Scientists unveil missing link in Human Evolution

[Famine]

TofuStoreDrift - Mankind didn't evolve from monkeys. Mankind and monkeys both evolved from common ancestors.

Ida is an example of a common lemur/monkey ancestor. From Ida's species both lemurs and monkeys evolved. The reason Ida is interesting is because she is tangible evidence of pre-primate ancestry - a link between the world of primates, where we live along with apes and monkeys, and the rest of the animal world.

And we aren't the perfect species - every animal alive on Earth today is the product of 4.5 billion years of evolution, adapted for the environment in which they reside. We are no more evolved than a crocodile, a parrakeet or a carnation.


Nicksfix - Given that you place such stock in the Old Testament, do you eat prawns?

 

[nk4e]

Oh come on, how gullible do you think we are? - that sounds like a passage straight out of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs!

You'll be telling us next that some geezer managed to feed five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish!!!

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day
teach a man how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. I hated that commercial.

 

[Joey D]

I'm going to shut up on for now, but I will leave you with this. Scientists will study cave paintings and listen to what they have to say, yet the one book thats been handed down for generations, on stone tablets, on scrolls, and in books that have been published more than any other, they throw it out the window.

Cave paintings do not change over time, they were created and then left alone. The bible on the other hand has changed throughout the years. That's why it can't be considered an accurate document. Plus what makes the Bible correct over any other religious book?

If natural selection weeded off certain primate features so we could exist, how come we still have monkeys? Shouldn't they evolved to humans as well?

This is a common misconception among supporters of creationism, and a simple search on the internet would have yeilded the answer to your question on why monkeys and humans can co-exist. Modern apes and Homo Sapiens both evolved from a common ancestor, which no longer exists.

I'm mean, aren't we the perfect species, since we conquered the whole planet? Any piece of land humans desire, we take it, either be force or technology. Let me ask you this, why were we chose to be the smartest creature on Earth? I'd like to believe it is because Eve ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. That to me explains why us human have been able to one thing no other known creature has ever been able to do, argue with someone else on the other side of the planet.

So do you think Earth is the only place in the universe with life on it? If humans are the pinnacle of creation, then your God failed.

Now I'm not trying to push my views on you, I'm just trying to open your eyes to other possiblies. God bless.

Except the possibility you are putting forth holds no merit. There is no evidence to support your claims and only evidence to support an opposing theory. I'm open to all possibilities of how humans came to be but those possibilities need to have some sort of foundation and evidence to support them. Carl Sagan always said it best "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." To claim a supreme being created us is a fairly extraordinary claim, so extraordinary evidence should be required.

 

[Duke]

Agreed.
I have never believed in evolution,nor will I ever believe in evolution.It's just the way that I was brought up.

The bible...............enough said !!!!!

Don't you owe it to yourself to investigate other possibilities? At all? I always look for other opinions or information or ideas. I couldn't imagine taking the first thing I was taught at face value and never questioning it.

Anyway, there is a long and complex Creation vs. Evolution thread, so lets keep the general discussion on the topic there. Thanks.

 

[KSaiyu]

^ What Duke said. I was raised Methodist since I was a child, but it's foolish and dangerous to ignore evidence just because of your upbringing.

 

[Danoff]

TofuStoreDrift - Mankind didn't evolve from monkeys. Mankind and monkeys both evolved from common ancestors.

Ida is an example of a common lemur/monkey ancestor.

Sorry if this seems dense, but does this mean we evolved from lemurs? And the missing lemur/human link has already been found? And that Ida is the missing lemur/monkey link that we were looking for?

Because if so, I wouldn't really call it "the" missing link. It's filling "a" missing link, but "the" missing link means to me to be the common ancestor at the most recent bifurcation in human evolution.


Edit: No I see. Some early primates eventually evolved into monkeys and lemurs, and we subsequently branched off from the monkey line. But my conclusion is still valid - I think it's improper to herald this as "the missing link". It's "a" missing link between monkeys and lemurs. But the missing link between monkeys and humans was found and was named Lucy?

