Politics | 05/20/2009 8:35 am

47-Million-Year-Old Darwinius Masillae Fossil the Missing Link?

Darwinius masillae could be missing link between apes and humans.

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Scientists yesterday unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossil that they’re calling the "missing link" between primates and humans.

Technically called a Darwinius masillae, but nicknamed "Ida," the juvenile female primate was discovered in Germany’s Messel Pit and is one of the most intact fossils ever found. In fact, scientists were even able to identify her last meal: fruit, seeds and leaves.

Considering Ida’s remarkable physical characteristics — and estimated lifetime — researchers are convinced she proves human evolution. Jorn Hurum of Oslo’s Natural History Museum remarked, "This is the first link to all humans … The closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor."

Of course, we can’t be sure Ida’s the missing link, as Washington University’s Brian Richmond points out in National Geographic: "[Ida] is one of the important branching points on the evolutionary tree, but it’s not the only branching point."

© Getty Images

Read more about: Darwinius masillae, Evolution, Fossil, Germany, Ida, News, Science

229 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

I find this absolutely fascinating!

"Ida is placed 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 open source journal of the Public Library of Science," says PR newswire."

What will religious groups say about this!

http://newsbizarre.com/2009/05/ida-fossil-jorn-hurum-and-primate.html

By deberB on 05/20/2009 9:00 am

e-mail alert

I do too (find it fascinating, that is). I read a more detailed article that said this fossil had opposable big toes, which I guess is where the link to humans comes in. The more I learn, the more overwhelmed by the wonder and the mystery of it all I become, and I don’t understand how anyone can cling to the biblical myth of creation, when the reality of creation and the fantastic unfolding of how life on our planet developed is enough to make almost anyone wonder HOW did all of this come to be without some sort of hand of divinity? Science is what makes me continually waver on the question of whether or not there is a God. When science is left out, it’s too easy to scoff and say of course not; but when this sort of discovery is made, and the picture is drawn of how all this came to be, that is such humbling and mind-boggling stuff that the scoffing ends and the certainty is replaced by doubt; without a God, HOW did all this happen?

By GrammaJ on 05/20/2009 9:20 am

e-mail alert

Would an omniscient, omnipotent God create the world in as simplistic a manor as described in Genesis, or was that story simplified for the limited knowledge of the target audience of the time?

By SteveR on 05/21/2009 2:38 pm

e-mail alert

i guess i believe in both, evolution and creation. everything is evolving around us as we speak. yet we can still pray to a supreme being. i like to think of the bible as a rule/guide book. but not something written from total reality. also the bible was translated by man and has mans mistakes in it. so i believe in both!

By NancyPea on 05/22/2009 2:58 am

e-mail alert

deber B - I’m not a "religious group" but I am a Creationist. And what I say is to read the excellent article by Brian Switek referenced below, and to scientists I say "keep digging"! We’re not at all afraid of science, because we (Creationists) are absolutely confident in where all science leads: to truth of a divine Creator. Even if you believe in macro-evolution, you still have to move from science to a faith system in order to state unequivocally the First Cause.

By KarenEiler on 05/20/2009 11:53 am

e-mail alert

Is evolution really scientific?

The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

By peterTimings on 05/22/2009 4:09 pm

e-mail alert

You really do seem to like to cherry pick quotes made by people long before I was born. There are several problems with this. One is that 0ur understanding of evolution is much better now given technological advances such as the gene chip and the drastically increased processing due to computers. Another is that scientists are not a homogeneous group. We have our wack-jobs just like any other group of people. Should I quote Mel Gibson’s opinions on Jews as evidence that Christians as a whole are anti semitic? No, that would be absurd….

The Theory of Evolution IS a scientific theory. To simplify it into laymens terms, it simply says that that genetics of a population will change over time due to genetic drift and natural selection. Essentially, it is a theory on the origin of species, not the origin of life. There is a mountain of evidence, including many studies of speciation (i.e. the formation of a new species) to indicate that it is extremely accurate. Does that mean it is 100% true? No. Just as our theory of gravity isn’t 100% true. As more data is collected, changes may need to be made just as they’ve been made over the last 150 years.

Now, that being said, it is entirely possible that the placement of a particular fossile in the evolutionary tree is incorrect, without raising any doubt about the validity of the theory of evolution. Just as a mis-identified star does not disprove the theory of gravity, a mis-identified fossil does not disprove the theory of evolution.

By RJBReed on 05/23/2009 4:36 pm

e-mail alert

I could give you some up-to-date ones if you like. In an article called "The designed Just so Universe" a professor of mechanical engineering observed "It is quite easy to understand why so many scientists have changed their minds in the past 30 years agreeing that it takes a great deal of faith to believe the universe can be explained as nothing more than a fortuitous cosmic accident. Evidence for an intelligent designer becomes more compelling the more we understand about our carfully crafted habitat.

Why Evolution Attracts People

The Bible reveals how such teachings as evolution become popular. It says: “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4) Although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent tendencies. Many who believe in evolution say that they also believe in God. However, they feel free to think of God as one who has not created things, does not intervene in man’s affairs, and will not judge people. It is a creed that tickles people’s ears.

Teachers of evolution are often motivated, not by the facts, but by “their own desires”—perhaps a desire to be accepted by a scientific community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine. Professor of biochemistry Michael Behe, who has spent most of his life studying the complex internal functions of living cells, explained that those who teach the evolution of cell structure have no basis for their claims. Could evolution occur at this tiny, molecular level? “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority,” he wrote. “There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. . . . The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”

If evolutionists lack explanations, why do they preach their ideas so loudly? Behe explains: “Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature.”

By peterTimings on 05/25/2009 12:52 pm

e-mail alert

There are no theories that suggest that the |universe can be explained as nothing more than a fortuitous cosmic accident". In point of fact, all scientists whom study the issue of how our universe formed start from the assumption that statistically we shouldn’t be in a special place or a place time within the universe. Anyone who claims that science states otherwise is simply making up both sides of the arguement.

As for Behe’s comments, more knowledgable people than myself have refuted him here: (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html)

I would say that I profoundly disagree with the idea that people don’t want there to be there to be anything beyond nature. I’ve seen this assertion many times, mainly from people who believe that one should fear god and god’s punishments and thus follow god’s rules. No, I think many people would love to know that there was something more than nature. But, it’s a question of what is possible based on what has been observed.

By RJBReed on 05/25/2009 3:27 pm

e-mail alert

It would appear that there is no convincing you of the evidence. Bible prophesy is the strongest evidence that cannot be disputed. Jesus fortold the very times we are living in, 1914 is a marked year in bible chronology this is the year that the gentile times ended that were spoken of by Jesus (Luke21v24) Since that date we entered the last days of mans rulership of the earth. Jesus fortold wars earthquakes pestilense ridiculers and false christianity (Christendom) and more. In Revelation he fortold man would be ruining the earth and the setting up of a man made organisation to try to bring peace.(The UN) Evolution has sidetracked people to the real issue, Gods Universal Soverienty which was called into question way back when Adam and Eve rebelled against it. God has allowed thousands of years for the question to be answered and now mankinds time is up. As Jeremiah said 10v23 "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step

Eccl 8v9 says "All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury.

Yes Human rule does not work Gods kingdom is the only solution to mans problems, sinse Jesus taught us to pray for the kingdom to come 1914 was the year it took office. Sadly Christendom missed the arrival and were too busy slaughtering one another in the FWW and have been doing so ever since. The clergy are the apostates that Jesus said would come but would be rejected. Matthew 7v21-23 says "Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.

In the book of Eziekiel the expression "The nations will have to know that i am JEHOVAH" is repeated over 60 times. Jehovahs Witnesses will continue to preach the good news of Gods kingdom until Jehovah says no more. Then all mankind will know that the gods of evolution and all the other gods were false all along.

By peterTimings on 05/25/2009 3:55 pm

e-mail alert

Then all mankind will know that the gods of evolution and all the other gods were false all along.

Uh, ok … I really wish we didn’t have to wait that long …
Peter, you seem to go out of your way to present yourself as someone whose objection to evolution has a religious basis rather than a scientific basis. If that is what you really want people to think, then fine.

Jesus fortold wars earthquakes pestilense …

You raise a matter that has irked me for decades, now. I have long been able to predict (with considerable accuracy) wars, earthquakes and falling stars, but I can’t get any credit and respect for this no matter how hard I try.

It would appear that there is no convincing you of the evidence.

What “evidence” would that be? In particular, to you seriously have evidence to support the assertion that, generally speaking, scientists have evil ulterior motives and are actually pretenders bent on foisting their religious and philosophical views on the unsuspecting and gullible?

By KathleenOliver on 05/25/2009 4:30 pm

e-mail alert

I presume that "The designed Just so Universe" is by Walter Bradley of Waco, Texas [ http://creationwiki.org/Walter_Bradley ]. Is that correct, Peter? (Why didn’t you state the author, the date and link to the source?)

For any interested readers, here is more about Water Bradley (from the source cited):

Bradley shows 3 sources of evidence for the existence of God:
1. "The universal physical constants and the initial conditions of the universe are exactly what is needed to support life of any type on this planet. These coincidences are an evidence that the universe was designed for life."
2. "The universe had a beginning, and a beginning demands a first cause—an Originator."
3. "The implausibility of life originating naturalistically is phenomenal."

I have my own religious beliefs, so it would be ridiculous for me to object to other people having religious beliefs. Even so, when I pay good money (or worse: borrow money) for tuition for a science class, I have a right not to expect religious indoctrination in return.

To Bradley or anyone else wants to impute the existence of God I say: fine, go for it. But this is a religious or philosophical judgment, not a scientific one, so it has no place in science instruction.
Besides, it doesn’t change anything. Scientific pursuit is scientific pursuit: does my opinion about the origin of things or what is “behind” things change anything at all about scientific endeavors or findings?

As a religious matter, I don’t happen to believe that one can “prove” or “demonstrate” the “existence of God”, and Bradley does nothing to change that opinion. But the relation of the quoted assertions to science are even more difficult to grasp.

1) “These coincidences are an evidence that the universe was designed for life.”
What difference would it make what conclusions I draw from these “coincidences”? I might posit that there is a “designer” “God” behind things, but what possible difference could my conclusions possibly make for the practice of science? If it makes no difference, why should we talk about such things in science class?

2) "The universe had a beginning, and a beginning demands a first cause—an Originator."
Who says the universe had a “beginning”? What is the scientific basis for a “beginning”? If the big bang was the rapid expansion of a small and dense point (which was the early universe), that says nothing about how long that point existed … except possibly that “time” was arguably “frozen”. In any case, I am unaware of any scientific theory describing a “beginning” of the universe.
[Correct me if I am wrong, R.J.B., but when we colloquially speak of the “age” of the universe, we really mean the elapsed time from the “big bang”; this is not a commentary on the length of the universe such as it might have existed prior to the big bang (although that state could possibly not be describable by laws of physics as we know them).]

3) "The implausibility of life originating naturalistically is phenomenal."
Do I understand correctly that Creationists reject evolution on the basis that “life originating naturalistically” is implausible? Are not these the very people which accept that Jesus is the product of a “virgin birth” and that Christ “rose from the dead” regardless of how implausible those things might be?
The irony here may be too thick to cut even with a knife.

We might say, “God (by definition) can do anything, therefore anything we suggest that s/he has done is (by definition) NOT implausible.” Well, then, God is also well able to create a world just like this one, is well able to create and order life via evolutionary mechanisms.

It is a great privilege to live in a country in which clergy are free to stand in the pulpit and teach what they will without interference from the government. We have an abundance of churches for the teaching of religion and we have science teachers to offer instruction in science. What, exactly, is the problem?

Again … to rephrase: Bradley sees in various scientific findings “evidence for the existence of God”. Fine: good for him. But the findings themselves remain what they are regardless of whether I attribute them to God or not and the practice of science proceeds just as before. Consequently, these conclusions do not need to be drawn or discussed in the science classroom.

Although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God.

Well, in my particular case, it inspires the attitude of awe and reverence. Howsoever that might be, it has nothing to do with science proper. The notion that “it is really a religious doctrine” is so bizarre that I hardly know that to call it … apart, perhaps, from “nonsense on stilts”.

The arguments here are so vapid that they scarcely say anything specific about anything. As an experiment, try reading the essay with the word “religion” substituted for the word “evolution”: there may be just as much truth to the essay after the modification as before.

If people genuinely object to the manner in which science is conducted, it might be of some utility if they would focus on the specific issues. It is difficult to see how the casting of vague aspersions regarding the “motivation” of scientists is going to help improve the conduct of science.

By KathleenOliver on 05/25/2009 4:14 pm

e-mail alert

In a similar manner to the attacks which Peter has highlighted for us above, we could choose to construe that Creationists are “bad” people with “ulterior motives” and “an agenda”, that they feel that any attack on science (no matter how nonsensical) is a “good” attack because they regard science to be the foundation of a subversive, materialist philosophy … an alternative religion … and a competitive threat.

As they say, “two can play this game” … but if anyone has any evidence to present demonstrating that throwing rocks and calling names has ever been helpful and constructive, I would be very interested in seeing it.

By KathleenOliver on 05/25/2009 5:42 pm

e-mail alert

Kathleen i am not missing the point or throwing rocks. Jesus exposed religious error in his day and showed that it is the correct thing to do. The doctrines of Christendom are false and should be exposed. Hell fire immortality of the soul the trinity are not in the bible. At John 8v44 Jesus said to the Scribes "You are from your father the devil" At Matthew 15v4 he told them they that their worship was in vain because they taught tradition and not what God wanted the people to hear.

The religious leaders today have caused more blood to be spilled in the earth than any other organisation, Gods judgement upon false religion must be exposed to the world for them to make the dicision at Revelation 18v4 which reads "

And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues. 5 For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind. 6 Render to her even as she herself rendered, and do to her twice as much, yes, twice the number of the things she did; in the cup in which she put a mixture put twice as much of the mixture for her.

Yes get out of her (Babylon The Great) the world empire of false religion.

Scientists may have discovered many things but they do not give the credit to God. Paul said in Romans 1v18-23 "

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Scientists) who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. 20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they (Humans) are inexcusable; 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. 22 Although asserting they were wise,(Scintists) they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.

When the bible touches on science it is very accurate, i am not a creasionist but i believe firmly that God created all things. Rev 4v11 says "

You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”

The creasionist view is the earth is 10000 years old and the earth was created in 6 days of 24hs. This is not in agreement with the bible. Science has shown that the universe is millions of years old, the bible states at Gen 1v1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. the days of creation come millions of years later. When the bible uses the word day (Hebrew Yohm) it means a period of time, 2 Peter3v8 says "

However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

In another scripture it says " A day for a year". The creative days are thousands of years in length. According to the bible we today are still in the seventh day(Hebrews Chapter 4) Creationists are doing no service to science or religion and so should be exposed for the untruths they tell, Romas 3v4 " But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.

By peterTimings on 05/25/2009 6:33 pm

e-mail alert

Jesus exposed religious error in his day and showed that it is the correct thing to do. The doctrines of Christendom are false and should be exposed.

Fine: knock yourself out. I applaud you. But that is a religious problem, not a problem with the conduct of science.

The religious leaders today have caused more blood to be spilled in the earth than any other organization …

In historical terms, I have made a similar argument myself, so I am all in favor of your making noise about this. If we could only strip away all of man’s inhumanity to man which has arisen from religious people “doing ‘God’ a favor”, the human history which would result would be indistinguishable from what it actually is.
… But again, this is a religious problem (except to the extent to which religious powers have persecuted scientists).

Scientists may have discovered many things but they do not give the credit to God.

To the extent to which this is true, this, too, is a religious problem, not a problem with the conduct of science. Besides, people can figure out for themselves to whom to give credit, and we have churches to help with that very point. (What would be the point of having churches in the first place if we didn’t go to them for council on just such questions? Why would anyone advocate taking the proper function of the churches away from them?)
In any event, the conduct of science will remain precisely the same regardless of whether a given scientist gives credit or not.

I believe firmly that God created all things.

… evolution, too? Is your God capable of creating that, too?

The creasionist view is the earth is 10000 years old and the earth was created in 6 days of 24hs. This is not in agreement with the bible… . Creationists are doing no service to science or religion and so should be exposed for the untruths they tell …

Well, I guess we aren’t so far apart after all.

By KathleenOliver on 05/25/2009 7:49 pm