Direct Fossil Descendants

[piranha]

:bow: :bow: No, I just know a bit of molecular biology, but when it comes to fossils, I bow to your vastly superior knowledge base :bow: :bow:

But I interpreted the original poster's intent to trace out a family tree of sorts for H. Sapiens so I thought we should keep it clear who were our likely ancestors and who were our likely cousins

Let's see ... I might have to scrub my old moniker.

Fossil-King has a nice ring ... All Hail The Fossil King!

Seriously though, this is precisely what makes this forum so fantastic. Taking this discussion for example, which set out to answer a rather narrow question; what are our direct fossil ancestors to the exclusion of microbes (bacteria)? By my second post my stubborn persistence suggested that we ought not exclude the bacteria per se, as a logical jumping off point for understanding the larger implications and complexities of evolution. So often here at TFF a topic begins with a simple premise and in moments has morphed in a different direction entirely. The lively art of conversation sums it up very nicely. Raff mentions Ardipithecus as an important 'forgotten' link lost in Ida's shadow. More important? Perhaps, but the context of the discussion is more relevant in determining its significance. Tiktaalik and Darwinius are transitional markers that can at least be accessed in a general way of understanding. Wrangellian was quick to point out the primitive chordates and the Chengjiang relations, Joe and Scylla to the rescue on the ramifications of molecular biology and Raff with his gem.

Hopefully this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg here!

The rest is paint by numbers ... :eat popcorn:

[Scylla]

Dont forget the new siberian fossil, at least Indonesians can claim them as direct ancestors.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/24/new-human-species-siberia