# Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution, Darwins theory now confirmed. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 19, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972 "2009-05-19T15:09:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972/61 "2009-05-20T01:53:52Z")
\*Say, we natural scientists really ought to be doing something to commemorate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, seeing as how evolution is the cornerstone of the biological sciences and all. By a striking coincidence, we’ve recently discovered a phenomenally well-preserved early primate fossil, that appears to represent a critical point of divergence between monkeys and lemurs. Unfortunately, no one outside the scientific community gives a rat’s ass about the point of divergence between monkeys and lemurs. Perhaps we could use this opportunity to educate the public about the significance of the find, while elucidating the subtle connections between early primates and modern humanity, and the evolutionary forces that have shaped us all. Or we could just lie our asses off about how this fossil is the missing link that proves Darwin’s theory of evolution, and hope that no one calls us on it. What do you think we should do, Sir David Attenborough?\* ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972/62 "2009-05-20T14:37:51Z")
It’s a lot more hype than substance - but I have to admit, it’s pretty impressive hype. Right now (May 20) it’s the logo of Google at [www.google.com](http://www.google.com) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972/63 "2009-05-20T15:17:16Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The fossil isn’t a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, it is one of the common ancestors of lemurs and monkeys. Think about it-- if it’s a common ancestor of lemurs and monkeys, then it has to be a common ancestor of humans and chimps. My understanding is that it’s probably a lemur type animal, and (as is true of most fossils) might not be the ancestor of any living creature today. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972/64 "2009-05-20T15:57:21Z")
Some points about the fossil: 1. The specimen is not a “recent discovery”. It was originally discovered back in 1983 by a private collector. Because it lies in a shale deposit, there are essentially two “tablets” containing the fossil. The left side of the skeleton is on what the authors call “Plate B”, and was only partially complete. This side of the fossil was earlier described and classified as _Proncycticebus neglectus_, and later placed in a separate genus, _Godinotia_. The paper published yesterday re-evaluates this based on the recent acquisition of the right side of the fossil, and re-classifies the specimen as _Darwinus masillae_. 2. By ICZN (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) rules, that name may not be recognized as valid. They have strict rules for publishing valid names, and as it stands right now, web-only publications are not considered valid for nomenclature purposes. [That will likely change in the future](http://blogs.openaccesscentral.com/blogs/bmcblog/entry/iczn_takes_first_step_towards), however. 3. The phylogenetic analysis appears to be somewhat cursory. Further analysis will be required to sort out its proper place among primates. In essence, then, it’s a bit early to tell whether this specimen changes anything, much less _everything_. In fairness to the authors, however, they conclude the paper with the following: > [@](#): > > _Darwinius masillae_ is important in being exceptionally well preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past. The grand pronouncements on how this specimen “proves evolution” or “changes everything” about primate evolution were made by the museum staff (and perhaps magnified by the press), not the authors (at least, not in the paper; what they may have said in public may well differ, and doesn’t necessarily relate to the actual scientific impact of the critter). ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972/65 "2009-05-20T16:06:35Z")
Also, based on the cladogram the authors included, _Darwinus_ is more closely related to Haplorhini than to Strepsirhini (which, amusingly, the authors misspelled on their cladogram as “Sterpsirrhini”), so it wouldn’t actually be a common ancestor of lemurs and monkeys at all. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972/66 "2009-05-20T17:58:16Z")
> [@Bruce\_Wayne](#): > > Another nail in the coffin of creationism. I hope it just keeps piling on. Whether it’s actually another nail in the coffin or not is immaterial; the coffin is _all_ nails by now, but the creationists are all accomplished fakirs. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972/67 "2009-05-20T19:26:19Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > Also, based on the cladogram the authors included, _Darwinus_ is more closely related to Haplorhini than to Strepsirhini (which, amusingly, the authors misspelled on their cladogram as “Sterpsirrhini”), so it wouldn’t actually be a common ancestor of lemurs and monkeys at all. Yep. And as others have noted, the concept of a “missing link” is sloppy journalism, not good science. Everything is a “missing link”. Even the term “transitional species” is problematic. “Transitional” only makes sense in looking backwards, but it implies that there was some sort of direction that the species was headed in. We all know, of course, that evolution just happens-- it doesn’t proceed in any particular direction. One might argue that the term makes sense in the context of Punctuated Equilibrium if one finds a specimen that was “punctuating” two different “equilibria”, but again it only makes sense after the fact. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972/68 "2009-05-20T19:53:46Z")
These days, “transitional” refers more to morphology than to a particular species. “Transitional species” only makes sense if it has been demonstrated that this species was, in fact, intermediate between a particular set of parent and daughter species. Transitional forms, however, are useful in tracking the evolutionary sequence of particular traits. Any given species itself could well have been an evolutionary dead-end, but it can represent a particular “grade” of morphology, meaning that closely related forms (which may have been actual ancestors to a given group) were likely similar. Of course, the whole idea of transitional forms is only necessary and/or relevant because of the “snapshot” quality of the fossil record. If every species that ever lived were recoverable, even the idea of transitions would be largely meaningless, since we could then trace unbroken sequences for any given lineage. ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972/69 "2009-05-21T00:25:09Z")
Great article, and great news! Is there a better time to burn our bibles? [FWOOMP goes the fireplace] ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972/70 "2009-05-21T00:45:45Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > The grand pronouncements on how this specimen “proves evolution” or “changes everything” about primate evolution were made by the museum staff (and perhaps magnified by the press), not the authors (at least, not in the paper; what they may have said in public may well differ, and doesn’t necessarily relate to the actual scientific impact of the critter). I believe I’m going to have to take this back. The more I read about this whole thing, the more seedy it seems. Hurum, one of the main authors, and the one who acquired the specimen, seems to be shilling for The History Channel for their stupid “this changes _everything_” special on this fossil. So despite the relatively conservative conclusion of the paper, he’s basically undermining everything that could be scientifically fascinating about this specimen in public. And the phylogenetic analysis is more than cursory…it’s downright shoddy. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972/71 "2009-05-23T12:59:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > We have cave paintings that old showing some animals from that time. I feel safe in saying if there were 20 foot tall toothy lizards running about (not to mention all the other big lizards) they’d have certainly gotten a mention by some human somewhere and somewhen. Those lizards were far too tall and toothy for anybody who saw one to live to tell the tale. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972/72 "2009-05-26T04:04:50Z")
Google around a bit. This fossil is not earthshaking, it doesn’t change much of anything, and it has been lying in a laboratory drawer for twenty years. It’s pretty much a non-event to anthropologists, since it really only lends more support to the already prevailing notions that (a) the primates are all interrelated, and (b) that some creature existed in the early Eocene which combines primitive anthropoid and prosimian (lemuroid) traits. Its existence was already postulated on entirely reasonable grounds. Fossils of animals not terribly different, and almost contemporaneous with “Ida”, have long been known–and even described in Time LIfe books aimed at the general populace. While conceding that the specimen is remarkable for its state of preservation, I can’t allay the feeling that this is another HIstory Channel blitz, much ado about nothing, and that it’s being presented chiefly because they can’t find or afford any better content to squeeze in between the commercials for term life insurance, the Scooter Store, and Mega Health Insurance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-evolution-darwins-theory-now-confirmed/496972.md?page=3)