What are the fossil ancestors of Langurs?
90541
An interesting paper on the subject:\nhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/108064559/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
655680
The following lists shows where the various monkey families (CAPTIALIZED) are placed in the Primate classification. Note that the smallest grouping that contains them all is the Simiiformes, the simians, which also contains the apes. Calling apes monkeys is incorrect. Calling either a simian is correct.\n\nORDER PRIMATES \nSuborder Strepsirrhini: non-tarsier prosimians \nSuborder Haplorrhini: tarsiers, monkeys and apes \nInfraorder Tarsiiformes \nFAMILY Tarsiidae: tarsiers \nInfraorder Simiiformes: simians \nPLATYRRHINI: New World monkeys \nFAMILY Cebidae: marmosets, tamarins, capuchins and squirrel monkeys (56 species) \nFAMILY Aotidae: night monkeys, owl monkeys, douroucoulis (8 species) \nFAMILY Pitheciidae: titis, sakis and uakaris (41 species) \nFAMILY Atelidae: howler, spider and woolly monkeys (24 species) \nCatarrhini \nSUPERFAMILY Cercopithecoidea \nFAMILY Cercopithecidae: Old World monkeys (134 species) \nSuperfamily Hominoidea: apes \nFamily Hylobatidae: gibbons ("lesser apes") (13 species) \nFamily Hominidae: humans and other great apes (7 species)
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.
425495
For the last time, we didn't evolve straight from monkeys. We had a common ancestor that was wiped out because of the forces of evolution.
637906
Some people, I swear, are not qualified to answer here. \nThere is a 65 million year gap between the cenozoic and mesozoic eras.  Hominins, or human ancestry, began in the cenozoic while dinosaurs rose, and fell, in the earlier mesozoic.  Also rising in the mesozoic were early mammals...long before any humans.  Most of these were mouse-shaped.  Look in any biology textbook and you can find these general concepts.  Also check out your local museums.
292034
We all had a common ancestor.  It just so happens that apes evolved differently to suit their environment than humans; we didn't evolve from each other, just divergently from our ancestor
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
1163694
You say "Mom and Dad, I believe that Jim evolved from monkeys 5 million years ago."
339373
There are two theories to explain how the Platypus has evolved into what it is today. The first (theory B) shows that relatives of monotremes formed their own evolutionary branch that was completely different from development of both marsupials and placentals. This change is thought to have occurred 135 million years go, the beginning of the Cretaceous period. The marsupials and the placentals divided at some point 135-65 million years ago.\n\nThe Second (theory A) was proposed by Gregory (1947) and was not popular until the 1970s. He said that between 135-65 million years ago, the placentals and marsupials separated to their own way then later the monotremes and the marsupials went their own way.\n\nEvidence for this theory is that the reproductive systems of monotremes and marsupials are extremely similar. The embryos of both have some stage of encased shells in the gestation period. The only difference is that monotremes have the encased shells throughout the entire gestation period, whereas marsupials only have the encased shells for about two thirds of the gestation period.\n\nAre you denying that evolution exists at all?
12016
Different apes.  Both people and present-day apes evolved from a common ancestor which was ape-like, but not the same as a present-day ape.
872169
Lemurs and other prosimians have been around for maybe 50 million years
369122
Humans didn't come from apes- but apes and humans share a common ancestor, if you go back a few million years. The difficulty that people have is that they mistake the name of something (which is fixed) to the actual organism. A species is a dynamic flow of genetic material. What we see today is a snapshot of that, in this time frame. When we find a fossil, that is another snapshot from another timeframe. If we found enough fossils we would be able to show the movie of humans and apes diverging from a common ancestor. Given the conditions that are necessary for fossils to form, and the relative rarity of hominids (the group that humans and apes belong to) this is not likely to happen. \n\nYou can see genetc change by looking at the way we breed dogs. Dachunds and Saint Bernards are both Canis lupus, but a male dachund would find it near impossible to mate with a Saint Bernard. If all other dog breeds were wiped out, they would speciate, evolving into different species. One could argue they are well on the way. Inheritance can be observed by the similarity people share with their parents. \n\nAdam and Eve, sadly, are a myth. What race would they be?
594431
1. There is no such thing as a "lower primate". Only creationists who are ignorant of evolutionary science would ever  use such a term. All organisms have been evolving for EXACTLY the same amount of time. There are no "lower" organisms.\n\n2. We are not simply the descendants of apes, we ARE apes. Humans are one of the 5 currently living great ape species. \n\n3. The most compelling evidence is in the degre of genetic homogeneity, with over 95% of genetic material shared between humans and the chimp species.
30026
apparently they actually existed during history.  a hand and a tooth ahve been found in some hindu monastary i believe. they were hugh and dna tested.  no matches were found with any currently living and document creature.
