Family Group Ancestry Template: Fill & Download for Free

I think this is actually rather a complex question as it depends on two things which themselves are rather complex questions, what is “Scottish” and what is an “ethnic group”.First of all, I don’t really think that many people in Scotland in 2018 regard Scots as an “ethnic group”. Scotland is nation and Scots are a nationality, you are a Scot by virtue of coming from Scotland. For example, in the current Scottish National Party, the current Cabinet Secretary for Justice (the Scottish equivalent of Home Secretary, basically) is Humza Yousaf, whose parents came from Kenya and Pakistan. Love them or loathe them, one thing the SNP is NOT, is an ethnic nationalist party. Scotland is a civic concept, “Scot” and “Scottish” are civic identities. I think most people in Scotland, except for the tiny minority of the VERY far right, would regard someone as Yousaf as being far more “Scottish” than the average Scots-American by virtue of the fact that he was born grew up in Scotland and they didn’t. Even racists who disliked him for his ethnicity probably wouldn’t dispute his Scottishness, though they probably would dispute that of Scots-Americans. The idea of Scotland as a civic concept is a very well established one.Arguably, it always has been. The word “Scot” in “Scotland” comes from the Irish-speaking tribe who established the kingdom of Dal Riada in western Scotland after the collapse of the Roman empire. Dal Riada and Pictland (Fortriu) became united under Kenneth MacAlpin (Coinneach mac Alpein) in the 9th century, forming the kingdom of Alba (“Alba” was originally the Gaelic name for “Britain”, cognate with “Albion” but over time the word became narrowed in meaning to mean “Scotland”, presumably because this was a) the part of Britain closest to Ireland and b) the part of Britain that spoke Gaelic). Kenneth I is a somewhat shadowy figure but he is traditionally taken to be the first king of Alba, and therefore of Scotland, though the title King of Alba is only first recorded in the context of his grandchildren.It’s actually a bit of a stretch to call the Alba of the 9th century “Scotland” in any modern sense. It didn’t include the territory south of the River Forth, which was divided between Strathclyde, a Brythonic kingdom that mostly spoke Cumbric, which was essentially the northern form of Old Welsh, also spoken in Northern England, and the northernmost part of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria which extended up to Edinburgh. Strathclyde remained an independent kingdom until about 1100ish and Cumbric was spoken up till the 12th century or so, and what is now the Scottish portion of Northumbria wasn’t incorporated into Scotland until roughly the same time, following the Battle of Carham (Coldstream) where the armies of Alba and Strathclyde defeated the Earls of Northumbria. Even then, the Northern Isles, which were Norse-speaking, weren’t incorporated into Scotland until the 15th century, when they were given as security on a wedding dowry by the King of Norway - Norway never paid, so the islands became Scottish. The Western Isles, traditionally Gaelic speaking (and still the last major bastion of the Gaelic language) were part of the independent kingdom of the Isles (also Sudreyar or Sodor, or the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles, as the Isle of Man was also included) until the 13th century. Politically, the Isles weren’t really under control of the Scots crown until much later - the House of Stuart was still sending expeditions to get them under control in the late 16th/early 17th century. In 1598 James VI sent colonists to try and “civilise” the “most barbarous isle of Lewis” (which certainly suggests that James at least considered the Gaels to be something “other” to mainstream Scotland).The practical result of all this geographical and political complexity was that medieval Scotland was very multilingual - over the course of history Scotland’s native languages have included Cumbric/Old Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Scots, English, Norn/Old Norse, Pictish and Norman French, not to mention languages spoken more recently in Scotland ranging from Cantonese to Polish to Urdu.There has never been a time in history when Scotland has been a state defined by either language or “ethnicity”. The Royal Seal of Alexander III in the 13th century identified him as “King of Scots and Britons” - the latter presumably a reference to the Cumbric speakers of the Lowlands - the 13rh century is the last time we have any references to Britons/Cumbrians as a distinct group, though the exact date of the language’s extinction is uncertain, sometime between 1100 and 1300. Even that most Scottish of heroes, William Wallace, has a surname which means “Welshman”, presumably a reference to having Cumbric-speaking ancestry. There are also references from around the same time to the “English of Lothian”, the English/Scots/Anglo-Saxon speakers of SE Scotland. Scottish identity was therefore a political identity - A Scot was someone from the land ruled by the King of Scots - political unity created “ethnic” unity, not vice versa.So Scots speakers, Scottish English speakers and Gaelic speakers are all Scots. Are they different ethnicities? This rather depends on what you mean by “ethnicity”. There are competing definitions. For example, in the US this is often taken to be a “genetic” thing. A Scots-American is considered “Scottish” because of their ancestry. In Scotland, Scots-Americans are very rarely considered to be “Scottish” any more than French Americans or African Americans would be. I think in Scotland, “Scottishness” is seen more as an experience, a way of life, a way of seeing the world that is based on sharing background knowledge and categories