Missing Link Found

by Satanus 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Scientists at a norwegian university claim that a fossil found in germany is a link between apes, monkeys, other mammals and humans. Their dating puts it at 47 million yrs old, a time when mammals were the newbies on the planet. They have labelled it Dar­win­ius masil­lae , and the specific skeleton 'ida'. Here's the article, from http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090519_ida.htm

    “Missing link” ancestor reported found

    May 19, 2009
    Courtesy PLoS ONE
    and World Science staff

    Sci­en­tists say they have found a 47-mil­lion-year-old fossil that is a “miss­ing link” from apes, mon­keys and hu­mans to other mam­mals. Dis­cov­ered in Mes­sel Pit, Ger­ma­ny, the fos­sil, des­ig­nat­ed Dar­win­ius masil­lae, is es­ti­mat­ed to be 20 times old­er than most fos­sils that ex­plain hu­man ev­o­lu­tion.

    Known as “I­da,” sci­en­tists said the fos­sil shows char­ac­ter­is­tics from the very prim­i­tive non-hu­man ev­o­lu­tion­ary line of so-called prosimi­an­s—crea­tures such as lemurs—but is more re­lat­ed to the “an­thro­poids,” the group that in­cludes mon­keys, apes and hu­mans.

    At 95 per­cent com­plete, the fos­sil of­fers the most com­plete un­der­stand­ing of any pri­mate so far dis­cov­ered from the Eo­cene era, when mod­ern mam­mals first ap­peared, ac­cord­ing to the in­ves­ti­ga­tors. Their find­ings are pub­lished in the re­search jour­nal Pub­lic Li­brary of Sci­ence One.

    For the past two years sci­en­tists led by Jørn Hu­rum of the Uni­ver­s­ity of Os­lo Nat­u­ral His­to­ry Mu­se­um have se­cretly an­a­lyzed the fos­sil. “This is the first link to all hu­mans ... truly a fos­sil that links world her­itage,” said Hu­rum.

    The fos­sil was ap­par­ently dis­cov­ered in 1983 by pri­vate col­lec­tors who split and even­tu­ally sold two parts of the ske­l­e­ton sep­a­rately; a less­er part was re­stored and, in the pro­cess, partly fab­ri­cat­ed to make it look more com­plete. Sci­en­tists said this part was even­tu­ally pur­chased for a pri­vate mu­se­um in Wy­o­ming, and then de­scribed by one of the au­thors, who rec­og­nized the fab­rica­t­ion.

    The more com­plete part has just come to light, and it now be­longs to the Nat­u­ral His­to­ry Mu­se­um of the Uni­ver­s­ity of Os­lo in Nor­way. The new pa­per de­scribes the study that re­sulted from fi­nally hav­ing ac­cess to the com­plete fos­sil.

    Un­like “Lucy” and oth­er fa­mous pri­mate fos­sils found in Africa’s Cra­dle of Man­kind, Ida is a Eu­ro­pe­an fos­sil, pre­served in Ger­ma­ny’s Mes­sel Pit, the mile-wide crat­er and oil-rich shale is a sig­nif­i­cant site for fos­sils of its time, re­search­ers said. Anal­y­sis in­di­cat­ed that the pre­his­tor­ic pri­mate was a young fe­male. A foot bone called the ta­lus bone links Ida di­rectly to hu­mans, ac­cord­ing to the in­ves­ti­ga­tors.

    The fos­sil al­so fea­tures the com­plete soft body out­line as well as the gut con­tents: Ida feasted on fruits, seeds and leaves be­fore she died. X-rays re­veal both ba­by and adult teeth. The sci­en­tists es­ti­mate Ida’s age at death as around nine months, and she meas­ured about three feet (90 cm) long.

    Ida is es­ti­mat­ed to have lived 47 mil­lion years ago at a crit­i­cal per­i­od in Earth’s his­to­ry: the Eo­cene, when the blueprints for mod­ern mam­mals were be­ing es­tab­lished. Fol­low­ing the ex­tinc­tion of di­no­saurs, the early hors­es, bats, whales and many oth­er crea­tures in­clud­ing the first pri­mates thrived on a sub­trop­i­cal plan­et. The Earth was just be­gin­ning to take the shape that we know and rec­og­nize to­day – the Him­a­la­yas were be­ing formed and mod­ern flo­ra and fau­na evolved. Land mam­mals, in­clud­ing pri­mates, lived amid vast jun­gle.

    Ida was found to lack two key anatom­i­cal fea­tures found in lemurs: a groom­ing claw on the sec­ond dig­it of the foot, and a fused row of teeth in the mid­dle of her low­er jaw known as a tooth­comb. She has nails rath­er than the claw typ­i­cal of non-anthropoid pri­mates such as lemurs, and her teeth are si­m­i­lar to those of mon­keys. Her for­ward fac­ing eyes are like ours – which would have en­abled her fields of vi­sion to over­lap, al­low­ing 3D vi­sion and an abil­ity to judge dis­tance.

