 | Forum Threads |  |
| Random Photo | |
| Member Poll | |
|
 Scientists find The Missing Link |   A group of scientists, led by Jørn Hurum from the University of Oslo, unveiled an extremely well prepared fossil that they hail to be the missing link between primates and other mammals.
Ida, as the fossil is called, looks like a cross between a monkey and a lemur, and is 47 million years old. It was dug out in the 1980's by amateur fossil hunters and had resided in a private collections for the past 20 years, until Jørn Hurum bought it from a German dealer and brought it to the University of Oslo two years ago. Once there an international team conducted research on it to verify their suspicions: That Ida was the missing link.
It is a remarkably well preserved fossil and it's implications will be discussed for many years to come.
There is a website dedicated to the discovery and a documentary movie has been made detailing the research of the past two years. See Revealing the Link for more details.
|
|
| |
| |
| Comments |
on May 21 2009 20:05:42
Of course, there'%3Bs no such thing as a missing link... |
on May 22 2009 14:50:16
While that is true, it is also the case for any evolutionary ancestor and is mostly a sophistic response. One will never know with certainty if any of the paleontological finds of our ancestors represents the exact evolutionary ancestor, but rather a species that has followed the same evolutionary path.
The exact great great ... great grand mother to humans will never be found. But Ida represents our great great ... great grand aunt. |
on May 22 2009 17:10:21
The point isn't that Ida might not be a direct ancestor; the point is that we are not missing a link that somehow will give us a perfect monkey-to-human lineage.
Evolution is a continuous process, and we have a pretty good picture of our evolutionary ancestral tree. "Missing link" is a plebeian term, usually used by people who do not particularly grasp the concept of evolution.
ID-iots like this term, since they can claim that we still haven't found the "missing link" between ancestor X and ancestor Y, and thus evolution is disproved. If an ancestor Z is found that links x and Y, they will just claim that we are missing a link between X and Z, or Z and Y, ad infinitum, or nauseam, whichever comes first... |
on May 22 2009 19:28:20
In this case the term isn't used by idiots, and with good reason.
There are certain traits that define larger groupings, and if one spends time watching the information on Ida one finds that several of these gaps have been filled with this fossil - it is a true transitional form.
From an impartial observer:
"It's phylogenetically intriguing because of the the absence of a toilet claw and a toothcomb. Darwinius masillae does have what are described as human-like nails and opposable big toes, which, if this turns out to be a 'stem group' from which anthropoid primates evolved, would place this fossil near the beginning of human evolution. Darwinius masillae is not simply a lemur fossil but instead part of Adapoidea, a larger group of primates - evidence of the early haplorhine diversification. In layman terms, this was a lemur-monkey, with features of both groups."
So is this a Rosetta Stone of evolutionary biology? It will certainly be hyped a lot more than that but it may be warranted. It's difficult to imagine studies of Eocene-Oligocene primates that won't reference this discovery.
Basically it is a lemur monkey that is 'incomplete' but very close - a true transitional fossil. Biologists hate the term 'missing link' because it isn't very scientific but this is a case where it may be apt.
Want more sources on the importance of darwinius masillae as a transitional form, i.e. missing link?
The Guardian
New Scientist
Now I understand that the meaning you put into the words missing link (a direct linear chain of evolution) is not the same as what I am arguing here. But I'll counter any claims that I'm dodging that issue by claiming:
1) The Scientists behind the Ida discovery do at no point claim this to be a direct ancestor.
and more importantly:
2) why they use these terms and try their best to fuel a media frenzy: “Any pop band is doing the same thing,” said Jorn H. Hurum, a scientist at the University of Oslo who acquired the fossil and assembled the team of scientists that studied it. “Any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking the same way in science.” |
on May 23 2009 11:14:33
"Transitional fossil" is another term that should always be in quotes. Transitional between what? Two other stages of evolution? Then all fossils are transitional; in fact all beings ever to have bore descendants will have been transitional...
Also, 'transitional fossil' and 'the missing link' are not the same thing. When people talk about 'the missing link' the mean THE missing link. The fossil that'll prove to them that they're great-ancestor was a monkey. That's why I don't like the term.
Before Ida, lemurs were the link between apes and other mammals. Now we need two more links...
Regarding your two last points:
1) Yes, they do; several times. In fact the first thing you see when you click on the link from the story is a headline describing Ida as "our earliest ancestor"...
2) Don't get me wrong... I like it!
I wish we had more of this, and hopefully the debate will continue after the present 'frenzy' has died off. This furthers the understanding of evolution and undermines the incorrect views.
Actually, even though I dislike the term, I approve of its usage in this context. I will still reserve the right, though, to point out its status as a misnomer to the educated and enlightened audience  |
|
|
| Post Comment | |
Please Login to Post a Comment.
|
|
| Ratings | |
Rating is available to Members only.
Please login or register to vote.
No Ratings have been Posted.
|
|
|
| Login | |
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
| | 
| Last Seen Users | |
| Obituaries | |
You must login to post a message.
|
| |
|