and behaviours. If I am a Scot and I hear someone with a local accent (Glasgow) I can assume that they share all kinds of background knowledge from me ranging from knowing how to get from Partick to Cathcart by train (you change at Central), to knowing what a Glasgow tenement looks like in the evening sun to knowing what “dreich” means to knowing what distance to stand from someone in conversation so as not to appear either threatening or touchy feely. This information is often not even the kind of thing you can verbalise - it often consists of microbehaviours and automatic categorisations and perceptions that people are not even aware of, although other aspects of it are clearly mediated through language. You can only ever acquire this by growing up in a shared environment, not by book-learning. This is why someone from Scotland will rarely have a feeling of shared “Scottishness” with someone from Ohio of Scots ancestry. In short, being Scottish is about sharing and participating in the same mental universe, not about descent.In the USA, a country where virtually all the population have some sort of immigrant background, where the original culture was displaced, leaving a sort of tabula rasa, there wasn’t really an established, civic identity. Being a melting pot of different cultures, identity became a question of where you were from, rather than where you are, because in the recent past “where you are” was a kind of nowhere, with not established identity, as opposed to the more concrete identity you get from speaking German at home or from the fact that your parents came from the same part of Ireland as your neighbours. Since these things are passed down in families, it’s a short step to viewing ethnicity as being about ancestry. I’m not criticising US-culture here - in the US cultural context it makes perfect sense to view ethnicity in ancestral terms, it’s just that it makes equal sense not to view it in those terms in Scotland itself.This is especially the case because Scotland’s ancient linguistic groups don’t correlate that well with DNA. The Victorians viewed this as a matter of Lowland Anglo-Saxons versus Highland Celts, the modern view is rather more nuanced. For starters, there isn’t that much of an Anglo-Saxon versus Celtic DNA split in Britain. The “Celtic” Scots, Irish, Cornish and Welsh are no more related to each other than they are to the English, who themselves are not particularly Anglo-Saxon. The population of the Western Isles, one of the most culturally Gaelic parts of Scotland, is in genetic terms one of the most Scandinavian, unsurprising considering they were ruled by Vikings for hundreds of years. (Cumbria in NW England is similar being simultaneously the place where Celtic languages survived the longest in England outside of Cornwall and one of the most “Scandinavian” parts of Britain). Basically languages change more than people do, so the old Victorian view of different civilisations replacing each other and leaving sharp genetic divides has been thoroughly debunked.However, even if we ignore the ancient origins of Scotland’s Anglo-Saxon versus Goidelic linguistic divide, by the time of emmigration to America, the two clearly had coalesced into different cultural groups. So why do Americans descended from those groups generally not view Gaels and Lowlanders as separate ethnic groups? It’s probably a simple question of granularity. Imagine I’m from Milngavie, just outside of Glasgow. If I’m speaking to someone from Glasgow, I’ll say I’m from Milngavie and this may conjure up images of an affluent NW suburb, the start of the West Highland way, views of the Campsie Fells, proximity to Bearsden, being the end of a train line etc. If I speak to someone from Aberdeen at the other end of Scotland, I’ll just say I’m from “Glasgow”, even though this isn’t technically correct, because they will probably not know where “Milngavie” is and even if they do it will be a name that conveys no real cultural meaning to them. If I meet someone from France or Argentina at a Backpackers Hostel in Thailand, I’ll just say “I’m Scottish” because “Glasgow” is probably too fine-grained a level of information - they simply don’t care if I’m a Westcoaster or an Eastcoaster, a Lowlander or a Highlander, a city boy or a teuchter, to them I’ll just be “Scottish” anyway. I strongly suspect that in a North American cultural context distinguishing between Gaelic and Anglo-Saxon Scottish cultures is simply operating at a level of detail beyond which is meaningful so the two categories collapse. A Gaelic-speaking 19th-century first generation immigrant to Nova Scotia, probably would view him/herself as different to a Lowlander. To their grandchildren, several generations removed from the specific cultural circumstances, these distinctions will be poorly understood, as they know no longer share a “mental universe” where they conjure up meaningfully separate images. Therefore “Scots-American” or “Scots-Canadian” becomes the useful level of granularity.In general, I don’t get the impression that most Americans would have any clear idea the differences between Orcadian Scottish culture versus Aberdeenshire Doric culture versus Glaswegian culture versus Dundonian culture versus Gaelic-speaking Hebridean culture. Look at how William Wallace, a lowlander from the 14th century is depicted as a 4th century Iron Age Pictish warrior in Braveheart. To the audience of the film he is simply “Scottish” and the image of “Scottish” is heavily biased in favour of the more picturesque aspects of that, combining ideas and imagery from different locations and time periods into one big mush. Fine distinctions would depend on background knowledge the audience did not possess and therefore not be useful. And so it is for North Americans of Scots descent - fine distinctions