    The fos­sil’s hands show a hu­manlike op­pos­a­ble thumb, re­search­ers said. Like all pri­mates, Ida has five fin­gers on each hand. Ida would have al­so had flex­i­ble arms, which would have al­lowed her to use both hands for tasks that can­not be done with one – like grab­bing a piece of fruit. Like us, Ida al­so has quite short arms and legs, ac­cord­ing to re­search­ers.

    X-rays re­veal a bro­ken wrist may have con­tri­but­ed to Ida’s death – her left wrist was heal­ing from a bad frac­ture, said the sci­en­tists. They be­lieve she suc­cumbed to car­bon di­ox­ide gas while drink­ing from the Mes­sel lake: its still wa­ters were of­ten cov­ered by a blan­ket of the gas due to vol­can­ic forc­es that formed the lake and which were still ac­tive. Ham­pered by her bro­ken wrist, Ida fell un­con­scious and sank to the lake bot­tom, where the un­ique con­di­tions pre­served her for 47 mil­lion years.

    The find­ings are to be de­scribed in a doc­u­men­ta­ry, “The Link,” to be screened by the His­to­ry Channel on May 25 at 9pm ET/PT and BBC One in the U.K. May 26 at 9pm BST. It will al­so be broad­cast around the world. An inte­rac­tive web­site about Ida has been launched at http://www.re­vealingthelink.com.

    “This lit­tle crea­ture is go­ing to show us our con­nec­tion with all the rest of the mam­mals,” said broad­caster and nat­u­ral­ist Sir Da­vid At­ten­bor­ough. “The link they would have said un­til now is mis­sing ... it is no long­er mis­sing.”

    S

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    It seems rather dramatic to describe Darwinius masillae as a missing link but that is what sells newspapers. In the scientific article (pp.24,25) their conclusions are much more circumspect:

    All of the determinate synapomorphies link Darwinius masillae, and by implication other Adapoidea, to Haplorhini rather than Strepsirrhini. This is a surprising result, but on reflection the grouping of adapoids like Notharctus and Adapis with Strepsirrhini was based on retention of primitive characteristics like the free ring-like ectotympanic within the auditory bulla. Consideration of adapoids to be Haplorhini, as tarsioids are, helps to explain why the earliest representatives of both groups are so similar and sometimes confused. Note that Darwinius masillae , and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids. As currently conceived, the history of Anthropoidea is traced through the Eocene in somewhat speculatively identified lineages of isolated teeth. Darwinius masillae shows that it is possible to recover much more complete and informative primate fossils. Most primates in the Eocene, certainly most known from cranial remains, are not anthropoids. Continued recovery of complete skeletal remains, like those of Darwinius masillae described here, will help to clarify the systematic position of additional primates relative to the strepsirrhine-haplorhine dichotomy within the order, focus attention on specimens complete enough for phylogenetic interpretation, and define the threshold required for inclusion in Anthropoidea.

    Darwinius masillae is now the third primate species from the Messel locality that belongs to the cercamoniine adapiforms, in addition to Europolemur koenigswaldi and E. kelleri. Darwinius masillae is unrelated to Godinotia neglecta from Geiseltal, which was much more slenderly built. Darwinius and Godinotia neglecta are similar, however, in the degree of reduction of their antemolar dentition. Morphological characteristics preserved in Darwinius masillae enable a rigorous comparison with the two principal subdivisions of living primates: Strepsirrhini and Haplorhini. Defining characters of Darwinius ally it with early haplorhines rather than strepsirrhines. We do not interpret Darwinius as anthropoid, but the adapoid primates it represents deserve more careful comparison with higher primates than they have received in the past. Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Every link is missing until they find it I suppose.

    Don't hold out much hope for that screw creationists have loose though.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Thankyou earnest, for looking up and supplying that article. While there is ultimately no pivotal fossil, no one fossil that is the final proof of evolution, it is impressive how the line of descent is continuously being added to. Like a house being built, brick by brick, this is another brick in support of evolutionary theory. More supporting bricks will continue to be turned up, as they have for the last 200 yrs, or so.

    Articles that i have read have been a bit vague about what species exactly we humans and simians had in common. This may be the one, or one of many of our common ancestors.

    Slim

    'Every link is missing until they find it'

    Heh.

    S

  • mkr32208
    mkr32208

    Good show on this on Discovery the other night. The conclusion about evolution was brilliant!

  • free2think
    free2think

    thanks Satanus, I'm a fan of Darwin

    ql

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    You're welcome, f2t.

    mkr32208

    Would love to see it.

    earnest

    Scientist writing in official journals use that conservative style. They know that their peers are going over their stuff w a fine toothed comb.

    S

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Satanus, I am not maintaining that simply because we cannot identify all the links that man did not evolve. I find that there are more inconsistencies in attempting to reconcile the creation account with the fossil record than there are in the theory of evolution. But the theory or hypothesis of evolution necessarily changes as more fossils are discovered (or, as in this case, re-discovered). There is by no means consensus on the subject.

    However, when scientific writing is conservative and differentiates between facts and speculation it can be accepted and respected. But the more dramatic conclusions reached by Sir David Attenborough and other entertainers owe more to showmanship than science.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Who is David Attenborough?

    S

  • mkr32208
    mkr32208

    Oops I think it might have been history channel?!?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit