“Missing Link” Found? No, But it’s a Cool Fossil
EmailIda, the 47-million-year-old primate fossil found in Germany and unveiled on Tuesday, is a no-question big moment in paleontology. But we noticed that the lead search term today in Google Trends was "Missing Link found" — and that’s a reasonable way of looking for information, but it doesn’t tell you why Ida matters. The scientists who worked on it say that if you’re looking for the real "missing link" — a transitional fossil that links human beings with their primate ancestors — this is not it. Ida — Darwinius masillae to biologists — is more than 40 million years too old for that. Jorn Hurum, the University of Oslo scientist who led the work, told us she is certainly a link between early primates and more recent ones, but even he says we cannot know if she is a direct ancestor of humans. The actual paper on Darwinius masillae, by Hurum and five colleagues, is in the journal PLoS One, and you can find it HERE. One line from it: "Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids." Instead, Hurum says, Ida may be of lasting importance, partly because she is remarkably preserved, and, perhaps more important to the rest of us, because she provides us with this image:
("The Link"/Atlantic Productions. Used with permission.) This is an artist’s rendering of what Ida may have looked in life — more like a modern shrew or a lemur than our classical image of an ape or chimpanzee. The colors in this version (there are others) are supposition, but they’re a reasonable guess. Hurum said if this picture appears in the textbooks (or on the websites) of the future, it will change people’s view of their possible roots.
TechBytes (02.10.12) 
Steve Jobs' FBI File: Bomb Threat? 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
fossil.
Posted by: shawn | May 20, 2009, 5:54 pm 5:54 pm
It’s a good thing that you and other science journalists and bloggers are bringing this up. The stories I saw on World News last night about it were good and didn’t emphasize that it was THE missing link. However Charlie Gibson said twice when teasing and introducing the story that this was “the oldest fossil ever found in history, far older”, which is in no way true and really bugged me. Then I see the GMA story today with the lower third saying “Meet The Missing Link – ‘The Eight Wonder of the World’”. Things like this confuse people and misrepresent the actual significance of the fossil.
Posted by: Steve B | May 20, 2009, 6:17 pm 6:17 pm
Ned – Thanks for following up on this. It is indeed a great specimen to add to our knowledge, but I think Hurum may still be pushing it even with that quote about “changing people’s view.”
Most biologists would have been aware that a primitive primate would look more or less like this, so while this is great it is hardly “view-changing.
I suppose it depends on what a person’s view WAS. There are those who seem to think scientists are using this one find to prove that evolution happened AT ALL. No, that has already been done. This is just another useful piece in the puzzle.
Posted by: jock59801 | May 20, 2009, 6:53 pm 6:53 pm
a shrew? huh? that’s a rodent and it doesn’t look anything like that picture beyond sharing the characteristic of having 4 legs.
Posted by: neil w | May 20, 2009, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
I see the missing link walking around every day. LOL.
Posted by: Beavus | May 20, 2009, 7:14 pm 7:14 pm
This story just keeps me in awe. The response from Mr Christian himself, Mr answering to a greater father has had a little twist-about on that issue. Are you kidding me? Bush was elected TWICE because of the Christian right. He totally snubbed Al Gore on the global warming, in essence snubbing science itself. Now he has moved the Bible from his desk to his bookshelf next to the Dan Brown books? Quite a backslider:
Posted by: The Grayheck | May 20, 2009, 11:42 pm 11:42 pm
What an amazing discovery this is I was not however pleased with the presses take on this or their attempts at hyping this situation to boost ratings.Ida may indeed be A missing link in the evolution of creatures man has yet to make a solid connection with Not one scientist has said this is OUR missing link between man and primate I wish the press would get that message. This find is going to be a usefull tool for man to discover how differing creatures have changed / evolved over many years and an ever changing environmet.
Posted by: faxbot88240 | May 21, 2009, 8:21 am 8:21 am
One fossil does not a theory prove.
Posted by: oldhickory68 | May 21, 2009, 8:26 am 8:26 am
Oldhickory, true, but millions of fossils do present alot of evidence.
Great find. I do, like many others, agree that labelling it as a missing link is undermining science. They’re also right in that I’ve never heard any scientist use the term missing link. Over-hyping of things like this is what causes the confusion of the masses. It’s no wonder people don’t like evolution. They don’t understand it. That and they don’t understand the scientific process. That you go through the hypothesis, then you test it, if it passes you get a theory, then you keep testing it, when it’s proven, it becomes scientific law, which is fact. Thats a dumbed down version, but thats what it is.
I have seen the theory of gravity thrown around lately. I must say that it is amusing that not one of the anti-evolution people have said a thing about it. To me, that points to a hypocrasy in their view. They won’t dispute the theory of gravity, but will dispute the theory of evolution, and base the dispute on the word theory. Funny stuff.
Posted by: Lawrence | May 21, 2009, 8:55 am 8:55 am
That should be the anti-evolution people haven’t said athing about the theory of gravity. I can’t spell.
Posted by: Lawrence | May 21, 2009, 8:59 am 8:59 am
If God wanted us to believe in a divine design and not in science, why would he have created false diversions in the form of fossils, measurable universal forces and evolutionary mutations for us to witness, all of which would seek to undermine true devotion? The missing link will be found someday.
Posted by: me | May 21, 2009, 10:43 am 10:43 am
God created the total material energy, then glanced upon it impregnating it with all the conditioned souls thus creating a Big Bang. The material bodies of these souls developed based on their Karma, and where they were seeded – thus Evolution. So, you see…there is an Intelligence behind all science. Now all you scientists and all you belivers can rejoice together!
Posted by: Jiva Soul | May 21, 2009, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm
Hey, it has eyes and ers! It MUST be human!!!
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | May 21, 2009, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm
Why don’t WE have four legs, too?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | May 21, 2009, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm
Mr. Incredible:
“Why don’t WE have four legs, too?”
We do. We just don’t walk on two of them very often.
Posted by: jock59801 | May 21, 2009, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
I’m surprised this hasn’t blown up into a huge debate. I usually enjoy those. I wonder what’s goin on? There’s been hardly any anti-evolution proponents posting. Ned, we need global warming, stem cell research, abortion or gun control science post. Or a nice story about puppies. Either one.
Posted by: Lawrence | May 22, 2009, 8:37 am 8:37 am
Note from Ned–
Hello, Lawrence. Actually, I posted on climate this morning…but I prefer puppies.
We’ve rejiggered the website, and it may be that folks are still getting used to how to find things. Feedback welcome on the new design.
Posted by: Ned Potter | May 22, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
The artist’s rendering sure looks an aweful lot like a modern-day lemur (though the snout may be a bit shorter). What amazes me is that so many people are so anxious to call this a missing link or even a significant find in support of the “theory” of evolution (more of a hypothesis, even per Darwin’s admission…and the fossil record has done little to advance this hypothesis since Darwin first penned his hypothesis in the “Origin of Species”), when a person could just as easily make the observation that it is amazing how little lemurs have changed in 47 million years. We here every other week how new species are still being discovered and yet we are eager to assume that some random, well-preserved fossil fits into our pre-conceived notion of an evolutionary tree that we refuse to even consider that it could just be another as-of-yet undiscovered species completely unrelated to the “anthropoid primate” lineage. This is not science… this is like putting a puzzle together with a hammer…force-fitting the pieces into our preconceived view of what it should look like.
Posted by: prm | May 22, 2009, 1:39 pm 1:39 pm
…and back to one of the earlier comments, there is a vast difference between not believing in gravity and not believing in evolution. The effects of gravity, of course, are readily observable and testable…it falls into the realm of physics…physics and mathematics are “hard sciences”. To say that evolution has been established as “fact” just shows how dumbed down our school systems really are. Even many prominent (scientist) proponents of “micro” evolution have abandoned ship due to the substantial LACK of fossil evidence in support of Darwin’s hypothesis. There is not just ONE “missing link”…there is insufficient evidence to suggest that a chain even exists. The fossil evidence thus far is much more in favor of what scientists term “macro” evolution, due to the apparent sudden advent of completely new species appearing on the scene at certain sediment levels, indicating as they speculate that radical changes occured during very brief periods of time, rather than gradually over eons of time. Though “Macro” evolution uses the word “evolution”, it is a radically different “theory” than Darwin’s, but is more in keeping with what is observed in the fossil record. Of course, there are those who would also say that since we have no evidence that species are capable of rapid, beneficial mutation (most mutation is either detrimental or is not genetically transfered to offspring) in order to adapt to dramatic environmental changes, that this is evidence of divine intervention or creation/design. Whatever your beliefs, to say that we are anywhere near being able to call evolution a “fact” is complete rubbish.
Posted by: prm | May 22, 2009, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
…if you think that all educated people subscribe to the form of “micro” evolution hypothesized by Darwin and taught in our public schools as gospel, read “MacroEvolution and the Fossil Record” by Steven M. Stanley from John Hopkins University. He also cites several sources of many prominent scientists. I point this out because too few people are even aware that there are serious scientists who do not subscribe to the form of evolution that has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by our schools and the mass media as though it is proven fact, when this is far from being the case.
Posted by: prm | May 22, 2009, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm
” I point this out because too few people are even aware that there are serious scientists who do not subscribe to the form of evolution that has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by our schools and the mass media as though it is proven fact, when this is far from being the case. “—-It is as close as possible, being that all the evidence points to it. That’s how science works. If you have ANY actual evidence that disproves evolution (or conversely that a mythical super-being created humans out of dirt) please share it.
Posted by: cicclinton | May 22, 2009, 8:41 pm 8:41 pm
Just a thought: Im pretty sure they are on the right track because one thing is for sure, that these mammals of this period would have had to spend much of their time foraging in the trees or be able to run swiftly (this animal would have both capabilities). They obviously had to stay one step ahead of them (predators)because they had little defense except the ability to outsmart their predators. Consequently, the lines would split again several times with the evolution of mammalian intelligence. Seems pretty simple to me……not.
Posted by: tendergroins | May 22, 2009, 9:01 pm 9:01 pm
“It is as close (to fact) as possible, being that all the evidence points to it.” Call if what you will, but inference from a set of data is not fact. Until the scientific method of formulating, extrapolating from, and then verifying predictions of a hypothesis is successfully applied a theory is just a theory. “It makes sense” doesn’t cut it, even or possibly especially in the soft sciences.
Posted by: Publius | May 23, 2009, 12:01 am 12:01 am
“a theory is just a theory” –do you even know what a theory is? Gravity is also a theory. Cellular biology is also a theory. Theories are plethoras of fact about a universal principle.
Why don’t you “assault” (with an arsenal of nothing more than imagination)other scientific truths the way you do evolution?
If you’ve subscribed to a fairytale that hinders your ability to understand reality, then it’s become a problem.
Posted by: Dave | May 23, 2009, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm
I’m glad to see some media outlets not caught up in the planned hype of a fossil discovered 25 years ago, then studied in secret, revealing it’s results in a massive media campaign.
It is interesting to note, science published back in 2002, that modern lemurs were found in lower strata. It was lower than what Ida was found in. Same with monkeys which were found in lower strata than Ida.
Ida is all about how people are trying create wild imagine to spark interest in their product, in this case trying to excite people to visit a museum to see a fossil which they want to become an icon!
Posted by: Michael | May 23, 2009, 5:39 pm 5:39 pm
“Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids.”
Semantics. They were using caution with this paper because of it’s extreme importance to anthropaleontology. It’s way too old to be a anthropoid but that does not mean that it was not ancestral to one.
The particular genus/species may or may not be the stem line. What it means is that the adapids are shown in a new light and makes that line a good probable ancestral lineage while before it was not considered possible.
Posted by: Quietman | May 24, 2009, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm
ps
“it represents a link between the lineage of lemurs and monkeys” from the PLos One paper.
Posted by: Quietman | May 24, 2009, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
I wish the media could tell the truth, which is that not only can a fossil not be dated at 47 million years, but dating methods are calibrated by evolutionary assumptions (circular reasoning). This cool fossil is only evidence that the creature lived and died a sudden death by being rapidly buried in silt from a flood (probably Noah’s flood).
Posted by: Ed Taylor | June 3, 2009, 12:54 am 12:54 am
See what author, scientist, and explorer Richard Wiese has to say about the missing link on Geraldo at Large!
Posted by: cassandra | June 9, 2009, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
prm, please don’t have a heart attack, for goodness sake. No self-respecting scientist says we know all there is to know about how we came about and . . . well, let’s say “changed,” so as to avoid the emotion-laden “evolution,” which seems to jerks all sorts of chains. Just recently I read there’s some serious thought of late that evolution (there’s no avoiding the term!) can be described more as a tree-branch diagram rather than a linear one, which makes a lot of sense, come to think of it, doesn’t it?
Ned, I’ve just recently discovered your stuff, and am really enjoying it — cheers.
Posted by: Mekhong Kurt | July 1, 2009, 3:33 am 3:33 am
It’s a good thing that you and other science journalists and bloggers are bringing this up. The stories I saw on World News last night about it were good and didn’t emphasize that it was THE missing link. However Charlie Gibson said twice when teasing and introducing the story that this was “the oldest fossil ever found in history, far older”, which is in no way true and really bugged me. Then I see the GMA story today with the lower third saying “Meet The Missing Link – ‘The Eight Wonder of the World’”. Things like this confuse people and misrepresent the actual significance of the fossil.
Posted by: Abdullah Malik Adenan | July 2, 2009, 3:46 am 3:46 am