between Scottish regions have collapsed into a monolithic Scottishness tipified by e.g. Parade of Tartans Photo Gallery 2018 from the Grandfather Mountain Highland Games in North Carolina. Again, I’m not criticising this event or its participants and organisers - it looks like a lot of fun, I’m sure a lot of folk derive a fair amount of meaning from it and in its cultural context, it makes a lot of sense. To someone growing up in e.g. 19th century Lanarkshire, however, it would be a bit of a WTF moment to see that that’s how their culture was depicted.A more interesting question is why Gaels aren’t usually seen as a separate ethnic group inside Scotland - arguably they were in the past, probably the recent past, but I think this is an idea that is very much on the way out, even though they do fit the “shared mental universe mediated by language” view of ethnicity. I think this is largely because modernity is erasing regional differences and because mainstream Scottish identity has adopted elements of Gaelic culture to the extent that it is now simply seen as “Scottish culture” anyway, further making the distinction between Lowland Scots and Highland Scots redundant.My stepfather was from the Isle of Lewis. He was the first person in his family who spoke English as a native language. His parents grew up in a Highland Blackhouse, with an earth floor that they shared with the animals. The house had no windows. Their lives were mostly conducted in Gaelic. His grandfather was the first person in the family in history who could even speak English. Indeed, he used to translate official communications in English to other villagers. For someone living in “mainstream Scotland”, which by then looked like this:as opposed to this (the remote Isle of St Kilda in almost the same time period):Gaels were indeed a group who inhabited a different mental universe, separated by language, geography, lifestyle and lived experience of the world. My stepfather, born just after WW2 actually did view himself in some ways as a separate ethnicity. He was a unionist politically because he felt somewhat estranged from a Scottish culture dominated by the Central Lowlands and didn’t see the difference between being ruled from Edinburgh or from London as they were equally remote from the Scotland of his upbringing, even though he lived in Glasgow most of his life. It’s interesting that even today people in the Highlands generally report themselves as feeling more “British” in polls.However, TV, radio and mass literacy in English have pretty much brought these groups together in the 21st century. I’d say that my stepfather’s generation was possibly the last to really feel that kind of separation from mainstream “Scottishness” based on younger Islanders I know. I’d say there are a FEW differences between people my age who grew up in the islands and people who grew up in the Central Belt like me, but not to the extent were we see each other as having a genuinely different identity. Some of them can speak Gaelic but that tends to be seen in the same light as being able to play the violin, an ability that some people have and others don’t but not really a sign of living a completely different life. Here is a photo of a council house in Scotland - is this the Lowlands or in the Western Isles?It’s Stornoway on the Isle of Lewis. It could just as well be Hamilton or Wishaw in the Central Belt. Scottish culture has homogenised over the last 100 years to the point where while there are still SOME differences, our mental universes have aligned to the point where they are simply less meaningful. The old Lowland/Highland categories of identity are in the processing of collapsing through the influence of mass media.A final point is that Scotland in general has adopted aspects of Gaelic culture and presented them as being “Scottish” rather than “Gaelic” - this includes kilts, clan tartans, bagpipes, Highland Games and all the other paraphernalia of the Scottish tourist imagery, most of which is a fanciful Victorian creation, for which Sir Walter Scott bears a large responsibility, a man little read in Scotland nowadays but largely responsible for the popular image of Scotland overseas. I suspect this has a certain “usefulness” - Scotland has long been overshadowed by England and its much larger population, and Scottish identity has been long been submerged within the union, creating an identity crisis that was already apparent in Scott’s own time. Scotland shares many elements with England culturally, but one element that the two don’t have in common is Gaelic culture. By latching onto the most exotic, most romantic and most un-English aspect of Scotland, it gave the country a firmer and more distinct identity than if East Lothian had been used as the cultural template instead. I grew up in Lesmahagow in Lanarkshire. This is their Highland Games -I strongly suspect that the hypothetical someone from 19th century Lanarkshire would also have gone who the hell are these people and what are they wearing? But nowadays, in 2018? Nobody would think it remotely unusual for a distinctly Lowland community in a region where Gaelic was only briefly spoken, and even then 700 years ago, to be celebrating Highland culture. Gaelic culture is now simply Scottish culture.At the end of the day, ethnicities are like any other category. Unless you are a Platonist and believe they are fixed ideas in the mind of God, they are just mental constructs used to divide up reality. Once a planet was a wandering star, then Pluto was a planet, then it wasn’t because in each case, what was useful about being a planet had changed. In the 17th century, Highland Gaels very much were an “ethnic group”. Now, the “usefulness landscape” has changed, and now they’re no longer generally seen that way, in Scotland or outside of it.

