Why are there no fossils for the 'missing link' that connects our ancestors with other species? Is this a misconception or is there another explanation?
Last Updated: 19.06.2025 05:33
===> I wouldn’t call that a ‘missing link’ problem because it is clear that pre-humans did indeed give rise to modern humans. In that sense there are no missing links, we would just always like to find more for the sake of detail and clarity.
It’s complicated, and the story seems likely to get *more* complicated as we find more good fossils.
Some pre-human populations apparently even co-existed for more than a million years, such as Homo habilis and some Australopithecines. Neanderthals and Homo sapiens and Denisovans coexisted in different regions, too, and modern humans comingled with Neanderthals for a while. Sexy story, that.
If a female has XX chromosomes and a male has XY chromosomes, what chromosomes do transgenders have?
Which ancestors do you need connections for? Modern Homo sapiens to Homo erectus, or something earlier? Which part of our family tree is not clear at a basic level??
Cheers.
For context:
Doctors Find They Can Detect Cancer in Blood Years Before Diagnosis - futurism.com
Human evolution is complex because populations of our ancestors ran around all over the planet for millions of years. The question that raises is the complex issue of finding precise fossils that can clarify ** exactly ** which pre-humans gave literal birth to Homo sapiens. That is not required, however, for our basic understanding. ‘Missing link’ is a rotten term, by the way.