Missing Link Discovered

[VulcanJedi]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor

Seems kind of anti-climactic. How would anyone know if they didn't tell us?

It looks like a lemur or a spider-monkey.

I guess the opposable thumb is the big thing...and the foot.

Why is it not just a lemur-monkey species that has gone extinct?

Not a rhetorical question or agenda driven; will consider any answers or materials, sources to read. I have read "Origin of Species" Dawkins, and other books. I understand millions and millions of years of adaptation. But, still not sure. To me, one thing to study would be dating process: if I could trust that, the rest might follow. But, I find the dating processes cryptic.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

Well, it is just a species that has gone extinct, but it is the best-preserved Eocene primate and tells us a lot about the evolution of higher primates. The Messel fauna is just spectacular anyway - there was a National Geographic article on it probably 5 years ago. It's 47 million years old but due to the exceptional preservation (no oxygen for decay, bodies encased in tar virtually immediately after death) there are still beetles with iridescent colors! This fossil has preserved soft tissues, including stomach contents. The original article is open access, so anyone can read it here.

Primates are divided into two groups, the Strepsirrhini (which includes lemurs, lorises, and a couple other genera) and the Haplorhini (which includes tarsiers and all more derived primates). This paper suggests that the new fossil and a few other species from similar-aged rocks are early Haplorhini, when many of those taxa used to be grouped with the Strepsirrhini.

That grouping was based on the fact that they retained primitive characters (such as a "free ring-like ectotympanic within the auditory bulla"). But when classifying organisms it is not particularly useful to use shared primitive characters (called plesiomorphies). For example, a shared primitive character of all vertebrates is the presence of bones - not very useful for determining whether we are more closely related to apes or crocodiles. You should instead use shared derived characters (called synapomorphies), which first evolve in a group. A synapomorphy of mammals is fur, or mammary glands, for example. Those characters are useful for distinguishing mammals from reptiles, while the plesiomorphic character of bones would not be.

The new species has six synapomorphies that place it within the Haplorhini (according to their paper those are: cranium with short rostrum, deep mandibular ramus, fused mandibular symphysis, vertical spatulate incisors, relatively small steep fibular facet on astragalus, and loss of all grooming claws). It is important because it gives us a picture of one of the most primitive members of our primate lineage (although this, like tarsiers, is below the divergence of anthropoids).

It also shows how difficult it often is to distinguish members of two groups very close to their divergence. The first Haplorhini would be nearly identical to its Strepsirrhini ancestor, with only a tiny change.

 

[Lindley]

The article is written in a bit of a sensationalist tone. Things like this:

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolutionhttp://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/On...volution For Darwin's Work&lpos=searchresults

would never actually be said by scientists. ("Strongly supports", sure. "Confirms", no.)

 

[Dac]

This is the thing the history channel and the BBC have been running stings for..."It will change history forever" and "the most ground breaking discovery of all time" have been banded about on these ads. Or words to those effects.

Ha, is what I say to those adverts.

 

[FordSVT]

The article is written in a bit of a sensationalist tone. Things like this:

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution

would never actually be said by scientists. ("Strongly supports", sure. "Confirms", no.)

Not to mention the fact that is makes it seem like scientists have been sitting around with hardly any evidence for their theories prior to this discovery. As if to say, "Finally, we can show you some evidence for the crazy theories we espouse!".

"Finally" shouldn't be in that sentence. "Researchers say proof of this transitional species is amongst the best fossil evidence yet in support of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution". See how easy it was? Doesn't have that punch to it though, right?

 

[Overgeeked]

The article is written in a bit of a sensationalist tone. Things like this:

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution

would never actually be said by scientists. ("Strongly supports", sure. "Confirms", no.)

Not to mention the fact that is makes it seem like scientists have been sitting around with hardly any evidence for their theories prior to this discovery. As if to say, "Finally, we can show you some evidence for the crazy theories we espouse!".

"Finally" shouldn't be in that sentence. "Researchers say proof of this transitional species is amongst the best fossil evidence yet in support of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution". See how easy it was? Doesn't have that punch to it though, right?

But, to be fair, for the last several years science has been under attack in America. Ignorant people have used the equivocating language of science (theory, unproven, suggest, support) to poke holes in the general publics acceptance of science and scientific theories. The argument has been, for a long time, that "until the missing link is found, this evolution stuff is just a theory." Theory here of course misused from the scientific sense to mean that it's nothing more than an unproven idea, i.e. bullshit.

That's the trouble. They're modern scientists. Check their website. There's already a book and a documentary. If they were real scientists, they wouldn't have kept the discovery secret until the book deal and documentary were finished.

"No more need to fight for funding boys, we just sew up a book deal, documentary sale, and we've got copyright, anyone else goes with this public info now and we can sue 'em."