It’s an interesting idea to think about. What if the Timurid Empire were to be reunited today. What would this hypothetical empire or nation be like?The Timurid Empire at it’s greatest extent.Here is a map of the Timurid territories superimposed onto a map of the modern world. The Timurid map is not completely accurate. The South Asian region has some mistakes. Punjab would be completely under Timurid control. There should also be an extension till Delhi.NationsLet’s begin by looking at which countries would be a part of this new state.Central Asia - All of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Most of Kyrgyzstan and small part of southern KazakhstanSouth Asia - All of Afghanistan. Most of Pakistan, except for Sindh. Parts of Northern India such as Punjab and Delhi.Middle East - All of Iran. The populated region of Iraq. Small part of Syria and Turkey.Caucasus - All of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. Dagestan part of Russia and a small part of western Russian Caucasus.DemographicsThe population of this new nation is probably going to be around 400 million. This will give it significant influence throughout the world.This new nation is going to be extremely diverse. The largest ethnic group will be the Punjabi of Pakistan and India contributing over a hundred million people. Other major ethnic groups will be Persians (including Tajik), Turkish (including Azeri), Pashtun, other North Indians, Arabs and Uzbeks. There will be over a dozen smaller ethnic groups.The majority of this nation will be Muslims. Sunni Muslims making up a larger segment than the Shia Muslims. However it will contain the world’s largest Shia population. However it will also contain a significant population of other religions. Such as Sikhism, Hinduism and Christianity. There will be tens of millions of each of these as well.An ethnic map of Pakistan and Afghanistan.A more detailed ethnic map of PakistanEthnic map of IndiaEthnic map of Central AsiaEthnic map of Middle EastEthnic map of CaucasusLanguageThe language spoken by the most people as their primary language will be Punjabi. However since we are building this new nation on the basis of the Timurid Empire from the 14th century and it’s legacy, Punjabi cannot be chosen as the national language.The languages of significance in the Timurid Empire were Chagatai, Persian and Arabic. Arabic was only used for academic and religious reasons, so it makes no sense to choose this. Chagatai was the language of Tamerlane himself and the Timurids. It was also the language of the military core. In the modern world, the closest language we have to Chagatai is Uzbek. The Persian language was the language of the court and served as the lingua franca. It makes most sense to use Persian as the national language. But not the Irani Persian dialect, rather Dari Persian. As that is closer to the Persian that existed in the 14th century.The Uzbek language can be used as a ceremonial language to be used in imperial traditions, oath-swearing ceremonies, etc. However the script of the Uzbek language would have to be changed from the Cyrillic and Latin scripts back to the Perso-Arabic script to bring it closer to Chagatai.The Persio-Arabic script will be made the primary script used for all languages as a form of revival of the Timurid culture.FlagThe flag of this nation would have to resemble the Timurid flag of the past. We do not know exactly what Tamerlane’s flag looked like. But the features that we know about are the three circles, which represented the fortunate celestial conjugation at the time of his birth. I believe it is also mentioned that his flag contained black, white and red colors.Here are a few examples of what the flag of this hypothetical nation would look like.This is probably something it actually looked like.If you wish to add some religious symbolism.If you wish to deviate away from the colors that were used in the pastNameSo what should be the name of this new nation?We could just call it the Timurid Empire. But to me this makes it sound like it’s out of time. One thing is for certain, the name must have something to do with Timur.The easiest way to go about it would be to pick something like Timuristan, Timurabad or Timuria.Another way to go about it would be to use the term Gurkani, the term actually used by the Timurids. Perhaps something like Gurkanistan.CapitalThis is probably the easiest decision to make. The capital must be Samarkand, the city of Timur. Also the city that served as the capital of the Timurid Empire.Samarkand would be perfect as the capital of this hypothetical nation. It is a city steeped in Timurid history. Including the Gur-i-Amir, the tomb of Tamerlane himself.A new palace would probably have to me made in the Timurid architecture for the Timurid emperor and to serve as the center of governance. Similar to the white house. I would use the Ak-Saray Palace in Shakhrisabz as a template. But only on a more grand scale and modernized.Gur-i-Amir, SamarkandTimurid EmperorThe system of governance of this nation is going to be complicated. One thing is for certain. For this hypothetical nation to have any legitimacy and true connection with the Timurid Empire, a Timurid must be placed on the throne. However the Timurids were all driven out of Central Asia in the 15th century by Shaybani Khan and the Uzbeks. Babur remained as the last independent Timurid king of Kabul. He then went on to form the Mughal Empire of Hindustan. So the Mughals were an extension of the Timurid line. The last remaining descendants of Mughals who can properly trace their ancestry back to Tamerlane now live in the slums in India. It should be no trouble at all trying to convince them to move to this new nation as the constitutional monarch.For anyone who needs further evidence of this ancestry:Muhammed Jejan - Grandson of Muhammad Bedar BakhtMuhammad Bedar BakhtJamshed BakhtMirza Jawan BakhtBahadur Shah Zafar - The last MughalAkbar Shah IIShah Alam IIAlamgir IIJahandar ShahBahadur Shah IAurangzeb Alamgir - The last great MughalShah JahanJahangirAkbarHumayunBabur - The first Mughal and last Timurid KingUmar Shaikh Mirza II - King of FerghanaAbu Sa'id MirzaSultan Muhammad MirzaJalal-ud-din Miran Shah - Son of TamerlaneTimurFor a more detailed answer on this - ‎Ahmad Abubakr (احمد ابوبکر)‎'s answer to Which modern day people were descended from Genghis Khan's family line?The family of Razia Sultana are the last remaining descendants of the Mughals and Tamerlane who can trace their ancestry all the way to Tamerlane himself. Her grandson, Muhammed Jejan, (bottom photo) can be placed on the throne as a symbolic figure.GovernanceAfter placing a Timurid monarch on the throne as a symbolic gesture to legitimize the new nation, a system of governance will have to be chosen.While a democratic system might be ideal for most people, it is unlikely to work. Giving power to a democratic system will result in ethno-nationalism and loyalties to the previous nations that existed. All of this will immediately break this new nation apart.In my opinion, the best way to go about it would be to form a single party state. One that legitimizes itself by using the Timurid monarch, who will now be given a similar role as the Japanese emperor. The single party state will have to be based on meritocracy. The military should also be a part of this establishment to further empower it.Religion will have to be kept out of politics or this nation would quickly break apart. The only way to do so would be to ensure that this is a secular nation.CultureThis new state will have a great deal of soft power because of it’s culture. At a local or provincial level, individual cultures will be promoted.On a national scale, a second Timurid Renaissance will be promoted. There will be a revival of the Persianate arts. Great works such as the Shahnama will be translated into plays and opera. Perso-Arabic calligraphy will be promoted. As will the Persian Dari language. The Timurid architecture will be spread and used as a matter of national pride. There will also be the promotion of the Timurid chess.Generally speaking, the Timurid high culture will be promoted. Anything related to Timur or the Timurids will be promoted.TV shows and movies will be made on the Timurids as well.I can also imagine many new statues of Timur, the Timurids and the Mughal popping up throughout the nation.Registan, an example of the Timurid architecturePersian works from the era of the Timurid RenaissanceThe Timurid ChessPositives of this new nation:This new nation will be a regional power at the very least. It will immediately become the powerhouse of Central Asia, Middle East and South Asia. A nation larger than India with a population of about 400 million.Geographical Position - This hypothetical nation would serve as the cross roads of Asia. It would connect Central Asia, Middle East, Europe, South Asia and East Asia. It would have access to the Persian Gulf and most of the Caspian Sea as well. The land based trade routes will make this nation into a center for trade.Agriculture - This nation should be self sufficient in terms of food. It is likely to be a food exported. It will control many large rivers. The main examples being the Amu River, Syr River, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus (plus it’s tributaries) and Yamuna. Because of this it will have several agricultural belts.Rivers of South AsiaRivers of Central AsiaRivers of the Middle EastTourism - This new nation will probably be a center of tourism. It will contain many ancient cities with thousands of years of history in Central Asia, South Asia and Middle East. Not to mention the many different beautiful regions. Such as the Caucasus or the Himalayas.Armenia, CaucasusKashmirSports - This unity will help quite a lot in the development of sports within the nation. A lot more sports will be played and focused on. With different regions focusing on different sports. The national sport should probably be polo. The will be a good cricket team and a pretty good football team, which should improve over the years. One of the greatest gains in terms of sports will be that this new nation will be famous for MMA. Thanks to Khabib Nurmagomedov.Khabib NurmagomedovPosition in the Muslim