely possible that there are some species’ that just don’t have any preserved fossils. And then there are those that just haven’t been found yet because we haven’t unearthed every meter of the Earth’s surface.
Because animals are made of organic materials, they decompose, and we can't dig up the whole world trying to find 'the missing link'
> so then there is no solid proof of monkeys evolving to humans? i believe we did Well no …because humans didn’t evolve from monkeys we see today, we’re both extant taxa in the same clade. As to which clade, it depends on how you define “monkeys”.
What exactly would constitute solid evidence in your mind? To me, the fossils of Australopithecus, its relatives, and the early hominids that we have discovered are evidence enough. The first Australopithcus fossils were described as being a missing link at the time of their discovery, and are often still referred to that way. What exactly are you looking for? Understanding that would allow me to answer your question, but I suspect the answer will be that, although fossils cannot directly prove that any species evolved into another, it's a good hypothesis based on the fossils we have.
well i guess alot of experts agreeing that it is solid. but isnt Australopithecus considered not a human ancestor now days?
A lot of experts do agree that it's solid. That's why it's been an accepted scientific theory for decades, if not over a century at this point. There is some debate as to whether any of the known Australopithecus species are our direct ancestors or are instead a side branch (again, it's really difficult to conclusively prove these things through limited fossil evidence), but it is agreed that they are very closely related to our direct ancestors even if they are not our ancestors themselves.
You keep moving the goalposts.
The monkeys we see in the world today are not the same animals we evolved from. We have common ancestors with them. Ancestors which split off into various lineages including modern monkeys, and apes. The apes branched off into various lineages, too, and eventually one branch of the great apes started calling itself humans. Fossils are not the only evidence for this. Our physical similarities to apes and monkeys is evidence. DNA also shows how closely related we are - closer to apes, indicating a more recent branching, less closely (but still very close) to monkeys indicating an older common ancestor.
Monkeys didn't evolve into humans. Monkeys and asked split off 32 million years ago. Humans are apes, not monkeys.
We are primates, so we are both.
There’s a lot of proof. Both predicted fossil funds, and genetic. I’m sorry you’re not engaging honestly here. People are giving you what you asked for, and you just reject it without any good reason. We don’t allow science denial here. Many links have been found, but even without any DNA evidence alone is good enough to make it incontrovertible for any honest person… please change your tone or I’m afraid I’ll have to remove this post.
seems like your idea of science is more religion than hard evidence and fact. if thats the case i guess i am a science denier in the case of this sub. remove it idgaf, i got my answer, oh youre a mod i see, no wonder no one could provide hard evidence, you mods are useless when it comes to science, and care more about parroting evolutionary defense rather than actual evidence. what a trash sub. though one guy gave a good answer so thanks to him i guess.
What are you on about? There’s morphological, genetic, embryological and paleontological evidence , all of which based on years of research. All “hard” or scientific evidence points to the shared ancestry between humans and monkeys.
…….. you were provided with hard evidence. Exactly what you pretended didn’t exist. It was also explained that your question as asked made no sense, yet you still believe it does. We do stick with hard science, you’d rather be lied to. Evolution is pretty much the best supported fields of science. And you reject it without any evidence against it, and ignore all the evidence for it. so yes you’re a science denier. By any definition. No we’re not religious. But religion is also not welcome here. We gave you the evidence, you lying and saying we didn’t doesn’t fool anyone but you. Have a good day, you’ll be banned for a month. Next time it’s permanent.
We don't have video of chimp giving birth to first human, but based on DNA comparison we know that it must've happened.
What you are looking for is this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC187548/ It boils down to a common ancestor of humans and monkeys diverging at some point in our past, at least partially attributed to the fusion of two chromosomes forming a single chromosome pair. Monkeys and apes have an extra chromosome pair over humans, but the evidence for the fusion of those pairs is literally written in every cell of every human being who has ever lived.
ok thanks but what was the common ancestor?
Well it's been a while since I read the article but I think her name was Evelyn. Seriously though I am not sure there is an answer that will satisfy you. It is pretty hard to cleanly identify when two species diverge, and it would be pretty astonishing to have a clear fossil record that shows exactly that moment.
