Still mid-reading this, but wondered what you all thought....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Has the Missing Link been found?
- Thread starter Bixyboo
- Start date
Free episodes:
Siani
Despiser of religious nuts
Wow. 47 million years old. I'm having serious difficulty trying to get my head around that concept. And someone sat on this discovery for 20 plus years? The whole thing's pretty mind-blowing. Especially the fact that she has visible hair, tissue and stomach contents - after 47 million years.
Schuyler
Misanthrope
I may be reading more into the question than you intended. Well, it is 'a' heretofore 'missing' link, but not 'the' missing link that never was anyway. Ida is the forerunner of both apes and humans where 'the' missing link was supposed to be a link from apes TO human and was more a popular culture notion than had any basis scientifically.
Short story: In early 20th century anthropology everyone wanted a piece of the ancient man pie and it wasn't well understood. The idea that 'man' came from Africa was unthinkable because they were all obviously heathens. A guy named Charles Dawson put together an orangutang jaw with a human skull, filed the teeth down a bit and threw it on a bog only to have it 'discovered' as proof ancient man originated in (ta da!) jolly old England and the British Empire. It got a lot of press. Most anthopologists at the time dismissed the skull/jaw as nonsense, but one guy, Arthur Keith, said it was genuine. Since Keith was a supposed expert, the story grew legs. This was very early on in the 20th century. Lots of people were suspicious, and when the carbon 14 dating technique was invented, one of the first subjects they jumped on was this skull. It was quickly seen to be a forgery, which should have been obvious in the first place--the jaw was a recent orangutang with recent bone (they drilled a core sample); the skull more ancient with much more fossilized bone.
But the progress in identifying fossils had also much improved and over time it became more accepted that there wasn't a missing link anyway. You can trace Homo sapiens back to Homo erectus pretty easily. Whether the line really follows back through Homo afrensis may still be questionable, it really doesn't matter. We're back far enough to prove the point anyway, that is unless you think we're space aliens or something.
Ida is a pretty cool link to the rest of the animal world and a nice find.
Short story: In early 20th century anthropology everyone wanted a piece of the ancient man pie and it wasn't well understood. The idea that 'man' came from Africa was unthinkable because they were all obviously heathens. A guy named Charles Dawson put together an orangutang jaw with a human skull, filed the teeth down a bit and threw it on a bog only to have it 'discovered' as proof ancient man originated in (ta da!) jolly old England and the British Empire. It got a lot of press. Most anthopologists at the time dismissed the skull/jaw as nonsense, but one guy, Arthur Keith, said it was genuine. Since Keith was a supposed expert, the story grew legs. This was very early on in the 20th century. Lots of people were suspicious, and when the carbon 14 dating technique was invented, one of the first subjects they jumped on was this skull. It was quickly seen to be a forgery, which should have been obvious in the first place--the jaw was a recent orangutang with recent bone (they drilled a core sample); the skull more ancient with much more fossilized bone.
But the progress in identifying fossils had also much improved and over time it became more accepted that there wasn't a missing link anyway. You can trace Homo sapiens back to Homo erectus pretty easily. Whether the line really follows back through Homo afrensis may still be questionable, it really doesn't matter. We're back far enough to prove the point anyway, that is unless you think we're space aliens or something.
Ida is a pretty cool link to the rest of the animal world and a nice find.
Kevin Daly
Skilled Investigator
Schuyler said pretty much everything I was going to say.
I'd just add that even when speaking of fossils that are suspected of lying on the path between ourselves and the last common ancestor of humans and modern apes, the categorisation of one as the latest (perhaps the closest to the idea of a "missing link" that actual science gets to in this context) is inherently provisional: it's only the latest until someone finds a later one, or finds another with features that indicate that it was more likely to be a direct ancestor and that the other represents a related but not directly ancestral branch. This happens all the time in paleaontology and is perfectly normal.
