http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm

 

 

Sounds like a pretty important discovery, but of course, they are taking it in with skepticism.

 

The investigation of the fossil's significance was led by Jorn Hurum of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway.

 

He said the fossil creature was "the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor" and described the discovery as "a dream come true".

 

The female animal lived during an epoch in Earth history known as the Eocene, which was crucial for the development of early primates - and at first glance, Ida resembles a lemur.

 

But the creature lacks primitive features such as a so-called "toothcomb", a specialised feature in which the lower incisor and canine teeth are elongated, crowded together and projecting forward. She also lacks a special claw used for grooming.

 

 

In the PLoS paper itself, the scientists do not actually claim the specimen represents a direct ancestor to us. But Dr Hurum believes that is exactly what Ida is.

 

He told BBC News that the key to proving this lay in the detail of the foot. The shape of a bone in the foot called the talus looks "almost anthropoid".

 

He said the team was now planning a 3D reconstruction of the foot which would prove this.

 

"We're not finished with this specimen yet," said Dr Hurum. "There will be plenty more papers coming out."

 

Same story at the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html

 

 

 

 

 

High res photo of the fossil remains:

 

I thought "the missing link" we were looking for was between aps and neanderthals. or neanderthals and homosapian.

I thought "the missing link" we were looking for was between aps and neanderthals. or neanderthals and homosapian.

I thought we already found it, that's why Texsox posts

I thought "the missing link" we were looking for was between aps and neanderthals. or neanderthals and homosapian.

Neanderthals are actually not going to be a strong link between Homo-Sapiens and apes. Neanderthals were an offshoot, they were a line that broke off from the developing line and settled in Europe something like 100,000 years ago. They stayed confined to Europe until modern humans emerged from Africa about 30,000 years ago and then they rapidly disappeared. They may have been killed, there may have been some limited inter-breeding, but there's not going to be a "missing link" between those groups. In human evolution, there are lots of false starts...groups that diverged from whatever the main population was doing, evolved to some level on their own, and then died off. Neanderthals are one of them.

 

There is also a long list of other species between modern humans and apes, much of which we can trace the lineage of through fossils. A sampling (not complete) is found in this graph. There are others beyond this.

 

I thought "the missing link" we were looking for was between aps and neanderthals. or neanderthals and homosapian.

Neanderthals and Homosapians are two different species that lived at the same time. Or at least that is the most popular theory.

Neanderthals are actually not going to be a strong link between Homo-Sapiens and apes. Neanderthals were an offshoot, they were a line that broke off from the developing line and settled in Europe something like 100,000 years ago. They stayed confined to Europe until modern humans emerged from Africa about 30,000 years ago and then they rapidly disappeared. They may have been killed, there may have been some limited inter-breeding, but there's not going to be a "missing link" between those groups. In human evolution, there are lots of false starts...groups that diverged from whatever the main population was doing, evolved to some level on their own, and then died off. Neanderthals are one of them.

 

There is also a long list of other species between modern humans and apes, much of which we can trace the lineage of through fossils. A sampling (not complete) is found in this graph. There are others beyond this.

 

You said it so much better than I did.

You said it so much better than I did.

It's what I do.

 

Also, on the whole concept of a "Missing link", I'm going to outsource some commentary.

A cladistic analysis of the fossil revealed another interesting point. There are two broad groups of primates: the strepsirrhines, which includes the lemurs and lorises, and the haplorhines, which includes monkeys and apes…and us, of course. Ida's anatomy places her in the haplorhines with us, but at the same time she's primitive. This is an animal caught shortly after a major branch point in primate evolutionary history.

 

She's beautiful and interesting and important, but I do have to take exception to the surprisingly frantic news coverage I'm seeing. She's being called the "missing link in human evolution", which is annoying. The whole "missing link" category is a bit of journalistic trumpery: almost every fossil could be called a link, and it feeds the simplistic notion that there could be a single definitive bridge between ancient and modern species. There isn't: there is the slow shift of whole populations which can branch and diverge. It's also inappropriate to tag this discovery to human evolution. She's 47 million years old; she's also a missing link in chimp evolution, or rhesus monkey evolution. She's got wider significance than just her relationship to our narrow line.

 

People have been using remarkable hyperbole when discussing Darwinius. She's going to affect paleontology "like an asteroid falling down to earth"; she's the "Mona Lisa" of fossils; she answers all of Darwin's questions about transitional fossils; she's "something that the world has never seen before"; "a revolutionary scientific find that will change everything". Well, OK. I was impressed enough that I immediately made Ida my desktop wallpaper, so I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the find. But let's not forget that there are lots of transitional forms found all the time. She's unique as a representative of a new species, but she isn't at all unique as a representative of the complex history of life on earth.

 

When Laelaps says, "I have the feeling that this fossil, while spectacular, is being oversold," I think he's being spectacularly understated. Wilkins also knocks down the whole "missing link" label. The hype is bad news, not because Ida is unimportant, but because it detracts from the larger body of the fossil record — I doubt that the media will be able to muster as much excitement from whatever new fossil gets published in Nature or Science next week, no matter how significant it may be.

 

Go ahead and be excited by this find, I know I am. Just remember to be excited tomorrow and the day after and the day after that, because this is perfectly normal science, and it will go on.

I thought "the missing link" we were looking for was between aps and neanderthals. or neanderthals and homosapian.

 

Also, to build on this and what has been said, I believe there are perhaps several missing pieces they are searching for.

It's what I do.

 

Also, on the whole concept of a "Missing link", I'm going to outsource some commentary.

 

You quoted somebody who said it much better than I did. And corrected me at the same time.

Neanderthals are actually not going to be a strong link between Homo-Sapiens and apes. Neanderthals were an offshoot, they were a line that broke off from the developing line and settled in Europe something like 100,000 years ago.[/img]

You are correct, and I knew that. I have no idea why i said Neanderthals. lol my bad.

The devil put that there to trick us. Don't ask me to provide any scientific proof to support that.

The devil put that there to trick us. Don't ask me to provide any scientific proof to support that.

 

It seems more likely that God would put it there to trick us, not Satan, but that's a whole can of worms I don't want to open.

Thanks for saving me a lot of typing, Balta. "Missing link" is really an early 20th century idea.

 

I have a problem with him saying "direct ancestor". It's impossible to know direct lineages like that.

 

Also, looks like it may be a little over-hyped.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/po...erselling_a.php

 

Edited May 20, 200916 yr by StrangeSox

Neanderthals are actually not going to be a strong link between Homo-Sapiens and apes. Neanderthals were an offshoot, they were a line that broke off from the developing line and settled in Europe something like 100,000 years ago. They stayed confined to Europe until modern humans emerged from Africa about 30,000 years ago and then they rapidly disappeared. They may have been killed, there may have been some limited inter-breeding, but there's not going to be a "missing link" between those groups. In human evolution, there are lots of false starts...groups that diverged from whatever the main population was doing, evolved to some level on their own, and then died off. Neanderthals are one of them.

Or... WE ATE THEM!

 

Apparently there's an issue over what constitutes "publication" and whether or not this species officially has a name yet.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/200...arwinius-exist/