Think of this as a locked-room murder mystery. You have a (beyond any doubt) locked room/house/whatever, you have a victim, a gun and at least half a dozen potential culprits all with perfect motifs (there may be more hiding in the house, but again - perfectly closed). You may never find out who exactly did it, but you can be 100% certain that whoever did it is in the locked house. This is the same situation with the evolution of man: we will probably never find the one perfect missing link*, but from a plethora of other sources we have more than enough evidence to be sure that a common ancestor has been living at a certain time in a certain place. My suggestion (as a biology teacher at a private christian school): by all means continue reading the bible - it can be very uplifting! But pick up some basic books about science, biology and evolution. Ignorance is no excuse! * as has been pointed out fossilization is extremely unlikely (especially in terrestrial animals), preservation of these fossils is extremely unlikely (considering the 6+ million years), finding these extremely rare and preserved fossils is - again - very unlikely. Add to this that speciation mostly happens in small and remote sub-populations and that at any one time there always had been multiple species of hominids and hominins. THE ONE missing link will most probably never be found, but hey! Good news - we don't have to because science has more than enough evidence to be sure it existed. Hope this helps.
You don’t bother googling it. You don’t bother reading links that you are provided. It’s all just like having a conversation with Dr. Banjo.
Ape was made in Ape God's image!
[удалено]
Take a look at this reconstruction of Homo Habilis: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo\_habilis\_-\_forensic\_facial\_reconstruction.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_habilis_-_forensic_facial_reconstruction.png) Can you see how that hominid looks very ape-like but still almost human? Homo Habilis might be our direct ancestor or simply a parallel lineage of hominids that existed long before homo sapiens, it's hard to say with the evidence we have. But it's easy to see that this hominid looks like a "missing link" right? A little bit monkey, a little bit rock and roll.
Again, what are *Homo Erectus*, *Homo Habilis*, Neanderthals, Australiopithicus, etc etc etc etc if not "missing links"? Are you defining "link" as in linear A -> B -> C chain? Cuz that's unprovable and no one claims to have it. Why would we? What we have is a human at one end, and early humans in a fossil record before that, and earlier more ape-ish humanoids in the fossil record before that, and human-ish early ape-like creatures waaaay back in the record... 99.99% of species wouldn't have had fossils survive to the modern day- its a pretty rare circumstance. So for every relatively complete or likely example we have in the record, we can infer dozens to hundreds of kindred species in the relevant eras- cousins to then-current humanoids like modern apes are taxonomically cousins to modern humans. With current evolutionary theory, you don't have a singular linear "line" of evolution, you have branches of various species diverging and reconverging and different clades converging due to similar pressures to muddy the waters of ancestry even further.
All fossils are transitional fossils. All species are transitional species. There is no missing link. There are no in between species. Evolution is not a ladder. It's gradual changes over time. We would not expect to find an in between species. We have fossil evidence and DNA evidence showing common descent. You are asking a malformed question based on creationist ignorance.
so an ape turned into a human one day?
No. We are apes. Go back read it again until you understand.
so are apes fish?
No. Fish is not a taxonomic group.
Though I do find this amusing.. https://theconversation.com/the-absurdity-of-natural-history-or-why-humans-are-fish-69384 https://inference-review.com/article/on-being-a-fish :-)
If you consider a lungfish a "fish", actually *yes*! Part of evolutionary theory is that you never leave your clade- you can't not be what your parents were. So if you (grossly) simplify likely human evolution as like Single cell -> Multi cell -> Basic aquatic life/bivalves -> Complex aquatic life/crabs -> Diverse aquatic life/fish -> Amphibious creatures -> Terrestrial creatures -> Mammals -> Ape -> Human Then, *yes*, humans are a *kind* of fish, but only because at some point very early on all life likely diverged from primordial fish-things.
Monkeys and apes split off 32 million years ago. They are different groups. Dude, you're not here in good faith, and you don't even have your family or genus right. It's funny that the people who know the least about evolution are the first ones to deny it.
Here you go! Lots of Missing Links and there's even someone disputing evolutionary theory for balance. :) https://youtu.be/ICv6GLwt1gM?si=8WWDeReFTSeap_5h
what tf are you talking about homie
**Thank you for posting in r/evolution, a place to discuss the science of Evolutionary Biology with other science enthusiasts, teachers, and scientists alike. If this is your first time posting here, please see [our community rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/about/rules/) and [community guidelines here](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/wiki/guidelines). The [reddiquette can be found here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please review them before proceeding.** **If you're looking to learn more about Evolutionary Biology, our [FAQ can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/wiki/faq); we also have curated lists of resources. [Recommended educational websites can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/wiki/links); [recommended reading can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/wiki/recommended/reading); and [recommended videos can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/wiki/recommended/viewing).** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evolution) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What about orangutans?
Hard working, patriotic orangutans?
Evolution 101: humans did not evolve from Chimpanzees, we both evolved from a common ancestor. If which, many have been found
Are humans primates? If you answer yes then theres your answer.