Edit2: Nope wrong again. Looks like "the missing link" might still be missing. Something between Kenyapithecus and Ardipithecus? The website says Ardipithecus lived "soon after the split in the hominid lineage with modern chimpanzees". But Kenyapithecus seems to predate that split.

 

[Famine]

Technically, Lemurs are primates, but they're a "prosimian" primate. Ida provides a common ancestor (or "transitional form" - which is commonly referred to as a "missing link", but only when a fossil hasn't been found yet ) between the prosimian primates - lemurs, aye-ayes and... something else I forget about - and the simians - monkeys, apes, people.

So in terms of man's lineage:

Now - Man
3mya - Ancestral human species (Lucy/Abel)
4mya - Common man-ape ancestor (Kenyanthropus)
14mya - Common ape-monkey ancestor (Kenyapithecus)
47mya - Common monkey-lemur ancestor (Ida)

Ida significantly predates kenyapithecus and ardipithecus and is arguably more important. She doesn't link man with earlier primates - she links man's ancestors with the rest of the animal kingdom.

Though as Mars says, since we're all now so used to the theory being right that the significance is somewhat lost. She just fills a space we were expecting something exactly like her to fill. It's like discovering a new element used to be - terribly exciting because we just found something which fits, but not really exciting because it's precisely in line with the prediction of what should go there.

 

[Danoff]

Technically, Lemurs are primates, but they're a "prosimian" primate. Ida provides a common ancestor (or "transitional form" - which is commonly referred to as a "missing link", but only when a fossil hasn't been found yet ) between the prosimian primates - lemurs, aye-ayes and... something else I forget about - and the simians - monkeys, apes, people.

So in terms of man's lineage:

Now - Man
3mya - Ancestral human species (Lucy/Abel)
4mya - Common man-ape ancestor (Kenyanthropus)
14mya - Common ape-monkey ancestor (Kenyapithecus)
47mya - Common monkey-lemur ancestor (Ida)

Ida significantly predates kenyapithecus and ardipithecus and is arguably more important. She doesn't link man with earlier primates - she links man's ancestors with the rest of the animal kingdom.

Though as Mars says, since we're all now so used to the theory being right that the significance is somewhat lost. She just fills a space we were expecting something exactly like her to fill. It's like discovering a new element used to be - terribly exciting because we just found something which fits, but not really exciting because it's precisely in line with the prediction of what should go there.

It is nearly as I suspected then. When I think of the phrase "the missing link", I think of the common man/ape ancestor (Kenyathropus) - which has of course been found and can no longer be considered "missing".

The reason I bring this up, is that the scientific community should be somewhat careful about labeling this as "the missing link". Because creationists will take one look at it (as has been done in this thread) and say "that doesn't look anything like me. Evolution is stupid." This is because creationists are looking for Kenyathropus - which they are generally unaware of.

As far as I'm concerned, once we linked ourselves to the common lineage of ANY other animal (ie: apes), the job of demonstrating that we were not created as human beings from the beginning is done. The rest is just filling in the gaps for the entire evolutionary tree.

 

[Moglet]

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Hagrid : Philosopher's Stone - "Ah, go boil yer heads, both of yeh, Harry - yer a wizard."

Doesn't make it true.

 

[Famine]

In general, science wouldn't refer to anything as a "missing link" - rather a "transitional form". It'd be press (including scientific press offices) which use the term "missing link", because it makes it easier to understand that this animal comes between that older animal and the other slightly newer one.


Missing links are contentious in any case. We have sufficient fossil data to trace our lineage back to bacteria. Ida, and fossils like her, are adding data points to the line, rather than filling in a complete blank - we already have older and newer prosimian precursor fossils, and at least 20 species of hominid between Kenyanthropus and people. There really isn't such a thing as a "missing link" at all.

But Ida's just a nice, cuddly way of saying "Look! We're still right!"

 

[Touring Mars]

Good description, and it explains why some scientists are decidedly unimpressed by it all. Atleast Google are, though...

