True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing

Hey, Porky, welcome back! I didn't think we'd see you again. What you quoted is on the website, but it's not one of the webpages RAZD linked to. It's on Palaeos Vertebrates Primates Dendrogram. Don't know why RAZD sent you to that website. That dendrogram makes it seem like chimps (Pan) are descended from gorillas (they're not), and that people are descended from chimps (they're not). And then there's the typos. Yes, it's very misleading. And the words "probably", "perhaps" and "maybe' do not occur on this page, and I don't see where they occur on any other pages in ways that would lead you to question them, so you're going to have to be specific about which webpages.Primate evolution, especially hominid evolution, is thought to be more of an incestuous bush than a linear progression.I'm not sure what RAZD was trying to communicate, but here's a simple evolutionary tree that gives a good idea of degree of relatedness. As you can see, humans are closest to chimps, next closest to gorillas, next closest to orangutans, and so forth (click on image to enlarge): You asked about evolution before primates, and that turns out to have a complicated answer. Old World monkeys split from New World monkeys about 35 million years ago, so obviously there were already primates by that time. As near as I can tell by poking about on Wikipedia (try Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia) the first primates came about around a 100 million years ago at the same time as tree shrews, rodents and rabbits.--Percy

On message 38 I asked what did the primate evolve from.
Message 39 suggested I search the web for answers.
Not sure why I'm being rediculed.Anyhow that question remains.
What did the early primate evolve from?

I may skip a few steps, but this is it in a nutshell.Primates evolved from a common mammalian ancestor. Mammals evolved from a common synapsid ancestor. Synapsids evolved from a common tetrapod ancestor. Tetrapods evolved from a common vertebrate ancestor. Vertebrates evolved from a common eukaryote ancestor. Eukaryotes evolved from a lineage going back to the first life forms.

You are meeting some pushback because you fit the standard creationist profile very closely, and we've seen this same behavior dozens of times in the past.

Well I copied and pasted your words...."What did the early primate evolve from?"...into google and the first hit was this:http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm

quote:

---

The first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates, evolved in the early Paleocene Epoch (65.5-55.8 million years ago) at the beginning of the Cenozoic Era. They were roughly similar to squirrels and tree shrews in size and appearance. The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence (from Asia, Europe, North Africa, and especially Western North America) suggests that they were adapted to an arboreal way of life in warm, moist climates. They probably were equipped with relatively good eyesight as well as hands and feet adapted for climbing in trees. These primate-like mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available.

---

It goes on to explain in a lot more detail. You're going to have to live with the odd 'probably' now and then - when real scientists don't know the answer to total certainty, they say so and say why.Is there a reason you're asking this question?

It is misleading to put any fossil in a direct line of ancestry because you can't determine such relationships from fossils. Even if you dug up two human fossils you could not determine if one was the ancestor or descendant of the other.What you can do is determine what features the fossil shares with other species, and then arrange those fossils in a cladogram according to their shared features. In a cladogram, no species is directly ancestral to another. For example, this is a cladogram for hominid species:

I did see that websiteAccording to the quote presented"The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence suggests..."
"They probably were"
"These primate-like mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available"Sure is alot of conjucture. And from this knowledge these trees are drawn up showing direct links between every species all the way back to the ocean.Umm okay

In Message 1 you were complaining that, "so many people seem to be so sure of their views and opinions."
Now you're complaining that there's too much conjecture?
Which is it?

And you have a better idea, I suppose?Let's try a little quiz: what, in your opinion, is the age of the Earth?

It's not conjecture it's presenting the facts as we know them. But did you read the whole article? It gives you a readable and easily understood explanation of how primates evolved? Is that 'ok I understand' or 'ok, just as I thought, bullshit'?Here's the summary of what we know.

quote:

---

Primates are relative newcomers on our planet. The earliest ones are found in the fossil record dating to 50-55 million years ago. These first prosimians thrived during the Eocene Epoch. There were no monkeys or apes for them to compete with yet. By the time of the transition to the Oligocene Epoch, monkeys had begun to evolve from prosimians and became the dominant primates. Many of the prosimian species became extinct probably as a consequence. By the early Miocene Epoch, apes had evolved from monkeys and displaced them from many environments. In the late Miocene, the evolutionary line leading to hominins finally became distinct. This hominin line included our direct ancestors.

---

Fossil data is not the only data there is. DNA data is extremely powerful, and it clearly shows that all vertebrates share a common ancestor, all the way back to the ocean.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

One of the fundamental points of science is to have the honesty to admit to uncertainties. Even in physics there is uncertainty in many measurements, and that uncertainty has to be accounted for. Sometimes - in astronomy for instance - the uncertainties can be very large.So, for phylogenies where the evidence is sparse and fragmentary - and we are likely missing many species - scientists do the best they can and where the evidence is inconclusive they admit to it.And sometimes something comes along that shakes things up. Recently there was a proposal that proposed a rather different view of the relationship between two major dinosaur groups. Now there is new evidence around the evolution of the ray-finned fish. Ancient fish skullsBut this is science. If you want false certainty, then religion can give you that. But science's honesty and willingness to admit the possibility of error is the reason why science has a far better record of getting to the truth.

ToE has collapsed under its own admissions of speculation being drawn from fossil evidence that is very fragmented.In a revealing statement that completely exposed the theory it was admitted that Mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become availableObviously not enough data to draw factual conclusions from

Again, fossils aren't the only evidence. The DNA evidence on its own has proven evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.