Scientists Discover Common Ancestor of Monkeys, Apes, and Humans 391
reporter writes "According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, scientists have discovered the common ancestor of monkeys, apes, and Slashdotters. The 47 million year old fossils were discovered in Germany. The ancestor physically resembles today's lemur. Quoting: 'The skeleton will be unveiled at New York City's American Museum of Natural History next Tuesday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and an international team involved in the discovery. According to Prof. Gingerich, the fossilized remains are of a young female adapid. The skeleton was unearthed by collectors about two years ago and has been kept tightly under wraps since then, in an unusual feat of scientific secrecy. Prof. Gingerich said he had twice examined the adapid skeleton, which was "a complete, spectacular fossil." The completeness of the preserved skeleton is crucial, because most previously found fossils of ancient primates were small finds, such as teeth and jawbones.'"
Re:In Germany???? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In Germany???? (Score:3, Informative)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapid [wikipedia.org]:
Fossils of adapids are known from North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Adapids are one of two groups of Eocene primates with a geographic distribution spanning holarctic continents, the other being the omomyids (Omomyidae)
"World's Most Overhyped Science Headline?" ... (Score:5, Informative)
"How is the news being anticipated in the scientific community? 'I honestly think this is an incredible job of marketing,' says paleontologist K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who has not seen the report but has read the news. He points out that other fossils of similar age from China, Myanmar, and India have also been proposed as some of the earliest anthropoids. 'At this stage, color me skeptical.'"
Well.
CC.
Re:Oh this is gonna be fun :) (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In Germany???? (Score:5, Informative)
The article has suggestive and leading lanuage... (Score:2, Informative)
Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors.
No they don't 'believe' they use reason based on radiocarbon dating of fossils and other hard scientific and rigorously tested and reviewed evidence to reach the most accurate and logical conclusion based on findings and observation.
Nonetheless, the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists who draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record, and creationists who don't believe that humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
Evolution isn't just based on limited fossil records it is based on observation of life at the smallest biological levels up to the largest such as animal life. We've seen disease (such the flu) evolve right before our eyes. Evolution in our ancestry as humans isn't up for debate the only debate is what specific species we delineated from.
Not only that but the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of the rhesus macaques monkey is 93 percent the same as humans. Meaning accurate DNA testing has shown that species of monkeys are extremely similar to humans showing a common link in our genetic design.
getting better all the time (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, I know DNA from something this old is practically impossible.
Actually that request is nowhere near as tall an order today as it was just a few years ago. You likely know that we have already partially reconstructed the Woolly Mammoth genome [washingtonpost.com] and are working with DNA from the (extinct) Tasmanian Tiger [bbc.co.uk] as well.
Our techniques have even allowed us to extract proteins from Tyrannosaurus Rex [sciencemag.org] as well as a Hadrosaur [sciencemag.org] for proteomics approaches to analyzing extinct species.
Scientific Secrecy = Contradiciton of terms (Score:4, Informative)
Always maintain a strong healthy skepticism of any "Scientific Secrecy" unless it has a monetary basis, (patent medicines for example) or a strategic value (military).
There is no reason this type of information should be secret. In fact, just the opposite. Publish early, publish often would be the best prescription in such cases.
Re:creationism/evolution (Score:5, Informative)
creationism is very much a minority opinion amongst christians (in fact I've only ever met one who thought like that, and I've met a lot of christians over the years). The belief in a literal 7 days is something that historically would have been laughed at long before darwin. A few noisy fundies in the US don't get to choose what christianity is, no matter what you might want to think.
I'm sorry but what possible evidence other than the one anecdotal occurrence can you offer? I have statistics that show that creationism combined with 'god guiding evolution' is a shared belief by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Even if you remove 'god guiding evolution' from the equation the numbers believing in strict creationism are close to half of Americans believing in it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-07-evolution-debate_N.htm [usatoday.com]
Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true.
http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=118 [people-press.org]
Surveys are also fairly consistent in their estimates of how many Americans believe in evolution or creationism. Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time. (But keep in mind that many people who believe in evolution in the U.S. think that god was making humans evolve).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspxGallupPollincreationismandevolutiontrendsfrom1982to2008. [gallup.com]
Breakdown of creationism and evolution views between Bush and Kerry voters in 2008.
Firefox screwed up my post.... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml [cbsnews.com]
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx [gallup.com]
Here are the URLs to Gallup and CBS.
Re:creationism/evolution (Score:5, Informative)
You must not be an American. Or know very many protestants.
Almost everyone I know is protestant. The vast vast vast majority of them accept Genesis as the literal description of creation.
And I would say that's not an abnormal figure:
An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible's book of Genesis is "literally true" rather than a story meant as a "lesson."
[...]
The poll, with a margin of error of 3 percentage points, was conducted Feb. 6 to 10 among 1,011 adults
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/ [washingtontimes.com]
This was just the first poll that came up on google. It falls in line with all the other polls I've seen on the subject.
Re:creationism/evolution (Score:4, Informative)
The oldest Christian church (the Catholics) have no beef with evolution.
Yes, they do. The Catholic Church cherry-picks a few bits of Evolution to call "ok", to try and distance themselves from the crazier Creationists out there, but they still think humans are a "special creation" and, therefore, not the product of Evolution.
Re:Pseudosciences (Score:3, Informative)
There was no world wide flood. A large portion of the Eastern Mediterranean seaboard did flood at one point in time, but that is far from world wide.
Re:creationism/evolution (Score:3, Informative)
The oldest Christian church (the Catholics) have no beef with evolution.
Yes, they do. The Catholic Church cherry-picks a few bits of Evolution to call "ok", to try and distance themselves from the crazier Creationists out there, but they still think humans are a "special creation" and, therefore, not the product of Evolution.
Straw man alert.
You assume being a "product of evolution" precludes being a "special creation".
To wit: [catholic.com]
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that manâ(TM)s body developed from previous biological forms, under Godâ(TM)s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.
And before you get your panties in a simplistic wad over this:
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
Well, let's put it this way: If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, all-pervading God, there is literally nothing in the entire universe that's "atheistic".
Evolution != origin of life (Score:3, Informative)
Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time.
I just want to point out that evolution doesn't address the origin of life, but only how life changes over time.
However, the two are related, in that they're both necessary to know about if want to understand how life got to be what it is now, and how it's likely to develop in the future.
Re:The article has suggestive and leading lanuage. (Score:1, Informative)
Yeah, wow, those scientists sure are dumb, using a flawed technique (using fossils for relative age dating) ever since the late 1700s. You'd think someone would notice.
On the other hand, I suppose it might be possible you're confused about the method.
The way it works isn't much different from figuring out that papers on the bottom of the pile on your desk are older than the ones on top. It's the same geometrical relationship that establishes the order of the rocks, and while rocks can be deformed and tilted, it's really obvious if they are, and not that difficult to unravel the succession of rocks using simple geometrical principles. The rocks therefore establish their own order, independent of the fossils. In fact, you can do this even where the rocks are barren of fossils. How can it be circular if you don't even need fossils in order to figure out the order of the rocks?
What you're confused about is what geologists call "correlation" -- trying to match up the order from place to place. If you do the same sort of geometrical analysis at a bunch of locations and pay attention to the contained fossils as you do so, you'll often notice that the succession of fossils is similar. Paleontologists in England, France, and Germany realized this back in the late 1700s, and it was flagrantly obvious by the early 1800s. The pattern was anything but random.
For example, around the world you'll find trilobite fossils occur first before any land plants, and ammonites, dinosaurs, and sand dollars come later. The same is true for thousands of other creatures, both land-dwelling and marine, huge and microscopically tiny.
It isn't much of a leap to make the interpretation that similar fossil successions at different locations imply a similar age. It could still be wrong, but it can also be tested by following distinctive rock layers from site to site (e.g., volcanic ash layers) in order to independently verify whether the interpretation from the fossil succession is correct. If there are doubts about whether it is the same volcanic ash bed, you can now do trace element chemistry (it's like a fingerprint -- they're all a little different). And there are plenty of other methods. Again, it isn't circular, but I can understand why people might think it is unless they follow the history of its development and how it is actually implemented.
Notice that all of this can be done independent of radiometric dating, which didn't exist until the 1950s or so.
"Young Earth" creationists have made a hobby out of finding dubious examples of fossils or "man made" objects that don't fit the predictions. Their fossil examples are invariably bogus (e.g., not fossils), the position in the rocks is poorly constrained, or both. Meanwhile geologists make predictions such as "world-wide, there will be an anomalous concentration of iridium associated with the fossil-based Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary extinction", and then find dozens of examples confirming the prediction. The method works.
The fossil mentioned in this article is from a very special fossil site called the Messel Pit [wikipedia.org]. It occurs as fine-grained shale filling a depression known as a "maar" - the former vent/crater of a volcano, subsequently filled in with sediment. At the least, ignoring the fossils, you can tell this site must be geologically fairly young, because it is erupted through or on top of the other rocks in the region. Unsurprisingly, given that geometrical relationship, the fossils include many familiar groups (e.g., bats and other mammals), even if the species are usually different.
The claim that using fossils to figure out the relative age of rocks is "circular" is a bogus and ironic claim made by modern creationists. It's ironic because it was mostly creationist geologists 200 years ago that came up with fossil succession as a practical relative dating tool, decades before Darwin even proposed biological evolution as an explanation for why it worked (i.e. that life was changing through time).
Stop reading "Institute of Creation Research" nonsense and ask an actual paleontologist or geologist how dating methods work.
Re:creationism/evolution (Score:5, Informative)
Look again, please. The Catholic Church's _historical_ beliefs on creationism, evolution, etc. have reflected all sorts of problems with it. The evolution of simpler to more sophisticated creatures, without divine personal guidance, flies in the face of the 'manifest destiny' and the 'right of kings' which are critical to European and Christian politics of the last few thousand years.
Uh, this is kind of confused. Manifest Destiny [wikipedia.org] was pretty much an American thing. Perhaps you're thinking of Lebensraum [wikipedia.org], which was a 20th century German doctrine. Yeah, there have been plenty of expansionists in European history, but most of them just wanted to take over their neighbors and didn't have any fancy ideological reason for it. Evolution didn't affect that one way or another.
Not sure how the divine right of kings fits in here, either. The Church wasn't exactly happy about the divine right of kings, since an absolute monarch took away from the Church's power. The Church wanted to be able to depose (or at least undermine) monarchs it didn't like. If the right of kings was divine, they couldn't do that. Again, it's pretty independent of evolution, and by the time Darwin came along the era of the divine right of kings was pretty much over.
Anyway, the Catholic Church has learned from all that bad press they got with that Gallileo fellow and remained neutral at worst over the years. There have been individual Catholics and some Catholic organizations which have opposed evolution, but they're in the minority and don't reflect official policy. Yes, the official policy is to squeeze God in there (e.g., "special creation" of the soul), but only as an extra. They don't make any scientific claims at all.
Re:Oh this is gonna be fun :) (Score:3, Informative)
Give him time. I once believed in creationism, but slowly, over time, I changed. Now I believe in evolution.
Strangely enough, I used to believe in Evolution, but now believe in Creationism and actually came to that turnaround by studying evolution. It is true though that Christians let themselves down terribly by using arguments that sound good to them, but are not worked through thoroughly. Please understand that I am not trolling, but just stating what I believe.
Incredibly it was Christian monks who kept knowledge - the sciences - alive through the Dark Ages. Universities also were originally Christian institutions, but these days so many Christians have forgotten how to think critically, believing that critical thinking is unfaithful to their Pastors and the Bible. How wrong they are! I say this as an orthodox, charismatic Christian. It is ok to question things as long as your intent is to find the truth.
If indeed we have been given brains, we have a responsibility to use them critically to ascertain the truth in whatever we are taught, by both Creationists and Evolutionists.
Re:Actually.... (Score:5, Informative)
There's plenty of evidence that simple bacteria could have evolved naturally out of the chemical soup present on earth at that time.
That evidence is suggestive; there are reasonable alternative explanations.
The evidence that humans evolved from bacteria, however, is incontrovertible; there simply is no reasonable alternative explanation.
Re:creationism/evolution (Score:3, Informative)
Re:creationism/evolution (Score:3, Informative)
Re:creationism/evolution (Score:2, Informative)
Like this one? "Why? The Catholic church seems to be ok with evolution. It's only fairly recently that this has started to change." Somehow this is more valid to you, because it comes from a church.
"What about people who believe in god, think Intelligent Design is blasphemous and that science is the only way to describe god's works?"
How does a belief in god help them understand the way the world works? It doesn't provide any answers, and adding god to an equation that otherwise works just fine without him is meaningless.
"I think the thing that is forgotten in this whole debate is not being able to prove god exists is the point of faith. There is never proof, only opinions, it's your choice. Besides how would you prove or disprove a being who can shape the laws of nature, time and space if that being doesn't want any proof to exist?"
I don't need to disprove it. If it does not manifest in any sense in our reality, I can simply assume it doesn't exist. That which is transcendent and non-manifesting is identical to that which is nonexistent.
"Intelligent Design is blasphemous, if you want to defend science's place in society, say that to the lobbying fundamentalist who are deceived into doing satan's work to dismantle sciences place. The argument is handed to the atheists on a plate, but they are too dogmatic with *their* beliefs to see it."
It's not a matter of dogma. As someone who doesn't believe in god, the concept of blasphemy is meaningless to me. It's silly to debate over the theological implications of a hypothesis such as ID. That only has meaning for you.
"Do atheists realise many see Religion and God as separate things. Religion was created by man and is flawed with the original sin you speak of."
This is a tenet of the Christian religion, written in the holy book of the Christian religion by human beings. If you can somehow demonstrate that you don't need a holy book to "know" anything about a deity, I'd be interested.
"The enduring irony is that many moderate people of faith see atheists as the ones doing god's work right now."
I don't need to be working for a nonexistent being to defend reality.