 

[Danoff]

In general, science wouldn't refer to anything as a "missing link" - rather a "transitional form". It'd be press (including scientific press offices) which use the term "missing link", because it makes it easier to understand that this animal comes between that older animal and the other slightly newer one.

Well, I don't know who was responsible for the website linked in the first post. But whoever they were, I think they should be careful about throwing around terms that many creationists (ie: their opponents in evolutionary debate) are keen on using in a specific way.

This sort of response....

I don't see human there. I mean the skull doesn't appear human, the tail doesn't appear human, the feet doesn't appear human. So what is human about it?

Is what I would expect to happen as a result of that terminology confusion.

 

[Bram Turismo]

And we aren't the perfect species - every animal alive on Earth today is the product of 4.5 billion years of evolution, adapted for the environment in which they reside. We are no more evolved than a crocodile, a parrakeet or a carnation.

Isn't this relative though?

As in; Every kind of species are perfect in their own way. A bird is superior over humans at flying, and a crocodile is superior over humans in hunting. But generally speaking, judging on the ability to think, discover, compare, link, dream, etc the human is the superior species on Earth?

Just wondering what's your view on this

 

[Touring Mars]

Well, I don't know who was responsible for the website linked in the first post. But whoever they were, I think they should be careful about throwing around terms that many creationists (ie: their opponents in evolutionary debate) are keen on using in a specific way.

This sort of response....



Is what I would expect to happen as a result of that terminology confusion.

Let's not forget, however, that Creationists would find fault regardless of terminology or semantics, so pandering to them is pointless. In terms of bringing the subject to the public in an engaging way, and in terminology that is easy to accept, some concessions need to be made. The scientific literature typically makes no such concessions, but guess what, Creationists don't bother reading it! To be fair, the scientific paper (available in Post #2 of this thread) which describes this discovery in considerably more detail doesn't mention the phrase "missing link" once - in 27 pages.

 

[Famine]

Generally speaking, we're one of the most successful species - we can not only readily adapt to other environments (and invent ways to protect ourselves to environments where we might otherwise perish), but we can adapt those environments to ourselves...

Doesn't make us the perfect animal, just 'cos we're the smartest (on this planet). We are exactly as evolved as any other species of life on Earth, but we do, as a species, have a distinct advantage over the rest of them.

 

[Omnis]

I'm taking bets now that the next primate they find that was before Ida will be named Ore.

 

[Mark T]

What would someone suggest as a better title for the thread? Think it needs to be changed considering what has been said in this thread.

 

[dylansan]

Well, this was posted in the evolution/creation thread, but apparantly people would rather talk about that here.

 

[Mark T]

Well, this was posted in the evolution/creation thread, but apparantly people would rather talk about that here.

What's your point?

 

[dylansan]

Just that I feel this thread should have been used to discuss the scientific value of the discovery, not how it conflicts with religion. I don't think the title needs to be changed as I would rather just get back onto the topic meant to be discussed. Not sure if you (or I) misunderstood, but it seems like you're snapping at me and I don't know why.

 

[Sureboss]

I think it's difficult to discuss the scientific value of this without strongly referring to evolution, which will ultimately refer to creationism.

 

[dylansan]

I suppose you're right about that, but it did escalate very quickly into "I think this is a load of bogus because I believe in Christianity," something I think would fit better in the evolution thread.

 

[Sureboss]

Indeed, though I'd say it would be very difficult to keep the two separate.

 

[Mark T]

Just that I feel this thread should have been used to discuss the scientific value of the discovery, not how it conflicts with religion. I don't think the title needs to be changed as I would rather just get back onto the topic meant to be discussed. Not sure if you (or I) misunderstood, but it seems like you're snapping at me and I don't know why.

Just misunderstood your post, now I know you were referring to the fact that people were involving religion in the discussion. 👍

 

[mindwise]

I think it's difficult to discuss the scientific value of this without strongly referring to evolution, which will ultimately refer to creationism.

If the latter part would read 'which will ultimately get distorted by creationists', i'd wholeheartedly agree

I'm mean, aren't we the perfect species, since we conquered the whole planet?

