If we can find 200+ million year old dinosaur bones then why can't we find 4+ million year old human bones?

The oldest estimated human bones is known as Lucy but Lucy is only estimated to be between 2 and 3.3 million years old. If the first group of dinosaurs existed 200+ million years ago, and we found their bone. . . then why can't we find the bones of a pre-evolved human skeleton before Lucy? Is this question what people refer to as a or the 'missing link'? The connection between ape and man? Why do we have many dinosaur skeletons in the museums but we can't find the transitional bones that existed before the skeleton system we humans have today? Dinosaurs are far older. If we can find 200+ million year old dinosaur bones then why can't we find 4+ million year old human bones?

If we can find 200+ million year old dinosaur bones then why can't we find 4+ million year old human bones?
KTDykes has it right - the answer is because the Homo genus is not that old. The first Homo species (Homo habilis) evolved around 1.5-2.5 million years ago. And Homo habilis isn't even "human" - they are a different species. The first fully human organisms (ie Homo sapiens) evolved around 250,000 years ago; and there are lots of intermediate or side-branch species (like Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalis) between these two.


Since they didn't exist before then, there are no human remains before then. Your question is a bit like asking "why can't we find any records of automobiles from the 1500s?"





%26gt; "why can't we find the bones of a pre-evolved human skeleton before Lucy?"





Lucy is an example of an Australopithecus (not a Homo), and they were around from about 4-3 million years ago. Before then, species were much more ape-like.


Of course - we're pretty ape-like now, since we *are* apes - but you know what I'm saying.





%26gt; "Why can't we find at least find human bones between 4 million - 64 million years old?"





The "Great Apes" (Hominidae) as a Family of mammals didn't exist for much of this time. The first Hominidae remains known date from about 6-7 million years ago.


Monkeys themselves didn't evolve until about 40 million years ago.





%26gt; "How can the evolution theory be existing today with this gap being left wide open?"





Apart from anything else - there are many, many more strands of evidence supporting evolution than just *human* evolution.


We can *watch* other organisms (like insects and bacteria) evolve.
Reply:They are there but it's hard to say it's the bone you're looking for.


Often it's just fragments.


Even the famous Lucy is far less than half of a whole skeleton.





It's nice to have so many dinosaur bones, but they are the ones that we find. We have no idea about the species we have not found. There have been many species of which we will never find the remains.


With humans, we are looking for just one particular species.


With dino's it's the other way around: We didn't go look for dino's. We found bones, and then named them Dino's.





To give you a real life comparison:


If you want to send a spam email to many email addresses and you don't care to whom, it's easy: You just 'harvest' lots of emails on lists and forums. You can buy lists of email addresses. You can have computer programs to search the internet for addresses.





But if you want to send an email to one specific Mister Narugaru in Kenia, this method does not work.


You will find millions of email addresses, but not that specific one you are looking for.


It is even possible that this person does not even have an email address.





So.. it's the same with the bones.


The method 'let's dig up this hill' works if you are interested in ANYTHING you may find: fossils, an ancient village, gold, anything.


But if you are looking for something specific, this method does not guarantee you will find it.
Reply:I think the answer lies in size. we can find a dinosaur bone from so long ago because they were gargantuan animals. humans not so much. my guess would be that human bones, or links for human predecessors have long been decomposed and have become part of the earth. obviously bigger bones take much longer to decompose. think of it this way, compare a dead, adult


gorilla to a dead, adult brontosaurus, which do you think decomposes faster?
Reply:%26lt;%26lt;If we can find 200+ million year old dinosaur bones then why can't we find 4+ million year old human bones?%26gt;%26gt;





Because the genus /Homo/ isn't as old as that.





%26lt;%26lt;The oldest estimated human bones is known as Lucy but Lucy is only estimated to be between 2 and 3.3 million years old.%26gt;%26gt;





Actually, there are older specimens of /Australopithecus/ than that. They go back to about five million years. Personally, I don't regard that genus as being human.





%26lt;%26lt; If the first group of dinosaurs existed 200+ million years ago, and we found their bone. . . then why can't we find the bones of a pre-evolved human skeleton before Lucy?%26gt;%26gt;





Older ones have been found, as mentioned.





%26lt;%26lt;The connection between ape and man? Why do we have many dinosaur skeletons in the museums but we can't find the transitional bones that existed before the skeleton system we humans have today?%26gt;%26gt;





/Proconsul/ dates from around 20 million years, seems to be transitional and was found long ago. There are further examples as well, but I just happen to be able to remember that name very easily.





Update


%26lt;%26lt;How can the evolution theory be existing today with this gap being left wide open?%26gt;%26gt;





The 'gap' you refer to is in your own knowledge. Molecular studies indicate that the most recent common ancestor of yourself and a chimp lived something like six or seven million years ago. If correct, then finding earlier 'human' fossils (use whatever sensible definition you wish) can't be done because there aren't any.
Reply:No humands 4 million years ago and fewer sub species than dinosaurs as a total population. Also they prob ate us, bones and all and we were a bunch of monkeys or apes that could be a number of species.
Reply:One more point is that the numbers of mamals then as compared to now was far fewer. The "dinosaurs" were the dominant forms of life during that time fram... until the mass extinction event that allowed mamals to come out of hiding. Less mamals ---%26gt; less human-like ancestors ---%26gt; less bones to find.
Reply:I agree with the genetics guy. Fossilization is not a process every single organism goes through when they die, it's a very rare occurance that requires just the right conditions and pure chance. We have fossilized records of less than 1 in a million creatures that have ever walked the earth, and the ones we have are usually the most populous and dominant creatures of their time.





The reason fossils of transitional species, or "missing links" are harder to find is because there are so few of them to begin with, they usually have a narrower geographic range than their more populous descendants, and they usually exist for a shorter time frame before evolving into a different species. So for one of them to become fossilized and subsequently found by archaeologists requires extraordinary chance.





Also, like other people have already said, humans didn't exist 64 million years ago, so of course there are no fossils....
Reply:One good reason could be this:





When you say "dinosaur", you are grouping THOUSANDS of species together. There are many dinosaur species that we will never find evidence of. We will never know that they existed. Searching for ONE species is like finding a needle in a haystack.





The only reason that we are so intent on finding the bones of humaniod skeletal remains is that they will connect our past. I'm sure that somebody out there is looking for a dinosaur 'missing link', a species that seems to have no evolutionary predecessor. We just don't read about it in the news because this is no big deal to most people.

baby teeth losing