Why are there no bones from the stages of monkey evolution?

[Amine Quentin]

Why is there no bones of the stages of the evolution of monkeys?
As we have the bones of the stages of human evolution

 

[phinds]

Why do you think there are not? IF there are not, then possibly it is because people are less interested in the evolution of monkeys than of the later forms that are genus Homo and have not paid as much attention to them. Possibly because they are older they are even more subject to deterioration.

Are you leading up to an argument against evolution?

EDIT: I see from your other thread that you did question evolution (that is not to say that you argued against it, just that you are/were unsure of it). If your question about monkeys IS an attempt to see how it might be wrong, I can only respond as my New Jersey friends would. Fugedaboudit.

 

[Pythagorean]

Preservation of bones on that order requires specific conditions to be present at death, so it's not like every organism that ever lived has bones available for scrutiny.

That being said:

http://m.livescience.com/32029-oldest-monkey-fossil-found.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_primates

 

[D H]

Why is there no bones of the stages of the evolution of monkeys?
As we have the bones of the stages of human evolution

Who is feeding you this nonsense? Did you think to do a simple google search for "monkey fossils" to challenge those assertions? Try it. Scientists have of course found several fossilized monkeys (and their ancestors).

 

[phinds]

Based on this thread and his other thread, I'm beginning to think we've got a Creationist here. Amine, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[SteamKing]

Preservation of bones on that order requires specific conditions to be present at death, so it's not like every organism that ever lived has bones available for scrutiny.

Especially difficult for those organisms which never had bones in the first place.

No one is claiming that the fossil record for any species is complete. Even some species of dinosaur, as huge as some of those creature could become, are known only from the fossil remains of a single individual, and finding a complete skeleton of a dinosaur, big or small, is a newsworthy event. Often, only the most massive bones survive long enough to fossilize; smaller bones can fragment, and their pieces may be hard to distinguish from other unremarkable rock fragments.

 

[Feeble Wonk]

I sounds like you're probably right about a "creationist" line of questioning phinds.
Amine... If your questioning of evolution is sincerely in search of explanation (and not denial), the evidence supporting evolutionary principles is overwhelming and readily available to you. There is no REASONABLE doubt remaining.
If the concept of evolution is causing you to have a crisis of faith, you might find more fruitful solace if you begin to question "what" is evolving. But that road gets lost in the mist of philosophy very quickly, and it's not the kind of discussion that you'll find on this forum.

 

[D H]

Based on this thread and his other thread, I'm beginning to think we've got a Creationist here. Amine, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Until shown otherwise, I would give the benefit of the doubt, that what we've got is someone who has been fed a bunch of anti-evolution malarkey and is starting to question that.There's a nice *partial* list of fossil primate at wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_primates. This includes numerous fossils of old world monkeys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_primates#Cercopithecoidea) and of new world monkeys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_primates#Platyrrhini).

The primates include lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, monkeys, and apes (Hominoidea), which includes humans. The primate fossil evidence is immense, primarily because there are multiple branches of science whose key purpose is to find out who we humans are.

 

[Amine Quentin]

I sounds like you're probably right about a "creationist" line of questioning phinds.
Amine... If your questioning of evolution is sincerely in search of explanation (and not denial), the evidence supporting evolutionary principles is overwhelming and readily available to you. There is no REASONABLE doubt remaining.
If the concept of evolution is causing you to have a crisis of faith, you might find more fruitful solace if you begin to question "what" is evolving. But that road gets lost in the mist of philosophy very quickly, and it's not the kind of discussion that you'll find on this forum.

No I do not believe in any religion, I am an atheist but I have some questions about evolution
For example, I did not find in the Internet the evolution of monkeys, for example, we humans have
-homo erectus- homo neanderthalensis-homo habilis ...

 

[Amine Quentin]

thanks for everyone

 

[Amine Quentin]

Based on this thread and his other thread, I'm beginning to think we've got a Creationist here. Amine, please correct me if I'm wrong.

No sir No I'm not a creationism does not believe the stories of Adam and Eve

 

[jim mcnamara]

Also google search will return lots of things including graphics for 'Monkey phylogeny' . This is a problem with Biology - the vocabulary for non-experts can get in the way.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I could come up with a of hypothesis. Monkeys evolved in jungles of Africa. Jungles are one of the most active areas on the planet, when a creature dies, it's overrun by insects, fungi, bacteria in minutes. Fossils only usually form if the creature gets buried, so creatures that live in areas where it's much less likely, means there are far less fossils.

 

[DiracPool]

IF there are not, then possibly it is because people are less interested in the evolution of monkeys than of the later forms that are genus Homo and have not paid as much attention to them.

As far as I'm aware, this is the best answer to the OP's question. You don't see the cladistic analysis of non-hominoid primates in the news much because the public is not much interested in them. But they are there, and in much more abundance than hominoid or especially hominin fossils. In fact, most anthropologists are not really even terribly interested in monkey fossils. I remember watching documentaries on the Leaky's, Johanssen, and even Tim White with the recent discovery of Ardipithecus where they seem to get irritated with the number of monkey and ape fossils that they have to sift through in order to find a "gem" hominin fossil. They basically toss these fossilized monkey bones over their shoulder as they are looking for the hominin fossils.

 

[Chronos]

Well humans have burial rituals that date back many centuries, monkeys do not. So it appears logical ancient human bones are more abundant in the fossil record than monkey bones.

 

[DiracPool]

Well humans have burial rituals that date back many centuries, monkeys do not. So it appears logical ancient human bones are more abundant in the fossil record than monkey bones.

We're not talking about a few centuries, we're talking about 7 million years.