Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Missing link found?

  1. May 19, 2009 #1
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. May 19, 2009 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yeah. This is awesome.

    But. I hedge my bets. Throw a few bucks on "hoax" and on "viral movie promo".
  4. May 20, 2009 #3
    This has probably been said many times before on this forum, but "missing link" is an invalid concept in evolutionary biology since evolution is not the great chain of being, but a tree of life. What they have claimed to found is thus a potential common ancestor to both humans and lemurs with human/lemur diagnostic features.
  5. May 20, 2009 #4

    Andy Resnick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

  6. May 20, 2009 #5
    Very cool!

    It is somewhat odd that such a find was actually made in 1983 and remained unknown until being turned over to a museum more than 25 years later. I wonder how many other great finds made by amateurs are just sitting out there "undiscovered" on someones mantle or in a closet or something?
  7. May 20, 2009 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The conclusion of the paper:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  8. May 20, 2009 #7
    Darwinius masillae...

    http://www.revealingthelink.com/the-discovery/" [Broken]
    http://www.revealingthelink.com/the-discovery/uncovering-ida" [Broken]
    http://www.revealingthelink.com/idas-world/the-rainforest" [Broken]

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  9. May 21, 2009 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  10. May 21, 2009 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    While this is true enough, it has very limited meaning. We don't find "common ancestors"; and there's no way to tell if you have a "common ancestor". What you may have is a species which is close to the line of ancestry, but you can never actually tell if a particular fossil represents a species that became extinct (the most usual case!) or a species that went on to to be ancestral to other species now living.

    PS. Note that I am not presenting this ias skepticism about the find, but about the nature of fossils and the general form of scientific inferences from fossils. I'm emphasizing "cladistic" reasoning. Finds like this this are exciting and tell us lots about the nature of our evolutionary history, and hence about our ancestry. Meanginful falsifiable conclusions and hypotheses about fossil are about whether it is more or less closely related: not about whether it is directly ancestral or not. Being "directly" ancestral is an amusing speeculation. The real information being obtained, however, is a phylogeny. The questions are never -- is this ancestral to that, but is this more closely related to that than to something else?

    In other words, the scientific inference is not about ancetry relationships between fossils, or species, but inferences about which fossils have the most recent common ancestors. It's a subtle difference, but worth understanding.
    Last edited: May 21, 2009
  11. May 21, 2009 #10
    I don't think we should leap to conclusions about the nature of this find. The paper they sent out doesn't mention any kind of 'missing link', and is very cautious in how it is written regarding this concept. The paper hasn't even been fully peer reviewed yet, so we should not assume it is good enough to base these speculations on. I think that although this is an amazing find because of the age and the nature of it, the idea that it is one of our direct ancestors has been 'hyped up' by the media, like many science stories.
    I'm not saying it is definitely not our ancestor, but that we can not be certain.
  12. May 21, 2009 #11
    Well any new fossil find that uncovers a previously unknown species (especially from the era from which this specimen came from where there is so little data), is very valuable regardless of whether or not it is a "direct" descedent.

    As Moridin pointed out, it's not so much a "missing link" as it is a "missing branch" of the tree of life. And this one in particular that seems to be near the beginning of the emergence of primates is a great piece to add to the puzzle! :approve: (assuming no hoaxes, of course)
  13. May 21, 2009 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Mr. Jørn Hurum, who is a somewhat flamboyant Norwegian paleontologist (if that is possible!), is also a shrewd media manipulator.

    He knows that the find and the two years of research prior to publication (!) stands very well on its own, scientifically speaking.
    It is a tremendously important find, mainly due to its extremely good state of preservation (rather than being some sort of critical link).

    However, Mr. Hurum wants more:
    Namely to whip up non-paleontological enthusiasm for Ida (incidentally named after his own 6-year old daughter..), and to get the media going, he uses the "missing link" metaphor, since "missing links" sounds so mysterious and exciting...
  14. May 21, 2009 #13
    Absolutely, I wasn't saying it was worthless, I was just saying we don't know for certain what it is. I think it's an amazing find, because of how old and well preserved it is, and because of the particular species.
  15. May 21, 2009 #14
    Standard part of Duane Gish's talks.
  16. May 23, 2009 #15
    My creationist friend says this has just strengthened his faith, because now there are TWO missing links - one before and one after Ida.
  17. May 23, 2009 #16
    "missing link" is nothing more than PT Barnum speak. in the interest of science, they paid $1,000,000 USD for a fossil, and now they're hyping the crap out of it to try and recover their investment. yay science!
  18. May 23, 2009 #17
    I don't know about this guy and his intentions, but on part of the media (who in either case is responsible for spreading information irresponsibly) it really bothers me when a fossil is touted as a "missing link"-- it only helps propagate already widespread misinformation and further distort the public's view of evolution.

    as if scientists are sitting around just waiting for "missing links" to show up to verify common descent. the newsmedia only goes after a science story when it sounds cool or mysterious, which puts the idea in people's heads that scientists are a bunch of nutcases who spend their time wildly chasing crazy ideas like missing links, invisibility cloaks, and alternate dimensions without any hard evidence to back them up. if they'd AT LEAST do a minute overview of the subject matter and put these lines of research in context, I'd be a happier guy.

    I mean, look at this video:

    the FIRST EVER link to human beings?
    well... I guess tiny single celled organisms just don't look cool enough when you rotate them under a spotlight.
    seriously, could that statement be any more misleading? and I've seen much worse on the news.

    "for two years, a team of top scientists secretly studied a unique fossil."
    boy... those shady scientists. can't trust those. at least these aren't the same scientists who are trying to make that black hole in hawaii that will turn us all into spaghetti.
    Last edited: May 23, 2009
  19. May 24, 2009 #18


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Does this discovery bear the same significance as Archaeopteryx for transitional fossils if confirmed?
  20. May 25, 2009 #19


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Having just seen the whole presentation of The Link on the History Channel, it looks to me like it is an interesting find ... but not necessarily a missing link in any extraordinary direct sense. (Though from 47 million years ago, maybe that's close enough.) It's a transitional specimen from a time where the record is incomplete and it is neither necessarily lemur nor human. (Simian nor anthropoid.) So it comes as a remarkably complete specimen, which I think is maybe the more important contribution it may make.

    Hurum himself makes me a little uncomfortable. It looks to me reading between the lines that Hurum wants to take credit in the worst way and promote himself as important as Leakey or Johanson (Lucy). If he could, I think he would just give himself a Nobel for scrounging the fossil from a dealer at a fossil show. (It was extracted decades ago and was apparently sitting in someone's drawer.)

    He clearly wants it to be a missing link - from the beginning of his tale. That makes me a little suspicious of his objectivity.
  21. May 26, 2009 #20
    hence "potential", but I value your clarification.
  22. May 26, 2009 #21


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Fortunately, within rigorous sciences, like paleontology, it doesn't matter much if a scientist is a bit too transparent in his desire to make his own name larger.

    It will be the find, and what the team has found out about it, that ultimately will make or break Hurum's reputation down (or up) to the deserved level.

    However that judgment turns out to be, we cannot deny that this is a sensationally lucky find:
    A 95% complete primate fossil, 47 million years old!

    Even if it should be proven that this is, say, an ancestor of a lemur, rather than a pre-anthropoid, the fossil has immense research value, whether or not Mr. Hurum has misinterpreted it.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook