TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Ida, the 47 million year old fossil - missing link?
Ida, the 47 million year old fossil - missing link?
http://www.revealingthelink.com
Thought you might like this....
STRICTLY EMBARGOED UNTIL
TUESDAY 19TH MAY 2009 11AM EST / 4PM UK TIME/ 5PM
OSLO TIME
PRESS RELEASE
THE LINK
Scientists announce the discovery of a 47 million year old primate fossil that is set to revolutionise our understanding of human evolution.
Oslo, Tuesday 19th May 2009
THE UNIVERSITY OF OSLO AND THE SENCKENBERG RESEARCH
INSTITUTE REVEAL LANDMARK SCIENTIFIC FIND
Scientists have announced today in New York the discovery of a 47 million year old human ancestor. Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, the fossil is twenty times older than most fossils that explain human evolution. Known as Ida , the fossil is a transitional species showing characteristics from the very primitive non-human evolutionary line (prosimians, such as lemurs), but she is more related to the human evolutionary line (anthropoids, such as monkeys, apes and humans). This places Ida at the very root of anthropoid evolution when primates were first developing the features that would evolve into our own. The scientists findings are
published today by PLoS ONE, the peer reviewed open access journal from the Public Library of Science. For the past two years, an international team of scientists, led by world-renowned Norwegian fossil scientist Dr J�rn Hurum, University of Oslo Natural History Museum, has secretly conducted a detailed forensic analysis of the extraordinary fossil, studying the data to decode humankinds ancient origins. At 95% complete, Ida is set to revolutionise our understanding of human evolution. 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 oilrich shale is a significant site for fossils of the Eocene Epoch. Fossil analysis reveals that the prehistoric primate was a young female. Opposable big toes and nails confirm the fossil is a primate, and a foot bone called the talus bone links Ida directly to humans. The fossil also features the complete soft body outline as well as the gut contents; a herbivore, Ida feasted on fruits, seeds and leaves before she died. X-rays reveal both baby and adult teeth, and the lack of a toothcomb or a toilet claw which is an attribute of lemurs. The scientists estimate Ida s age when she died to be approximately nine months, and she measured approximately three feet in length.
Ida lived 47 million years ago at a critical period in Earth s history. I t fell within the Eocene Epoch, a time when the blueprints for modern mammals were being established. Following the extinction of dinosaurs, 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 recognise today the Himalayas were being formed and modern flora and fauna evolved. Land mammals, including primates, lived amid vast jungle. Ida was found to be lacking two of the 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. Like all primates, Ida has five fingers on each hand. Her opposable thumb would have provided a precision grip . In Ida s case, this is useful for climbing and gathering fruit; in our
case, it allows important human functions such as making tools, and writing. Ida would have also had flexible arms, which would have allowed her to use both hands for any task that cannot be done with one like grabbing a piece of fruit. Like us, Ida also has quite short arms and legs. Evidence in the talus bone links Ida to us. The bone has the same shape as in humans today. Only the human talus is obviously bigger. X-rays, CT scanning and computer tomography reveal Ida to be about nine months old when she died, and provide clues to her diet which included berries and plants. Furthermore the lack of a bacculum (penis bone) means that the fossil was definitely female.
X-rays reveal that a broken wrist may have contributed to Ida s death
her left wrist was healing from a bad fracture. The scientists believe she was overcome by carbon dioxide gas whilst from drinking from the Messel lake: the still waters of the lake were often covered by a low lying blanket of the gas as a result of the
volcanic forces that formed the lake and which were still active. Hampered by her broken wrist, Ida slipped into unconsciousness, was washed into the lake, and sunk to the bottom, where unique reservation conditions preserved her for 47 million years.
god made me
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cro_Addict god made me |
I was developed by a killer robot driving instructor that travelled back in time for some reason.
His best friend is a talking pie.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cro_Addict god made me |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by love_child pictures or it didnt happen |
It pretty awesome that they also have the outline of her soft tissue body and her gut with contents...
.....even though she's not the missing link as there is no missing link. Aleins just altered us and made humans what we are today....
They should plant the seeds from the fruit found in her stomach.
While this is a great step forward--an amazing discovery actually--it's important not to confuse Ida as a singular transitional fossil. As there have been dozens of so called "missing-links" throughout the past 70 years or so; this is just another one. Granted, it's very unique.
video and picture
what the hell you locked it.. ok i copy and pasted my post here then :
Its all semantics really. this Divergence goes way back as shown. We also have 50 million year old primates and even before then we can look at the super order Euarchontans which tree shrews fit in. Their ancestors could also be the missing link before their divergence.
This missing link takes us all the way back to the level of primates and then the divergence occurs. We have the sub order Strepsirrhini which contains Darwinius sp. And on the other side we have the suborder Haplorrhini which contains homo sapiens sapiens (us).
if you remember your biology we have the following classifications
Kingdom: which splits plants from animals, fungi etc
phylum: there are only 36 of them,on of them is animals with nerve chord
(proto spine or spine)
Class: would seperate birds, mammals, reptiles, types of fish and eels etc. (this is taking into consideration we're talking about ones with nerve chords)
Order: which we have the primates (which follows the class of mammals)
This is where our missing link diverges at this point according to cladistics as the suborder comes next.
usually when we think of missing link we are thinking very recent (As homo sapiens have only been around a couple of hundred thousand years.)
In this case we think of lucy who diverged only at the subfamily (The family being hominidae) which was about 4 million years ago. She was belived to be one of the first upright walking primates.
So again back to my points of semantics. yes this can be considered a missing link to humans as it is viable that humans may have evolved from a creature like this or diefinatley simiilar. The same can be thought for an extinct fish, sure there is a missing link there as well, but when we think of evolution with regards to humans, its always easier to look at the present and move backwards to make a relationship.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit what the hell you locked it.. ok i copy and pasted my post here then : Its all semantics really. this Divergence goes way back as shown. We also have 50 million year old primates and even before then we can look at the super order Euarchontans which tree shrews fit in. Their ancestors could also be the missing link before their divergence. This missing link takes us all the way back to the level of primates and then the divergence occurs. We have the sub order Strepsirrhini which contains Darwinius sp. And on the other side we have the suborder Haplorrhini which contains homo sapiens sapiens (us). if you remember your biology we have the following classifications Kingdom: which splits plants from animals, fungi etc phylum: there are only 36 of them,on of them is animals with nerve chord (proto spine or spine) Class: would seperate birds, mammals, reptiles, types of fish and eels etc. (this is taking into consideration we're talking about ones with nerve chords) Order: which we have the primates (which follows the class of mammals) This is where our missing link diverges at this point according to cladistics as the suborder comes next. usually when we think of missing link we are thinking very recent (As homo sapiens have only been around a couple of hundred thousand years.) In this case we think of lucy who diverged only at the subfamily (The family being hominidae) which was about 4 million years ago. She was belived to be one of the first upright walking primates. So again back to my points of semantics. yes this can be considered a missing link to humans as it is viable that humans may have evolved from a creature like this or diefinatley simiilar. The same can be thought for an extinct fish, sure there is a missing link there as well, but when we think of evolution with regards to humans, its always easier to look at the present and move backwards to make a relationship. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Abercrombie They should plant the seeds from the fruit found in her stomach. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cro_Addict |
Lol
| quote: |
| Originally posted by love_child That is a photoshop |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cro_Addict No sir! That is paint! |
The concept of a "missing link" is about as useful as "junk DNA." By that I mean... not much.
Worth reading:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/...us_masillae.php
It is their version of marketing hype... I commend them for using corporate marketing strategies to increase interest.
I'm certainly not taking it as literally as you guys.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by basilisk The concept of a "missing link" is about as useful as "junk DNA." By that I mean... not much. Worth reading: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/...us_masillae.php |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit I would definatley not go as far as to try to say that this find is negligable in tracing the evolutionary history of homo sapiens sapiens. And also calling junk DNA irrelevant with respect to evolutionary tracking. The fact is yes it is a missing link in our history, whether it's a direct link or indirect is unknown but it's most probably indirect. The facts are that we have evolved from a creature similar to this and as we trace back and look at previous more recent missing links we see that the laws of parsimony bring us to this logical conclusion. So an interpretation of missing link should not give the reader an impression that this specific creature is our ancestor, but instead give us an idea of the morphological changes that would have incurred over generations of time to bring us to where we are today. So in conclusion the argument of "not much significance" is a sign of ignorance and negligence to scientific evidence. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by basilisk My point is that most people do not understand missing links or junk DNA and constantly misuse these concepts. This finding is pretty interesting but touting it as "the missing link" (or anything as "the missing link") is just scientific grandstanding. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit You will never find a direct missing link and thats obvious. |
well obvioulsy there are missing links otherwise evolution wouldnt occur.
the problem is that speciation is so gradual by the time you have a visually different organism, it has already speciated.
for example we have alot of species of lizzards that look the same but chose to breed seperatley based on location. You get the point i guess
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.