A Breakthrough in Our Understanding of Evolution

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

Scientists piece together human ancestry - CNN.com

 

[darkbeaver]

I wonder how they dated it?

 

[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.

 

[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...

 

[Nuggler]

:read2: Load a crap !!!

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

":munky2:"

TA DA !!!

 

[Scott Free]

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

 

[darkbeaver]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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

 

[Nuggler]

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.

:tard:

 

[Tonington]

"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 adapids, omomyids, and tarsiers.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]

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. :smile:

 

[L Gilbert]

"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]

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]

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]

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... :smile:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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]

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?