A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

SirJosephPorter

#1May 21st, 2009

A 47 million year old fossil has resulted in a major breakthrough in our understanding of evolution. The fossil was discovered in 1983 in the Messel Pit, Germany, near Frankfurt, and had been until recently in private collections, according to an article published Tuesday in the scientific journal PLoS ONE, a publication of the Public Library of Science.

The fossil's body is nearly complete; only part of one leg is missing. In addition to the bones, the softer features are also preserved, as are the remnants of its last meal: fruits, seeds and leaves, which were found in its gut, according to the scientists.

Scientists say the fossil, dubbed "Ida," is a transitional species, living around the time the primate lineage split into two groups: A line that would eventually produce humans and monkeys, and another that would give rise to primates such as lemurs.

So Ida is our remote ancestor, sort of our great grandmother (I remember there is also, Lucy and Eve, which are supposed to be our grandmothers), which produced both humans and monkeys. Ida fills up an important gap in our understanding of evolution.

--

darkbeaver

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

I wonder how they dated it?

Ron in Regina

A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

I showed this pic to my Son yesterday, and told him that this could
very well be one of his ancient ancestors on his Mothers side from
the looks of things.

Tonington

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

Ida was dated radiometrically based on an underlying basalt chimney.

Ida's discovery is great, but I think it's been overblown a lot by the media. Search for Ida, and see how many times they call this fossil the missing link...

Nuggler

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

Load a crap !!!

We gots the missing link right here: (drum roll)

"

"

TA DA !!!

Scott Free

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

I suspect there won't ever be a single "missing link" found but a series of them and this one certainly qualifies.

darkbeaver

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Ida was dated radiometrically based on an underlying basalt chimney.

Ida's discovery is great, but I think it's been overblown a lot by the media. Search for Ida, and see how many times they call this fossil the missing link...

That's true, in my life I'v seen the missing link discovered several hundred times.

SirJosephPorter

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

I don’t think this is the missing link in the generally accepted sense of the word. Missing link is generally considered to be the creature from which we evolved, it is one step before Homo sapiens (something like Lucy or Eve, though even they are not proper missing links).

In a way Ida could be considered to be a missing link, in that it is a common ancestor of man and monkeys. But missing link, in the general sense of the word means a common ancestor of man and apes.

Ida lived 47 million years ago, Homo sapiens evolved a few million years ago. There has to be something between Ida and Homo sapiens (incidentally, I like the name Ida, there is a Gilbert and Sullivan opera called ‘Princess Ida’).

I agree with Scott Free. This is but one piece (perhaps an important piece) in the overall jigsaw puzzle of evolution.

L Gilbert

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

Speaking of missing links, I read about this Tuesday and CNN, CTV, CBC, etc. figured out yesterday that it might be newsworthy.

Of course, it's one more artifact pounding a nail into the "theory" of the 6000 year old creation bit. Or rather 46,994,000 nails.

Dexter Sinister

#10

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

"Missing link" is a misleading term that science doesn't use, only the popular media use it. It's correctly called a transitional form, but evolutionary theory makes it clear that all forms are in transition, so that's a bit misleading as well. Actually a transitional form, as properly defined in the field called cladistics, is a creature at the point where a lineage first began to diverge into separate species. It's not clear yet that Ida is one of those.

Cliffy

#11

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

If I had a hammer
I'd hammer in the morning.....

Nuggler

#12

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy

If I had a hammer
I'd hammer in the morning.....

Thatsa pretty old song there, Cliffy. We usta sing it back in the ol folk song days.......Limelighters???

Ida sung it too, cept Ima forget the werds.

Tonington

#13

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

"Missing link" is a misleading term that science doesn't use, only the popular media use it. It's correctly called a transitional form, but evolutionary theory makes it clear that all forms are in transition, so that's a bit misleading as well. Actually a transitional form, as properly defined in the field called cladistics, is a creature at the point where a lineage first began to diverge into separate species. It's not clear yet that Ida is one of those.

Exactly. It's not at all clear, and some other scientists are even questioning the cladistic analysis that these authors performed. The heart of the debate in the science community is which group gave rise to anthropoids like humans, chimps and apes. The frontrunners are --, --, and --.One of the authors of this paper in question has been a proponent for the adapids. One of the methods they used to make the case is the lack of two physiological traits in both adapids and today's anthropoids. Though, they haven't eliminated the possibility that this is simply convergence.

Dexter Sinister

#14

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Nuggler

Thatsa pretty old song there, Cliffy. We usta sing it back in the ol folk song days.......Limelighters???

Lotta people covered it. Peter Paul and Mary did it best, in my opinion. But I don't think the song was about paleontologists' rock hammers.

L Gilbert

#15

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

"Missing link" is a misleading term that science doesn't use, only the popular media use it.......

I beg to differ. My food scientist friend used it to refer to newsmedia people (and a few others). Of course, I don't think he was using it in an paleo/anthropological way, though.

SirJosephPorter

#16

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert

Speaking of missing links, I read about this Tuesday and CNN, CTV, CBC, etc. figured out yesterday that it might be newsworthy.
Of course, it's one more artifact pounding a nail into the "theory" of the 6000 year old creation bit. Or rather 46,994,000 nails.

It does nothing of the sort, Gilbert. Do you really think the nut jobs worry about scientific evidence? God says that earth (with all the life on it) was created 5000 years ago and no Atheistic, materialistic, pagan evidence is going to negate that.

Religious right is not going to change its views regarding Creationism as a result of this evidence. On the other hand, those who believe in evolution didn’t need more evidence anyway.

So I don’t think this evidence will change anybody’s minds in evolution vs. Creation debate. However, it is an important piece in the puzzle, which helps us understand the mysteries of evolution a little better.

L Gilbert

#17

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter

It does nothing of the sort, Gilbert. Do you really think the nut jobs worry about scientific evidence? God says that earth (with all the life on it) was created 5000 years ago and no Atheistic, materialistic, pagan evidence is going to negate that.

Religious right is not going to change its views regarding Creationism as a result of this evidence. On the other hand, those who believe in evolution didn’t need more evidence anyway.

So I don’t think this evidence will change anybody’s minds in evolution vs. Creation debate. However, it is an important piece in the puzzle, which helps us understand the mysteries of evolution a little better.

I don't think you understand what you read. I don't give a crap what the superstitious do or think. The FACT that this critter's bones are some 47 million years old DOES negate the 6000 year old creation thing.

Dexter Sinister

#18

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert

I beg to differ. My food scientist friend used it to refer to newsmedia people...

Yes, well, that's probably legitimate, in the sense that some media people seem to lack any sense of human decency and will heartlessly exploit the bereaved and the grieving in pursuit of a sound bite. Better than calling them neanderthals, who've had a bad rap ever since the first neanderthal remains were discovered and it wasn't immediately recognized it was the skeleton of an individual suffering badly from arthritis. We might also be able to make a case, looking at certain public figures who made acting careers out of playing vicious savages of various kinds, that evolution is reversible...

SirJosephPorter

#19

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert

I don't think you understand what you read. I don't give a crap what the superstitious do or think. The FACT that this critter's bones are some 47 million years old DOES negate the 6000 year old creation thing.

It does not negate it, Gilbert. Well may be it does to you and me, but we didn’t need any further evidence about the veracity of evolution anyway. But you can be sure the religious right won’t be impressed by the evidence.

karrie

#20

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 21st, 2009

What I'm curious is how this fossil changes our understanding of evolution at all. Is it a breakthrough? Or merely a small piece of evidence, a tiny piece of the puzzle?

Dexter Sinister

#21

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 22nd, 2009

Realistically, it doesn't change our understanding of evolution at all, in fact it's completely predictable that something like this fossil should exist. It's just another little fragment of the pattern that says Darwin was right.

Cliffy

#22

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 22nd, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Nuggler

Thatsa pretty old song there, Cliffy. We usta sing it back in the ol folk song days.......Limelighters???

Ida sung it too, cept Ima forget the werds.

Peter, Paul and Mary and I used to belong to a folk singing group that sang it. Yup, I is dat old.

Trex

#23

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 22nd, 2009

I agree with some of the other posters.
This find is overblown and no big deal.
Another wee piece of the puzzle.
A small link in a very long and multi-stranded chain.

Trex

L Gilbert

#24

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 22nd, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter

It does not negate it, Gilbert. Well may be it does to you and me, but we didn’t need any further evidence about the veracity of evolution anyway. But you can be sure the religious right won’t be impressed by the evidence.

As I said, I don't care if the deluded don't believe facts or not as whatever they believe is irrelevant if they don't accept reality. The fact is this is one more find that negates their silly notion of creation 6000 years ago.

El Barto

#25

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 22nd, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina

I showed this pic to my Son yesterday, and told him that this could
very well be one of his ancient ancestors on his Mothers side from
the looks of things.

Kinda looks like my Ex mother-in-law

Had the same teeth , but no tail tho

L Gilbert

#26

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 23rd, 2009

Can't wait till the people that play with mud fill it out and we can see what it probably looked like.

Cliffy

#27

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 23rd, 2009

It looks like a lizard to me, so it must be one of the queen's ancestors.

L Gilbert

#28

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 23rd, 2009

Which queen? Certainly can't be Queen Rania:

Ron in Regina

#29

A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 23rd, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina

I showed this pic to my Son yesterday, and told him that this could
very well be one of his ancient ancestors on his Mothers side from
the looks of things.

Quote: Originally Posted by El Barto

Kinda looks like my Ex mother-in-law

Quote: Originally Posted by El Barto

Had the same teeth , but no tail tho

I'm not sure I want to know how you know some of the more intimate
details of your Mother-in-Laws anatomy, but to each their own I guess.
Maybe your Mother-in-Law had a smaller tail that she could run down
one of her pant-legs when she knew company was coming over?

For anyone who objects to this humor, how could you possibly think that
this picture of that fossil wouldn't eventually lead to Mother-in-Law jokes?

coldstream

#30

Re: A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

May 23rd, 2009

Mitochondrial DNA, that which is passed on in the mother's genetic inheritance, and is far less subject to change or mutation than the male nuclear DNA, indicates that all human life originated from a single male and female parent, producing a radically unique genus, likely in past 100,000 to 200,000 years. The definition of a genus is that of genetic line that which can reproduce a fertile offspring. These human prototypes and their children then formed the entire human lineage.

The problem with the theory of evolution now, is that it cannot explain why, if human life developed out of hodge podge of near relatives, there is such consistency and exclusivity to the human genus. It cannot identify the mechanisms that produced this singularity in humans and other forms of life, from a single set of exclusive reproductively compatible parents.

The odds of these developing and pairing up, spontaneously, contemporaneously and independantly of each other within the evolutionary postulate, is astronomical, and yet every species we know of did just that, and is similarly constrained to its own genus. If the theory of evolution explains all, one has wonder why there is not a wide family of near relatives in the human strain that can interbreed and produce a smooth, homogenous spectrum of species amongst all the hominids.

We are left however with the fact that we have the phenomenon of man, which is utterly unique in intellect, social organization, language, conscience, aspiration to faith.. and all of the technologies and institutions that have developed from them. There seems to be a big black hole in evolution's premis that we all developed by accidental mutation and natural selection from one primeval single celled, asexual organism. Hence my doubts Ida has anything to do with us.

Last edited by coldstream; May 23rd, 2009 at 02:54 PM..

Similar Threads

Multiple Sclerosis Breakthrough
by Liberalman | Jan 14th, 2010

Breakthrough toy can read your mind, move objects
by Ron in Regina | Feb 11th, 2009

Beyond understanding...
by Zan | Sep 23rd, 2007