80893
Archaepoteryx. \nFeathered dinosaurs. \nThe fact that mitochondrial drift in terrestrial organisms tend to vary mutationally in a way that appears to very closely mirror the fossil record.\nThe differences in the design of eyes in cephalopods and vertebrates, even though parallel evolution is given them similar levels of visual acuity.\nThe obvious relationship between dogs and wolves.\nThe more than obvious relationship, both morphologically and genetically) between humans and apes (i.e. explain why Malaysians named the Orangutan the way they did, as in 'orang' is Malay for 'man.')\nThe fact that humans have more vestigial tail than do chimps\nThe fact that whales have vestigial land-limbs.\nThe clear record showing the advances of horses since Eophippus in the Eocene.\nThe fact that there are fossils of beings who are very clearly human, and also very clearly not us (Homo Erectus, Ergaster, Habilis, Neanderthalensis, Florensis.)\n\nI could go on and on and on. But I know those unwilling to hear, won't anyway, so why waste the typing?
580576
Primates are remarkably recent animals.  Most species of living things had become extinct long before the first monkeys and their prosimian ancestors evolved.  While the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old and the first life dates to at least 3.5 billion years ago, the first primates did not appear until around 60 million years ago.  That was after the dinosaurs had become extinct.\n  \n\n \n65,000,000 years ago\n \n\n \npresent \nTransitional primate-like creatures were evolving by the end of the Mesozoic Era (ca. 65 million years ago).   At that time, the world was very different from today.  The continents were in other locations and they had somewhat different shapes.  North America was still connected to Europe but not to South America.  India was not yet part of Asia but heading towards it.  Australia was close to Antarctica.  Most land masses had warm tropical or subtropical climates.\n \n\n \n  \n Small Insectivore from the\n end of the Mesozoic Era \nThe flora and fauna  at the end of the Mesozoic Era  would have seemed alien since most of the plants and animals that are familiar to us had not yet evolved.  Large reptiles were beginning to be replaced by mammals as the dominant large land animals.  Among the mammals, there were a few archaic egg-layers (monotremes) like the ancestors of the platypus and echidna.  There were larger numbers of pouched opossum-like mammals (marsupials).  The few placental mammals that existed at that time mainly consisted of the Insectivore  ancestors of primates.  The large grass-eating placental mammals, such as cattle and wildebeest,  were absent as were the vast grasslands that would later develop.  Rodents and small-seed eating birds were also absent.  The great proliferation of flowering plants had not taken place yet, however, forests of broad-leafed trees were developing over much of the earth.\n\n\nProto-primates\n\nThe first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates , were roughly similar to squirrels and tree shrews in size and appearance.  The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence (mostly from North Africa) 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 with pads and claws for climbing.  These proto-primates will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data becomes available.\n\nEarly primate-like mammals do not seem to have played an important role in the general transformation of terrestrial animal life immediately following the massive global extinctions of plants and animals that occurred approximately 65,000,000 years ago.  The most dramatic changes were brought about by the emergence of large grazing and browsing mammals with tough hoofs, grinding teeth, and digestive tracts specialized for the processing of grass, leaves, and other fibrous plant materials.  The evolution of these herbivorous  mammals provided the opportunity for the evolution of the carnivorous  mammals specialized to eat them.  These new hunters and scavengers included the dogs, cats, and bears.  Adaptive radiation was resulting in the evolution of new species to fill expanding ecological niches, or food getting opportunities.  Most of these new animals were placental mammals.  With the exception of bats, none of them reached Australia and New Guinea.  This explains why they did not exist there until people brought them in recent times.  South America had also drifted away from Africa and was not connected to North America after 80,000,000 years ago.  However, around 20,000,000 years ago, South America reconnected with North America and placental mammals streamed in for the first time, resulting in the extinction of most of the existing marsupial fauna there.\n\n\nEarly Prosimians\n\nThe first primates may have evolved during the last part of the Paleocene Epoch .  These were members of the genus Altiatlasius .  Their bones have been found in 60,000,000 year
190230
Humans did not evolve from apes nor the other way around.  However humans and apes do share a common ancestor.  This ancestor was not human or ape but it was the foundation from which they both evolved on two separate and distinct paths (evolutionary tracts). In fact most people have heard the apes are the closest species related to humans, but the truth is, Chimpanzees are the closet to us, genetically, physically and in mental capabilities. Apes and Humans diverged on separate evolutionary tracks about 8 million years ago while Humans and Chimps only diverged at about 5 million yrs ago.\nThere is a 4% genetic-sequence difference between chimps and Humans, which means that our DNA is 96% identical. But we did not evolve from one another, we just shared a distant, now extinct relative.  Hope this clears things up.