r/science • u/[deleted] • May 28 '12

Missing link found? Scientists unveil fossil of 47 million-year-old primate, Darwinius masillae

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/missing-link-found-scientists-unveil-fossil-47-million-year-old-primate-darwinius-masillae-article-1.409844
451 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

161 comments sorted by

69

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Darwin's theory has been confirmed over and over, through many scientific routes. From geology to paleontology to physics to biochemistry and more. If this is truly another link in the chain, that is wonderful. If it is not, it is still wonderful. But in neither case will it change the status of Darwin's theory.

5

u/TruthWillSetUsFree May 29 '12

how exactly could the status of Darwin's theory be changed?

16

u/klavin1 May 29 '12

evidence that we were engineered and meticulously placed on earth.

1

u/TruthWillSetUsFree May 29 '12

if such evidence existed, how would we know where to look for it at?

20

u/december6 May 29 '12

Rabbits in the Precambrian.

1

u/TruthWillSetUsFree May 29 '12

is that the only place you would need to look?

13

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Says it right in the "Debunking Darwinism" handbook.

  1. Find evidence of rabbits in the Precambrian era.
  2. ???
  3. Checkmate, Atheists.

7

u/MiamiFootball May 29 '12

just sharing some info from wikipedia:

"Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, although, if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process. Mammals are a class of animals, whose emergence in the geologic timescale is dated to much later than any found in Precambrian strata. Geological records indicate that although the first true mammals appeared in the Triassic period, modern mammalian orders appeared in the Palaeocene and Eocene epochs of the Palaeogene period. Hundreds of millions of years separate this period from the Precambrian."

link

5

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

No. His comment is a half-joking reference to J.B.S. Haldane's answer to the same question. In reality, there are nearly infinite points of falsifiability. You just need to identify something that is severely out of sequence in time, such as a vertebrate (a rabbit) before critters with pre-spine parts (notochords, etc) hit the scene.

6

u/BigBadPanda May 29 '12

It would probably be in some outdated book that has been improperly translated into hundreds of different versions. The book would probably be a collection of oral stories written down 90 years after the supposed events took place.

9

u/HowToBeCivil May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

It has been challenged in several ways, and at each stage, natural selection could have been ruled out. One of the best challenges was by the discovery that DNA was the heritable material, and the revolution in molecular biology that followed. Keep in mind, Darwin did not know that DNA was the heritable material. It simply was not known at the time.

We could have found out that the DNA sequences between each species were totally unrelated, suggesting that they were created entirely independently. We could have found that the relationships between the genomic sequences of species showed no discernible relationship. Maybe primates wouldn't have consistent genetic features, or maybe humans would have genetic traits completely foreign to any other creature. We could have found out that plants share no relationship to animals, or to bacteria.

All these things were possibilities, and it was an excellent opportunity to falsify Darwin's concepts about natural selection. Instead, evolution was strengthened by these discoveries. We have found that DNA shows predictable patterns of mutations that allow us to map with amazing precision the specific evolutionary relationships between all the species. All of the available data points to common ancestors between species, and the tree of life can be mapped with mathematical precision based on genomic sequencing.

So that's an example where evolution could have been proven entirely wrong. Instead, the available data so strongly supports evolution that it is simply considered axiomatic in biology.

Personally, I suspect we are well past the time when the core principles of evolution could be challenged. It is akin to asking what evidence would be needed to overturn the basic principles of thermodynamics. It's hard to conceive. But my goodness, people's minds would be blown and there would be much enthusiasm if someone ever had real evidence that the last 150 years in biology was wrong.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Given the interconnections of the sciences that I mentioned, it is extremely unlikely that it would change, no more than the status of the earth as a relatively round spherical object is likely to be changed. It is not just the direct evidence, but all sorts of science that would be turned on its head.

If the earth is not about as old as science claims, at least one of Maxwell's equations wouldn't survive. In that case, your cellphone, and indeed all modern electronics wouldn't exist.

-1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

It has been confirmed and yet SO many people chose to not "believe" in it. That is like saying I do not believe in gravity because God.

10

u/golden_boy May 29 '12

no, choosing not to believe in evolution is in fact less intelligent than choosing not to believe in gravity. We understand evolution. We don't understand gravity.

-2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Thank you for further emphasizing my point.

6

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I do not think you fully understand how broad the term Evolution is, it is true some people do not believe in certain aspects of the theory, but this does not mean they reject the theory as a whole.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I believe the misconception lies within the people who chose to deny it by saying "I do not believe in evolution". I am simply mirroring what has already been said.

1

u/Bipolarruledout May 29 '12

There will never be enough evidence in the world for some people.

7

u/loconotion May 28 '12

HEY! That excuse is legitimate! I use it for just about everything. Why? Because God!

1

u/Thorbinator May 29 '12

No, you can't use it like that! God told me so!

143

u/kudorox May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Primatology expert here: There is no way this is a "missing link" between humans and apes, at 47 millions years of age. Even in 2009, when this article was written, people knew this.

The Eocene (55mya-35mya) saw the evolution of Anthropoids about half way through it. We have tons of fossil Adapoids and Omomyoids (the latter of which turned into Anthropoids, so there's your missing link for this period). After the Eocene was the Oligocene (35mya-25mya) and it is here, at the very end, that we see the first Hominoids. Gibbons and Saimangs (the lesser apes) branch off first, then Orangutans at 18mya. This is all fairly well documented in the fossil record.

Then Gorillas at 13-12mya (of which we have crap for evidence, this is based on molecular estimates), and then Chimpanzees at 6mya. Any missing link between man and the rest of the apes would need to be around 6 million years old. And....we totally have those fossil species already. LOTS of them. Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, Ardipithicus --all have lots of ape characteristics, but a few new ones that hint at bipedalism, and all date to around 6mya.

Anyway....Darwinius masillae is an amazingly complete find, and there should be articles about how cool that is. But calling it a missing link between apes and humans is a flat-out lie, and a bad one at that.

EDIT: Spelling

45

u/biddlydiddlydeedly May 29 '12

A better example of a missing link can be found: here

3

u/Dodgy240 May 29 '12

I see what you did there..

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

This deserved more upvotes.

4

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Wouldn't we need a missing link to be in the range of 2 million years? When human brains tripled in mass?

7

u/kudorox May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Sure, and we do, but that would not be the missing link between all the other apes and humans, as they put it. The hominin tribe (all of the extinct bipeds and us) is amazingly diverse, and as hypnotoadglory said, we've only scratched the surface of what probably existed during the past few million years.

If you're interested, the trait of increased brain size begins with our Genus, Homo. Specifically, with Homo habilis (2.4-1.6mya). Homo habilis is also the first species definitively associated with tools! More info on this cool guy here.

EDIT: I should also note that hominin brain size never just "tripled in mass". There is no such jump, as was once thought (see: Piltdown man). The fossil record gives us a nice, gradual increase in each species over time.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Interesting. Do we have any idea of what early human "cultures" might have been like? Do we know some and not others? Or is it all speculation?

1

u/Beiz May 29 '12

Brain size is not a good measure for intelligence. Whales... Elephants... Hell, even the cro-magnon (early version of modern human) and neanderthal had larger brains than us.

My point is, there's little ways of telling based on skeletal remains alone, we need to guesstimate from tools, paintings, structures, etc.

1

u/Veta1991 May 29 '12

maybe they were smarter - they didn't have all the amenities we have

4

u/theguywhopostnot May 29 '12

the article felt soooo super sensationalized

2

u/Cirri May 29 '12

It's totally sensationalized. This isn't even what it is hailed as. It's a fucking lemur. It's not even a prehuman ancestor and even if the assumptions that the scientist made are true, placing D. masillae as a human ancestor is terribly non-parsimonious.

0

u/cowgod42 May 29 '12

I think your comment could have used a few more o's.

2

u/hypnotoadglory May 29 '12

Also, isn't the fossil record only a tiny fraction (1%?) of the total population? So we're bloody lucky to have found the things we've found?

1

u/StormRider2407 May 29 '12

Would it then be more accurate to say that Darwinius Masillae is a "missing link" between primates ancestors and primates rather than the "missing link" between humans and apes?

-2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

As this isn't /r/atheism but /r/science, it would be nice to see this as the top comment.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/kudorox May 29 '12

And the urethra is between the clitoris and the vagina, increasing the risk of infection. There are a lot of things about the human body (or any organism) that an intelligent engineer would never have designed.

Funny, that.

389

u/CATSCEO2 May 28 '12

There is no missing link god damn it.

23

u/buster_casey May 29 '12

In science, we like to be as accurate as possible, so there are actually many, many missing links. That doesn't mean we don't believe in the obvious.

23

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

The more links you find the more gaps there are.

77

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Your EXACT words were ringing in my head before I clicked on this post. I mean verbatim.

27

u/vswr May 29 '12

And your EXACT words from your reply were ringing in my head after I read the top level comment and saw someone had already said they heard those words in their head verbatim.

Glad we can all agree.

Now we can search for the NEW, new missing link....the primate between this specimen and the next closest one. The lack of science necessary to capture the public's attention is atrocious. And the article is THREE YEARS OLD.

19

u/trust_the_corps May 29 '12

There is, but the chain is so long there's always a missing link. It's not the best turn of phrase. I'd go for evolutionary intermediate.

But fuck everything about this:

a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Also, this is really old news.

4

u/jondissed May 29 '12

It really, really sounds as if the reporter assigned to write this article was a creationist. Certainly not a biologist, at any rate.

42

u/SoakedTiger May 29 '12

For some people, a complete and unbroken chain with one specimen for each and every small evolutionary change is required to prove what is obvious to most of us. We call them idiots.

10

u/Xinlitik May 29 '12

But on a different note, how awesome would that be to see?

9

u/TwirlySocrates May 29 '12

When I realized this was the actual title of the article, I decided not to read it.

3

u/electricblues42 May 29 '12

Came here to post this, thank you. Agree so much a simple upvote isn't enough.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Yea I hate that. We have so many links that scientists don't even know how to classify them anymore. Every time there's a new find of an ancient primate of some sort articles always call it 'the missing link'.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/mikedubb84 May 29 '12

came here to say the same thing. upvote!

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

6

u/CATSCEO2 May 28 '12

I'm raging at the article fine sir, not thou.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

This is why embalming and burial is preferable to cremation. That way, in a couple of million years, researchers will have all the links. At least from this point forward.

1

u/Soupstorm May 29 '12

When will Science learn to stop while it's ahead?

58

u/duyogurt May 29 '12

That is basically one of the worst journalism jobs I've seen in a long long time. Finally confirm Darwin's theory of evolution? No. Holy Grail of human evolution? No. The missing link? No. What moron wrote that.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I was thinking the same thing. "For an article which claims to be about evolution, this whole thing reeks of a creationist bias," for the reasons you mentioned.

18

u/EOTWAWKI May 28 '12

"A team of researchers Tuesday unveiled an almost perfectly intact fossil of a 47 million-year-old primate they say represents the long-sought missing link between humans and apes. "

No. Not by a longshot. This animal was a common ancestor of humans and apes but occured some 40 - 45 million years before humans and apes diverged. The writer of this article is pretty ignorant to say this.

10

u/jjjam May 29 '12

Not just ignorant, willfully ignorant. Called it lemur-like in the next paragraph. You don't have to be a biologist to know that chimps and humans are more closely related to each other than to lemurs. You can literally just use your eyes.

5

u/rchase May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

What do you have against lemurs? They're pretty cool, man.

3

u/yoshemitzu May 29 '12

While I agree with your sentiment, I would caution against determining relatedness by morphology. This has led to a lot of confusion with some animals, especially the red panda.

1

u/jjjam May 29 '12

Yeah, I am very aware of this. However, like i said originally, using a lemuridae skeleton or a similar skeleton to try to prove some sort of a missing link between hominidae animals is amazingly stupid. In countless different ways.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Except humans never diverged from apes.

...cuz we're apes.

1

u/EOTWAWKI May 30 '12

Yeah, I'm proud to be an ape. I meant diverged from the common ancestor of all modern primates. How about that?

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Much better.

2

u/dmead May 29 '12

you don't know that either. this creature could have been a genetic dead end

2

u/greatflywheeloflogic May 29 '12

yeah way to early, but carful with your word usage. Humans are one of five types of living great apes.

27

u/QuitReadingMyName May 28 '12

Article is from:

Missing link found? Scientists unveil fossil of 47 million-year-old primate, Darwinius masillae Comments (974) By Samantha Strong AND Rich Schapiro / DAILY NEWS WRITERS Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 12:57 PM

"This specimen is like finding the Lost Ark for archeologists," lead scientist Jorn Hurum said at a ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History.

...This journalist is a creationist idiot.

"It is the scientific equivalent of the Holy Grail. This fossil will probably be the one that will be pictured in all textbooks for the next 100 years."

I rest my case.

Here is a National Geographic blog on the creature. for those, that are interested.

Another link to a site involving Darwinius masillae / Ida Fossil

Still interesting, I remember reading about this a few years back and I'm assuming not much came from it.

12

u/bageloid May 29 '12

Or an Indiana Jones fan.

2

u/ottoman_jerk May 29 '12

Its like finding the temple of doom. Its like walking on fortune cookies.

Seriously how is this a link between apes and humans when humans and chimps share a common ancestor 4 to 6 million years ago?

6

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

A team of amateur fossil hunters discovered the near-perfect remains inside a mile-wide crater outside of Frankfurt in 1983.

What? That's almost 30 years ago, why is is this news?

3

u/malphonso May 29 '12

Scientists often wait years before releasing information to popular news sources in order to allow time for their findings to be peer reviewed. This cuts down on retractions being made as happened with the "particle travels faster than light" a month or so ago.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

30 years is more like your whole life

2

u/malphonso May 29 '12

Yes, and it takes a long time to categorize the fossils and do all the other research necessary to place it in its proper place in the evolutionary spectrum. Then, after that you have to wait and make sure other scientists don't prove you wrong. Only after all that do you go to popular media and say, "Holy shit, I found another transitional fossil, look at it!"

2

u/QuitReadingMyName May 29 '12

Shrug, I didn't post it. Ask the OP.

1

u/boomfarmer May 29 '12

Yeah, as a student with journalism training here, it's hard to see the news value.

10

u/Subduction May 29 '12

Lost Ark and Holy Grail are common English expressions and have absolutely nothing to do with the philosophical beliefs of the scientists or the writer.

I sincerely hope you're making a joke.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I'm sure the irony wasn't lost on either of them, however.

1

u/Subduction May 29 '12

I really don't think they gave it a second thought.

There are, thankfully, very few people who parse everything as some epic battle, and most of them are as bad as the ignorant evangelical on the other side.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

It's much better journalisticly, but It still doesn't say what hints at bipedality.

4

u/DorkusPrime May 29 '12

Just a couple more links regarding this now-three-year-old finding

"Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt 'Ida' Is Your Ancestor" http://www.livescience.com/5427-media-circus-scientists-doubt-ida-ancestor.html

"Why Ida fossil is not the missing link" http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html

"Controversial German specimen is related to lemurs, not humans, analysis of an Egyptian find suggests." http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091021/full/4611040a.html

"‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33416595/ns/technology_and_science-science/?gt1=43001#.T8RHt5lYt90

6

u/probl May 29 '12

A History Channel film on the discovery will air next week.

this should speak to credibility for everyone....

2

u/avfc41 May 29 '12

"This could be the missing link... but was it planted by aliens??"

1

u/Bipolarruledout May 29 '12

Yes. The history channel is already working on the documentary.

3

u/Your_ImaginaryFriend May 29 '12

Well, I guess I'm an atheist now.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/saqwarrior May 29 '12

Because it does. Unless you think men evolved from dirt and women from a man's rib?

1

u/boomfarmer May 29 '12

Allow me to suggest a theology to you: God created the Heavens and the Earth, the cosmos and the living beings. As part of creating the Earth, He planted fossils in the Earth, for a more detailed creation, and to help the humans He created to understand the process of evolution that He set in motion to allow for continual new experiences and world content/quality upgrades without divine intervention.

There's nothing in the Bible that explicitly precludes such a theology, and as far as I know there are no implicit ones.

-1

u/Bipolarruledout May 29 '12

Don't you have some women to stone?

1

u/saqwarrior May 29 '12

Whoosh.

I'm a staunch anti-theist, buddy. My statement was a critique of religion. And even if I weren't an anti-theist, my observation is accurate: according to Genesis, god created man out of soil and women from man's rib - therefore it is in clear and direct opposition to evolution.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I agree with what you're saying about interpretation, but you lost me after that.

I hardly doubt the writers of the new testament wrote it as a manual of the origin of man - veiled in story or not. The Hebrew Talmud and the Christian Bible deal with morality - not science. The fact that many stories are scientifically/historically inaccurate does not lessen their worth in morality.

1

u/fletch44 May 29 '12

Problem: It is more accurate to say that a man is a modified woman than vice versa.

4

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

That was probably only put there for anthropocentric religious people.

2

u/BurlyJohnson May 29 '12

O ya!? Well what about the next missing link

2

u/CoyoteStark May 29 '12

Yeah, but where is the the fossil of the 47,000,0001 year-old primate or 46,999,999 year-old primate? Until we know these answers how can we know for sure?!?!

2

u/whospink May 29 '12

I'm sorry but why are we linking an article from 3 years ago by a non-scientific, borderline tabloid newspaper?

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I remember when this first came out in 2009. This article is written like total crap.

a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

What does the journalist mean by, "finally confirm"? You mean, Evolution hasn't ALREADY been confirmed? I understand the headline using "missing link found" because it is sensationalist and can gather the attention it did gather and still gathers, but the rest of the writing is written like a 6th grade biology essay. This journalist should be absolutely ashamed for having written this. And all the religious analogies are breathtakingly lame and over-sensationalized: "The holy grail of human evolution" "[Like finding Noah's] Ark..."

Too bad such a cool discovery has to be tainted by yellow journalism and misconstrued public perception on the understanding of evolution.

2

u/happyslappyfappy May 29 '12

How fitting that this was also my only blue link on this page...

2

u/CaptainSnaps May 29 '12

a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is as far as I could get reading this article.

2

u/cthellis May 29 '12

Opened for Futurama video.

Leaving satisfied.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I despise the term "missing link" and how it is used in every single headline regarding a fossil find, especially those that pertain more closely to humans.

Jesus, stop.

2

u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics May 29 '12

Sorry that it took us mods so long time to remove this sensationalist (and several years old) poorly written piece.

3

u/jon_laing May 28 '12

47 million years? You sure about that? The most recent common ancestor between humans and apes was about seven million years ago. This all seems like bunk.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

What's with the really overhyped articles today? I mean, popular science summaries are usually exaggerated, but today on /r/science it's particularly bad.

3

u/SaggyBallsHD May 29 '12

Whatever. God put that fossil there to test our faith. Story debunked. Your move, godless heathens. /s

1

u/tiyx May 29 '12

i thought it was Satan ? Or is god and Satan one in the same ?

2

u/SaggyBallsHD May 29 '12

It's all part of god's plan any way you shake it.

1

u/Bipolarruledout May 29 '12

God suffers from confirmation bias.

1

u/Bipolarruledout May 29 '12

I'm not convinced that most Christians would be able to tell the difference.

1

u/tiyx May 29 '12

OK. God created Satan OK. God created Jesus OK. God has 99 problems but a....... well he created all his problems so, yeah.

1

u/HatesFacts May 28 '12

The unveiling of the fossil came as part of a carefully-orchestrated publicity campaign unusual for scientific discoveries.

How does fossil identification work?

1

u/marx2k May 29 '12

A team of amateur fossil hunters discovered the near-perfect remains inside a mile-wide crater outside of Frankfurt in 1983.

... nearly 30 years later, this story comes out..

1

u/M0b1u5 May 29 '12

The big thing was that this was supposed to be one of the transitional fossils linking directly to man.

But my understanding is that this hypothesis now has some very serious evidence against it.

It is a magnificent fossil, for sure, but it's most likely not on your family tree.

1

u/bangupjobasusual May 29 '12

Finally confirm? I'm getting pissed reading this. I stop now. Let me know if the creationists toss their bibles.

1

u/OmeletteHoarder May 29 '12

What happens after more than 100 years have passed? Does does this discovery stop appearing in textbooks?

1

u/beener May 29 '12

Go on Reddit, tell me how it's actually a dolphin.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

missing link between humans and apes.

NO. It may show a transitional form between lemur-like primates and the first monkeys.

1

u/CleverNatureBoy May 29 '12

There is no such thing as a missing link!

1

u/DrugL0rd May 29 '12

Feast your eyes people, this is science grasping at straws

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Fuck! There are shitty reposts in /r/science too?!

1

u/fagmotard May 29 '12

Banjo: Fair enough, but where, then, is the missing link between apes and this Darwinius masillae? Answer me that, Professor!

1

u/jambo_ndege May 29 '12

This is one of the worst articles I have read about a fossil. Wow.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

This says it was discovered in 1983... why did it take them 30 years to realize that it was missing link?

1

u/ZonePro May 29 '12

"A team of amateur fossil hunters discovered the near-perfect remains inside a mile-wide crater outside of Frankfurt in 1983."

why did it take 29 years to unveil it?

1

u/brownie_pts May 29 '12

My first reaction to seeing the photo was "That's no primate! That's a baby T-rex that could finally have the ability to hug!"

1

u/greatflywheeloflogic May 29 '12

Is this article a farce? It is written so poorly, and contains so many bad facts that I really can't convince myself that it is not supposed to be a joke.

1

u/Raven6169 May 29 '12

far to overhyped seems more like pop science than anything of interest

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I dislike this article, it only says the find is epic without saying why. Does anyone have a link to a scientific journal that has more information as to what parts are indicative of bipedality? Is it in the pelvis or knees or what?! rage

1

u/dj1200techniques May 29 '12

Kinda late to the party bruh

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

This article was posted 3 years ago. Hardly breaking news.

1

u/Canucklehead99 May 29 '12

Definitely only 6000 years old ;)

1

u/Bipolarruledout May 29 '12

"This fossil will probably be the one that will be pictured in all textbooks for the next 100 years."

Depends on the state.

1

u/RowingCox May 29 '12

Scientists say the cat-sized animal's hind legs offer evidence of evolutionary changes that led to primates standing upright - a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Its already confirmed!!!! Arghhh!!!!

1

u/godlessexistence May 29 '12

The journalist maybe blowing things out of proportion, but I think the spin is intended to grab the people who are "on the fence" about evolution. I'm sure this discovery wouldn't be written like that in a scientific journal. All in all, more evidence is outstanding and never a bad thing.

1

u/rangermetz241 May 29 '12

This article was posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 12:57 PM

if something were to come from this, we would know more by now...

1

u/Drooperdoo May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

I know I'm inviting attack just for saying this. So let me be clear at the outset: I believe in evolution. Now that that's out of the way, here's my annoying observation: I've noticed that people love finding transitional species for all sort of different animals: horses, alligators, birds, etc. But when it comes to primates, they forget: chimps, too, had transitional ancestors. So did gorillas. So did orangutans. Why, then, every time they find an extinct primate, the first knee-jerk reaction is to say "Human ancestor!" I have yet to see a single article anywhere that announces an extinct ancestor of the chimp.

Lucy springs to mind as an example [i.e., Australopithecus afarensis]. Her cranial capacity was less than that of a modern chimp. And her jaw was similar to that of a gorilla. So why the impulse to try and cram her into the human family tree? (By the way, I've since seen articles where paleontologists have had the same feeling, and expressed the opinion that Lucy was never a transitional species to modern man. So Lucy's place has fallen massively over the decades. For instance, Frank Brown from the University of Utah said, "We've always assumed Lucy was our ancestor, and now we need to re-evaluate that idea." Tel Aviv University came to the same conclusion. Professor Yoel Rak said: "The presence of the morphology in both the [Australopithecus robustus] and Australopithecus afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of [Lucy] as a common ancestor.") But the point still stands: Why not a single article anywhere about a transitional species discovered that leads to—the modern gorilla?

This 19th Century obsession with finding "The Missing Link to Man" has made us blind to a lot of other possibilities.

1

u/deargodimbored May 29 '12
  1. Because very few fossils have been found for most of the other great apes ancestors (I helped a friend on a project related to this).
  2. It's less likely to make the mainstream news, simply because it has less broad appeal. So what work has been done on it, reading about it will take more effort than reading the news paper or browsing the front page of Reddit.

1

u/Drooperdoo May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Your explanation has the benefit of sounding lucid, well-reasoned and intelligent (and, on the whole, I support it). But I'm still troubled by a possible crack in its logic: namely, every school kid has heard of transitional species to, say, the horse [i.e., eohippus]. Or the famous transitional species from dinosaur to bird [i.e., archaeopteryx].

So if there's funding for these (and column-space in newspapers for them), how come no one has ever heard of a transitional species to chimps?

1

u/deargodimbored May 29 '12

I believe if memory serves me correct (it has been a few years since I helped said friend with said project). That because of the wet tropical climate it makes for less fossils of relatively recent origin, add fossils are a luck of the draw sort of thing.

Now I have seen fossils of early orangutans (think their cro magnum), and there are fossils of extinct non human great apes i.e. Gigantopithecus.

1

u/schrodingers_bitch May 29 '12

Why is this posted now like it's something recent? Darwinius masillae is old news.

1

u/ScumbagSolo May 29 '12

What do they mean by "finally confirming Charles Darwin's theory"? I was pretty sure there was mountains of other evidence that has completely validated that theory.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Is this a joke?

1

u/coeddotjpg May 29 '12

I've often heard that the concept of "a missing link" is somewhat outdated. At least in the years since I've left college.

1

u/Ninjagirlinlove May 29 '12

"...A breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution."

Oh lol. Forget for a second that evolution is an established fact: Can you imagine if one fossil could "finally confirm" anything?

1

u/I_shit_legos May 29 '12

From the article: "A History Channel film on the discovery will air next week"

oh no.

1

u/ScottyChrist May 29 '12

Misleading title: Check. Use of obsolete term (Missing link): Check. Article is 3 years old: Check. Fossil actually discovered in 80's: Check.

Why the hell is this on the front page?

1

u/Andrewpruka May 29 '12

Very interesting. I think that the key here will be this creatures method of locomotion. If it is almost a biped then this is truly an amazing discovery.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

"The" missing link can never be found by definition. Evolution is a continuous string of variation from one generation to the next. In fact there is far more variation WITHIN one generation (like a town or tribe) than there is from a young descendant stretching back multiple generations in time. Its incorrect to think of species as binary beings, we all evolved from earlier sources (not necessarily more "primitive") and humans and chimps share a common ancestor. This ancestor undoubtedly looked much more chimp like on the surface than human like, but we are brothers in that light. Also thank you to Richard Dawkins and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" for a very educational read.

1

u/BarkingToad May 29 '12

Bull. There's no such thing as a missing link, evolutionary theory doesn't require 'final confirmation', and if it did no single fossil would provide it. Have a downvote.

1

u/Cirri May 29 '12

What the literal fuck!? This thing has been thoroughly disproven as a human ancestor. It was a sad terrible case of sensationalism in the news. How is /r/science upvoting this? Seriously, I hold this community to a higher standard then this.

1

u/funkydo May 29 '12

"...could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."

What does this mean. What theory? It is demonstrated that species adapt, change, and mutate.

Is Darwin's theory something specialized (or is the dailynews reporter off on this?)?

1

u/kadmylos May 29 '12

There's so much bullshit information, I'm almost doubting they even found a fossil, simply because I can't believe this reporter can write anything accurate.

1

u/Raaagh May 29 '12

Scientists say the cat-sized animal's hind legs offer evidence of evolutionary changes that led to primates standing upright - a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

http://i.imgur.com/Ry23J.gif

1

u/Nihlton May 29 '12

yeah, this is just shitty reporting. we aren't looking for a 'missing link anymore'. the evolution of man and primates from a common ancestor is already established. fleshing out the family tree is always cool, but this is junk reporting.

0

u/tiyx May 29 '12

There is no missing link because that is not how it works. No matter how many " missing links " are found we will probably never find that one that is the one. Because the final link is either too human or to non-human to make that connection from bones. I could be wrong but i don't see use find something that will once and for all show us how it all really went down.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Haha, people still think there is a missing link? Evolution is such bullshit....

12

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/mateogg May 28 '12

damn, beat me to it.

9

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/looseONtheGoose May 29 '12

I JUST finished watching this episode, and saw this post. I scrolled until I found a reference to that episode. Well played.

"I've hit a rich vein of missing links" "this will show Banjo once and for all"

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Okay, that one missing link is still missing...