(There's also the confusing fact that different species evolving from a common ancestor will retain a different selection of primitive features: for instance the modern human skull believe it or not has some features that are more "primitive" than those of Neanderthals (basically ours are less rounded and "boxier", like Homo erectus but to a lesser degree))
Assuming we found a specimen that held the most-recent-common-ancestor crown indefinitely, we'd still never know for sure that it was, because of the likelihood that there are entire species of human ancestors for which we'll never find a single fossil. When you consider the likelihood that any given individual out of the more than 6,000,000,000 of us walking the Earth today will be fossilised, it's amazing we've found as much as we have.
I'd just add that even when speaking of fossils that are suspected of lying on the path between ourselves and the last common ancestor of humans and modern apes, the categorisation of one as the latest (perhaps the closest to the idea of a "missing link" that actual science gets to in this context) is inherently provisional: it's only the latest until someone finds a later one, or finds another with features that indicate that it was more likely to be a direct ancestor and that the other represents a related but not directly ancestral branch. This happens all the time in paleaontology and is perfectly normal.
(There's also the confusing fact that different species evolving from a common ancestor will retain a different selection of primitive features: for instance the modern human skull believe it or not has some features that are more "primitive" than those of Neanderthals (basically ours are less rounded and "boxier", like Homo erectus but to a lesser degree))
Assuming we found a specimen that held the most-recent-common-ancestor crown indefinitely, we'd still never know for sure that it was, because of the likelihood that there are entire species of human ancestors for which we'll never find a single fossil. When you consider the likelihood that any given individual out of the more than 6,000,000,000 of us walking the Earth today will be fossilised, it's amazing we've found as much as we have.
tyder001
Paranormal Adept
This may be a good spot to pose this question. I don't want to hijack the thread. Anyway, I was just thinking the other day. I can marry my third cousin because (I didn't) Just talking legality here. Because once you get so far removed then the "kinship" of two people starts to be a non issue. Now I don't want to sound blasphemous 
to all the Darwinians out there. I'm not a fundi or a six day creationist and I "accept" evolution as the best explanation we have for the current state of our species. But here is the question:
Even if we did "evolve" from a "lower" primate form does it really and truly matter to our life now? I mean except to religious fundies of all stripes be they churchy or materialist? If a third or fourth cousin has no real "kinship" then why in the world would I call something that far removed from me a "cousin?" Or an ancestor?
Just wondering since I'm getting ready to go to work and am finishing up my coffee. 
to all the Darwinians out there. I'm not a fundi or a six day creationist and I "accept" evolution as the best explanation we have for the current state of our species. But here is the question:Even if we did "evolve" from a "lower" primate form does it really and truly matter to our life now? I mean except to religious fundies of all stripes be they churchy or materialist? If a third or fourth cousin has no real "kinship" then why in the world would I call something that far removed from me a "cousin?" Or an ancestor?
Just wondering since I'm getting ready to go to work and am finishing up my coffee. 
ddd999
King of Mars
I think this thing is blown way out of proportions by media. Missing link my arse.
You did. Admit it.
Well, I guess it only matters if you are truly interested in knowing where we came from. I remember at a very early age I somehow stumled upon the question. And now my six year old asks "Where did all the people come from?"
If you don't care where we came from or have some belief that answers that question for you , then no it doesn't matter. I'm interested in all sorts of questions that don't seem to matter in this everyday thing we call life, but I am curious so I want to know. So, to me, it does matter.
Schuyler
Misanthrope
Actually, in terms of human origins there is a much more exciting finding with the little hobbits on an island in Indonesia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis) As I understand it, the most recent interpretation of the Hobbit is that it is actually a form of Homo erectus which diminished in size because the island of Flores had few resources. (This was in a recent NOVA episode. Google "hobbit nova" for details.)
The reason this is exciting is that it calls into question the 'Out of Africa" theory which now prevails, suggesting everyhing started in Africa and spread outwards. Given the tropical nature of much of that part of the world, the implication is that a whole lot of things could have happened evolution wise that we simply haven't discovered yet. If you get a chance to watch the Nova episode, it is very worthwhile.
The reason this is exciting is that it calls into question the 'Out of Africa" theory which now prevails, suggesting everyhing started in Africa and spread outwards. Given the tropical nature of much of that part of the world, the implication is that a whole lot of things could have happened evolution wise that we simply haven't discovered yet. If you get a chance to watch the Nova episode, it is very worthwhile.
skunkape
Paranormal Maven
Here's a good site for info on Ida.
The Link - Welcome
They still can't make up their minds on the Hobbits it seems.
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Hobbits 'are a separate species'
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
The Link - Welcome
They still can't make up their minds on the Hobbits it seems.
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Hobbits 'are a separate species'
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
I've been following the news on this for the past few years, well, what little news there is. And they have been flip flopping on this.
One side says this is not a new species and points out apparent bad research and unqualified conclusions. The other says it is a different species by way of cranial measurements and foot and wrist analysis. But the other side then says no,no,no pathological humans. I suspect the verdict is new species, but I doubt the debate is over. At least until another dig is allowed to happen and more remains are found. Quite interesting.
Kevin Daly
Skilled Investigator
The weight of evidence however does seem to point to a separate species, and likely one that diverged earlier than previously thought. I think most of the opposition is coming from the rump of the largely discredited Multiregionalist faction.
My quibble is with the use of the term "Hobbit": we've had words for creatures like these in human languages since, well, a long time, so our first choice shouldn't come from works of fiction IMO. And "goblin" fits these better than "hobbit" anyway....well, actually, on the basis of the latest findings about the feet I'd go for Clown Goblin.
If they find any outside of Flores I'd suggest changing the scientific name from Homo floresiensis to Homo homunculus...um, just because it would be cool. Dibs on that name.
My last take on Ida: to the extent that Ida can be called a "missing link", she's more a link between monkeys and things-trying-to-be-monkeys than what people normally mean by the term. When you get that far back it's not too far further back (OK, maybe a few more tens of millions of years, but essentially small spuds) to start thinking about the common ancestors of primates and rodents (as a non-Creationist Christian I'd love to rub the fundies' faces in that one...that'd teach them to look down their noses at monkeys. Then of course there's the Ancestral Wormy Thing, Or Why It's Handy To Have An In-Hole And An Out-hole And A Tube Between).
The title of the main article is very misleading. It isn't "the missing link" that anthropologists have been looking for. This is simply the oldest ancestor to the human species we've found to date.The real "missing link" that has still eluded anthropologists, as I understand it, would link homo erectus to homo sapiens. As to why we care? It's pretty amazing that this thing eventually evolved into primates and then it evolved into us (it also evolved into other species too!). A lot of folks have problems conceptualizing evolution as a singularly linear process instead of a branching, twisting, splitting and forking tree. The common criticism evolution endures is "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" which demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how natural selection works.
tyder001
Paranormal Adept
Ah thank ah wuz misunderstood. 
Well maybe. Anyway, what I said was simply a thought that I have often had about evolution and "kinship" between species. I was not saying evolution wasn't interesting or important. I am of Irish decent and maybe some German and it's interesting. But I'm an American and would be out of place in some parts of Europe and that is a lot closer to me than a fossil. OH well, I guess I screwed it up again. So Darwin speed to all you fans out there. Budda bless you and God give you wisdom to the others.
Well maybe. Anyway, what I said was simply a thought that I have often had about evolution and "kinship" between species. I was not saying evolution wasn't interesting or important. I am of Irish decent and maybe some German and it's interesting. But I'm an American and would be out of place in some parts of Europe and that is a lot closer to me than a fossil. OH well, I guess I screwed it up again. So Darwin speed to all you fans out there. Budda bless you and God give you wisdom to the others.