Well TofuStoreDrift, apart from all the other criticism on this exact quote and other things you said, and Richardrfo irrefutably pointing out a serious case of hypocrisy on your part.

Wrt the quote above, what puzzles me most is that a theist would make that claim.
If ,according to the bible, we (humans) are anything, 'perfect' is certainly not one of them.

 

[Sureboss]

I just about restrained myself when someone described Ida as the link between Humans and Dinosaurs...Not going to even bother correcting people like that, even if they are intelligent.

 

[Pupik]

I'm taking bets now that the next primate they find that was before Ida will be named Ore.

Yes, but he'll have to have a Bird's eye and look like the Jolly Green Giant.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

Well TofuStoreDrift, apart from all the other criticism on this exact quote and other things you said, and Richardrfo irrefutably pointing out a serious case of hypocrisy on your part.

Wrt the quote above, what puzzles me most is that a theist would make that claim.
If ,according to the bible, we (humans) are anything, 'perfect' is certainly not one of them.

Well you are correct. Without me this would have been a nice peaceful discussion. I have tainted this thread for which I apologise. A creationist has no business being here when we have that other thread. Like I said, I'm sorry for my remarks I have made. You all can continue on with your thread now. Have a good day.👍

 

[Danoff]

A creationist has no business being here when we have that other thread

Quite the contrary. If creationists never come and learn about scientific findings, how are they ever going to come to a good understanding of at least what evolution is? Even if they still don't agree with it.

Creationists are exactly who I'm hoping to see reading this thread.

 

[Joey D]

Perhaps this will bring about less Creation v. Evolution discussion and more Evolution v. Evolution talk.

Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
Unbridled hoopla attended the unveiling of a 47-million-year-old fossil primate skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History in New York on 19 May. Found by private collectors in 1983 in Messel, Germany, the press immediately hailed the specimen as a "missing link" and even the "eighth wonder of the world."

Google's homepage evolved, incorporating an image of the new fossil – nicknamed Ida – into the company's logo. Now that the first description of the fossil has been published, the task of sifting through the massive public relations campaign to understand the true significance of the new fossil can begin.

Ida forms the basis for a new genus and species of adapiform primate, Darwinius massillae. The adapids are a branch of the primate tree that leads to modern lemurs (see figure).

Ida's skeletal remains are remarkably complete, putting her in a small, elite group of well-documented fossil primates from the Eocene (55 to 34 million years ago) that also includes her North American cousin, Notharctus.

Uniquely for primate fossils this old, Ida's stomach contents and a few aspects of her soft anatomy are preserved. Like all adapiforms, Ida lacked a "toothcomb" at the front of her lower jaw – a structure that living lemurs use for grooming fur. Ida also lacked a "grooming claw" on her second toe, another difference from living lemurs. Otherwise, Ida's overall proportions and anatomy resemble that of a lemur, and the same is true for other adapiform primates.

What does Ida's anatomy tell us about her place on the family tree of humans and other primates? The fact that she retains primitive features that commonly occurred among all early primates, such as simple incisors rather than a full-fledged toothcomb, indicates that Ida belongs somewhere closer to the base of the tree than living lemurs do.

But this does not necessarily make Ida a close relative of anthropoids – the group of primates that includes monkeys, apes – and humans. In order to establish that connection, Ida would have to have anthropoid-like features that evolved after anthropoids split away from lemurs and other early primates. Here, alas, Ida fails miserably.

So, Ida is not a "missing link" – at least not between anthropoids and more primitive primates. Further study may reveal her to be a missing link between other species of Eocene adapiforms, but this hardly solidifies her status as the "eighth wonder of the world".

Instead, Ida is a remarkably complete specimen that promises to teach us a great deal about the biology of some of the earliest and least human-like of all known primates, the Eocene adapiforms. For this, we can all celebrate her discovery as a real advance for science.

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html

I'll be curious to see what other scientist make of it. This article was by Chris Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. I still don't really know what to make about it, but like everything in science it will be peer reviewed heavily. Whether it's the missing link between humans and our ancestors or not, Ida is still an amazing discovery.