world - This new nation would be the largest and most heavily populated Muslim majority nation in the entire world. It would have the potential of becoming the center of the Muslim world. It would definitely be the most influential nation in the Muslim world with a great deal of influence over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Yemen.Position in the Turkic world - Despite the Turko-Mongol population not being anywhere close to the majority, this nation is likely to take the lead in the Turko-Mongol world. Partly because of it’s closer proximity to Central Asian nations like Kazakhstan. And partly because of it’s extremely diverse and large Turko-Mongol population. These ethnic groups including Uzbek, Turkmen, Azeri, Turkish, Kazakh, Hazara, Kygyz, Aimak, Karakalpak and a few smaller ones.Trade - This new nation will have a chance to form a new tracing bloc with itself at the center. This would further increase the nation’s influence. Kazakhstan and Turkey are likely to join in as both are also part of the Economic Cooperation Organization (EOC).Economic Cooperation Organization (EOC)Economy - While the collective economies of these nations is nothing impressive. After a few decades, this new nation will be an economic powerhouse. It would have massive oil and gas reserves, decreasing the need to import such resources. These resources will also be used to fund the development of the nation till the economy is extremely diversified.It’s large population of 400 million would both make it a desirable market for foreign trade and also serve as a large domestic market to allow the development of local goods. As the infrastructure such as trains and roads are built over the years, the economy is only going to improve further.Military - This new nation will be a regional power in terms of military might. It will be a nuclear state, one of the few in the world. Iran’s militias throughout the Middle East will give it significant influence over other nations in the region. Iran’s experience at asymmetrical warfare and Pakistan’s ISI would make it an extremely powerful state. Not to mention the fact that it would be self-sufficient in terms of energy needs. Lastly, there is the matter of the size of the military which would be frightening just by itself.Note: Just in case it was not clear to anyone. This is all just a hypothetical scenario of how a modern Timurid Empire/nation might look like. It would never exist in real life. Tamerlane killed 17 million people to forge out his empire. I do not see these people submitting to a new nation founded in his memory. Even if they did for some weird reason, the nation would fall apart in days.

As others have pointed out, there is no such thing as the missing link. And, evolution is a gradual process over time, not a singular event, which inconveniently leaves little behind and is hard to find. And, humans being humans, we have changed our minds over time about the fossil evidence. The shortest answer I can give about hominins is that there are groups of immediate ancestors called Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus, and we and our human ancestors and extinct closely related kinds came from the Homo genus. Since science is self testing and scientific thought evolves over time, this template is open to disagreement and future modification. Here’s a site with a nice little family tree though you can find a great many sites about human evolution: Human Family TreeNow, as to why there is no such thing as the missing link. I do not want to attribute to you ulterior motives but people who argue religious dogma denying evolution like to use this term to “prove” there is no intermediate missing link between an ape—they like to use chimps though our lineages separated long before chimps evolved—and a modern human, thus “proving” the fallacy of evolution. There are some fossil records that are far more complete, such as whales, and others not nearly so much—which makes things difficult.But let’s take the modern day hyrax for example.San Diego Zoo AnimalsBefore DNA sequencing scientists relied on detailed morphological examination to find closest living relatives of animals and speculated about their common ancestry. When studying the hyrax, which lives in mid to high elevations in rocky outcrops in Africa, they concluded that this plump little animal’s closest living relative was…Elephant Pictures - National GeographicThis little guy.People in the 1800’s thought that was a pretty strange conclusion to draw from just a bunch of bones of a little animal they never heard of that looked like a fat guinea pig.When DNA sequencing came along the possibilities seemed endless, including the opportunity to settle the skepticism on the part of the general public about the common ancestry between the hyrax and the elephant. DNA sequencing showed a common ancestry between the two, just as scientists had asserted over a hundred years ago.Now, what do you think are the chances of the singular missing link perfectly between these two animals ever being discovered? There’s just no such thing as the missing link. Hope this helps.