Frank Menser Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I actually found the missing link (actually two or three) in this thread. Thanks y'all for supplying them... I am inclined to the the theory of Evolution does not apply to Hominids. In fact ti is the opposite! Nature started with the noble Ape and his cousins and Devolved into us.... Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 You've been reading too many of tracer's posts, haven't you?Better lie down for a bit... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Thought I'd mention something: The notion of a 'missing link' is sort of an archaic 19th century concept that is a holdover of orthogenesis (everything fitting into the 'great chain of being'). In reality, there isn't any 'missing links'. The fossil record is rather like a barcode; there are portions that are represented by fossils (currently) and other portions that aren't (yet). Fossils such as this fill in some of these 'gaps' (I hate to use that word, because thanks to creationists, it is very loaded; all of these gaps are temporary). Say, the gaps represent the white parts of the barcode. The term 'missing link' is often used to refer to fossils that fill in some of the wider white parts of the barcode. However, these fossils are no more special than any other save that they have 'filled in' part of a long gap/white spot on the barcode. In any event, creationists love the term 'missing link' because they can say 'well you haven't discovered the missing link yet! where there was once one gap, there are now two!' and other nonsense. I really really hate the term 'missing link' because 1) the concept is inaccurate and 2) it enables the ignorant. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32fordboy Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Very well said. I find evolutionary trees to be very interesting no matter how many "gaps" there are. It's neat to see what >could have been< our very own flesh and blood in a very different form. That sounds kind of weird, huh? If it's true that every living thing on earth started with the same DNA, then that's even weirder--to know that mushroom growing on the tree in the woods (and the tree itself) are in your (very) extended family. Or that rhino in Africa, or that spider in the basement, or that...there I go rambling again...either way, that first living thing on Earth (something like 3.5-4 BILLION years ago) left one amazing legacy. Nick www.nicksfossils.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 "It's better to think of a phylogeny as a shrubby plant with a complex, three-dimensional structure" I am quoting Gary W. Kaiser, from his new book The Inner Bird, Anatomy and Evolution. The author has the magic touch when it comes to presenting very complex concepts in relevant, understandable form. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micropterus101 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Nice extinct monkey fossil. fossil crabs website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Thought I'd mention something:The notion of a 'missing link' is sort of an archaic 19th century concept that is a holdover of orthogenesis (everything fitting into the 'great chain of being'). In reality, there isn't any 'missing links'. The fossil record is rather like a barcode; there are portions that are represented by fossils (currently) and other portions that aren't (yet). Fossils such as this fill in some of these 'gaps' (I hate to use that word, because thanks to creationists, it is very loaded; all of these gaps are temporary). Say, the gaps represent the white parts of the barcode. The term 'missing link' is often used to refer to fossils that fill in some of the wider white parts of the barcode. However, these fossils are no more special than any other save that they have 'filled in' part of a long gap/white spot on the barcode. In any event, creationists love the term 'missing link' because they can say 'well you haven't discovered the missing link yet! where there was once one gap, there are now two!' and other nonsense. I really really hate the term 'missing link' because 1) the concept is inaccurate and 2) it enables the ignorant. Bobby Great post! And, in keeping with Nick's skepticism, there have been some serious reservations about the cladistic analysis done on this critter: http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/po...erselling_a.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 And, in keeping with Nick's skepticism, there have been some serious reservations about the cladistic analysis done on this critter:http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/po...erselling_a.php That blogger took the words from my mouth. Great link Solius, I'm glad there are a few others who feel the same about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trilo-biker Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I am wacting the history channels coverage on it right know to tell the truth its a little over hypde if you ask me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 The over hyped is partly the fault of the guys working on it now, comments like calling it the "Holy Grail of Anthropology" and "This discovery will have more impact than a meteorite hitting the earth" not to mention the tabloids gabbing hold of it and milking it to death. Most people don't understand in the line of branches of an evolutionary tree this little critter is low. Basically it goes something like this: The critter(Ida)---->Monkeys--->Ape like Monkeys--->Monkey like Apes--->Apes--->Hominids--->Humans (make note I left out some branches I cannot remember) That is the very very generalized version, its significance is that it was the last transitional piece close to the trunk of the tree each of the other branches already have their transitional species(besides us because we're current). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trilo-biker Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 The over hyped is partly the fault of the guys working on it now, comments like calling it the "Holy Grail of Anthropology" and "This discovery will have more impact than a meteorite hitting the earth" not to mention the tabloids gabbing hold of it and milking it to death. Most people don't understand in the line of branches of an evolutionary tree this little critter is low. Basically it goes something like this: The critter(Ida)---->Monkeys--->Ape like Monkeys--->Monkey like Apes--->Apes--->Hominids--->Humans (make note I left out some branches I cannot remember) That is the very very generalized version, its significance is that it was the last transitional piece close to the trunk of the tree each of the other branches already have their transitional species(besides us because we're current). Your right about that I think they are making it sound cooler so people who don't like fossils will be more interested and that way they will get more ratings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Your right about that I think they are making it sound cooler so people who don't like fossils will be more interested and that way they will get more ratings I find they particularly attention seeking to perpetuate their own fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 But, the fossil itself...just incredible! How would you like to have it in your collection! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 While the preservation is exceptional, the importance is mediocre. With all the hype, one would think that Darwinius sp. cured cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trilo-biker Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 But, the fossil itself...just incredible!How would you like to have it in your collection! lets just say that I would kill for it just kidding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehunt Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Looks like some real analysis was done. Ida revisited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 “Ultimately it’s about science, and how sound the science is" Now we'll get some good old-fashioned scientific debate! Unfortunately, the original announcement has the appearance of a book release promotion. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Debate can only be good in my opinion. I hope that it will bring the misconceptions to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeff Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 After reading through these posts.. how is the "debate" going with Ida? What is the general view now by paleo's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 After reading through these posts.. how is the "debate" going with Ida? What is the general view now by paleo's? Ida is holding up very well and appears to have secured her classification as a haplorhine primate: link 1 link 2 Ida PLoS ONE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeff Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 It seems she has. Thanks for the great links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 It seems she has. Thanks for the great links. You're Welcome Jeff! It's exhilarating that all of the initial hype is finally rewarded with a equally spectacular result! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 A brief update for Ida courtesy of a personal correspondence with Professor Jørn Hurum. The following is an excerpt from an email that I received today. Jørn was gracious to share three recent pdf papers including the complete supplement of Darwinius files with character coding data analyzed that corroborates the argument quite precisely. As the files are each marked Author's Personal Copy, I am not at liberty to disseminate the papers here presently. I would imagine that the papers will be available in due course as all of the previous material has been easily accessible for public view. For now I can share this from Professor Hurum: We anticipated that colleagues would have enough trouble with the idea that Darwinius is a haplorhine that it didn’t seem necessary or prudent to advocate stem anthropoid status within Haplorhini. Tarsiers of course are haplorhines without being stem anthropoids, and that is all we hoped to help people see about Darwinius. We never wrote that we do not believe Darwinius and adapoids are haplorhines. If this was confusing before, I hope it is clarified in our most recent reply to Williams et al. (attached) where we do take the step of showing Darwinius and adapoids to be stem anthropoids. best wishes Jørn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now