The telegraph is reporting that the “missing link” between man and apes has been found:
The new species of hominid, the evolutionary branch of primates that includes humans, is to be revealed when the two-million-year-old skeleton of a child is unveiled this week.
Scientists believe the almost-complete fossilised skeleton belonged to a previously-unknown type of early human ancestor that may have been a intermediate stage as ape-men evolved into the first species of advanced humans, Homo habilis.
Experts who have seen the skeleton say it shares characteristics with Homo habilis, whose emergence 2.5 million years ago is seen as a key stage in the evolution of our species.
The new discovery could help to rewrite the history of human evolution by filling in crucial gaps in the scientific knowledge.
I haven’t seen too much talk about this in the blogosphere — do you think it’s as big of a find as they’re making it out to be?
Update: Carl Zimmer has an excellent essay in Slate on this.
Main stream press + no links to original scientific articles + the usual inability of the press to get anything dealing with science right + the need for sensationalist headlines/stories = take with a VERY large grain of salt.
PhD Comics puts it nicely: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174
Or this one:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic
LOL, one of his best. Be sure to also check out the hidden comic (hover over the red button).
Perhaps you’ll find on some of the disagreements over the classification of the finds more agreeable.
It’s big for those who actually care about biology and science. Those who have denied evidence of evolution before will continue to do so by just denying that this exists or just not paying attention to the news.
I haven’t ready anything about it as of yet, but sounds interesting. I heard rumors of it in my Archaeology department but it has all been talk.
For those of us not blinded by the BuyBull (TM) it will make no difference. For those that are, they will make every excuse in the world to disbelieve it.
This is how the fundies will respond:
Satan planted the skeleton, just last week. And of course since he invented carbon dating to trick the scientists, none of it is believable anyway. Praise gawd.
Halleh-looojahs!
Actually, the fundamentalists will almost certainly continue to claim that there are no transitional species, and that there are now two gaps in the fossil record where before there was only one.
Even for those in the field, I’m gonna say NO. The press blows a lot of science out of proportion and helps to mess up the general public’s understanding of what’s going on. This will certainly not, “rewrite the history of human evolution by filling in crucial gaps in the scientific knowledge.” It certainly will give us more knowledge and fill in details that were previously fuzzy. Wording like this keeps people unreasonably skeptical of science, making them think that scientists have no idea what they are talking about because every new thing “rewrites” our understanding. If everything says everything else is false, why should we trust science? And then the media turns around and makes fun of people for being “ignorant”…
I have a proposal: let’s banish the phrase “missing link” from evolutionary talk.
It only serves to fuel the public’s misconceptions about how evolution works (it’s not a flipping chain – more like a crazy net with lots of frazzled ends), as well as throw fuel onto the creationists’ fire. We all know they’ll drag out the old “ah, but what about the species in between this new find and the others?” and somehow seem oh-so-very-clever to Joe Six-Pack. So, instead, why don’t we start talking about (and exhort the media to report on) evolution in a way that reflects our current understanding of its mechanics?
If there’s one thing I’ve learned it’s that the popular press will readily describe ANY kind of newly discovered hominid fossil as a missing link, which for 99% of the time is just bullshit as there wasn’t any missing link before the find. Additionally, it is almost always claimed that it will “rewrite our understanding of the history of the human species” or some such tripe.
This looks like an interesting find that will add to our existing knowledge of human evolution – all fine and good, but it’s not revolutionary in any way since its discovery really was to be expected from what we already knew.
Psh, you think they limit themselves to hominids? They were claiming Ida was ” the missing link” ffs!
Yeah, I remember only too well. That one was particularly bad thanks to the archaeologists involved who exploited it for some quick fame. Thanks to their unprofessional behavior I fully expect that Ida will become another standard creationist strawman, to be brought out in the same sentence with Piltdown man and Nebraska man.
Carl Zimmer wrote about this in Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2250212/
The term “missing link” makes me cringe. There is no such thing as a missing link. Decsent with moficifaction is not a ladder, rather a bush, a family tree if you will.
Eccept for the [we really wish he was] missing, link between stupid and idiot, Glenn Beck.
As many have already said – the use of “missing link” is problematic… this is a spectacular find and will help in our understanding about our species’ origins – but it’s not a “missing link”!!
Reading some of the comments under the telegraph article already shows the creationists running with this. Sigh.
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2010/04/hominin_hype.php
Do you know what that means? That’s right; writers are breaking out the pop-sci boilerplate to tell us all about the new “missing link.” To paraphrase what I have seen in the headlines alone, the find is the “missing link which will shed new light on human evolution and rewrite what we thought we knew about our history.
I echo Fentwin’s sentiment. When I first saw this reported I thought it was an April Fool’s joke. Apparently, they’re serious. Now, who knows if this thing is in modern man’s lineage? I just don’t know how you’d prove it. Related, at least.
Damn! Do yourselves a favour and DO NOT read through the comments at that site… I didn’t realize that the UK had so many ignorant creationist fundies!!
Anything regarding evolution riles up all the creatards. They come out of hiding to debunk anything scientific that points away from their sky-daddy. (And I’m not saying this article anything to get excited about either way)
The problem with “missing link” stories is that creationists will simply deny the evidence; just as they currently do.
While certainly an important find, most of the fossils that the general public knows as “human ancestors” and “the missing link” are almost certainly hominin cousins, not direct ancestors. The more hominin fossils we find, the more we can learn a lot about parallel and divergent evolution of our species’ closest relatives. The one piece of the puzzle that always bothers me is not anything in our own line – we have lots of evidence for our own evolution – but rather the lack of fossils that bridge our common ancestor to chimpanzees. Still, the more fossils we find the weaker the already-feeble creationist argument becomes.
Sigh.
We are apes. No need to find a link between us and ‘them’.
Classic evolution fail
I absolutely hate the term “ape-men.” It sounds to me like “lion-cat” or “half lizard, half reptile.” It makes no sense.
Even worse is when people try to determine whether a fossil is “more ape-like or more human-like,” or when they insist that we aren’t descended from apes, but rather “ape-like ancestors.”
O.K., I am told in defense of this last term, that the implication is that our ancestors were not extant apes, but rather extinct apes similar to modern ones. This doesn’t justify it at all. That’s like claiming my great-grandfather wasn’t a human, but a “human-like ancestor,” because he was not an extant human.
Can I get a secular “amen brother”? :)
RAmen
I prefer NPR’s article on Australopithecus sediba: Odd Fossil May Be Human Ancestor, Or Dead End by Christopher Joyce
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125713226
Revyloution: You nailed it.
Rush Limbaugh????????
Guess what?
Since evolution is a continuum more than a discrete set of changes, you will always have “missing links” between an individual and their ancestors, unless you get a fossil for every single generation.
I am a link between my children and our common ancestors.
I am a known link between my parents and my offspring…
I sent this to three people who will find it interesting, my two parents who both believe evolution, and my friend who won’t believe evolution until the missing link is found.
I’d like to add to this conversation something that struck me personally as very profound:
“If we look at ancient fossils – why do we not see modern day animals, such as lions, bears, and other animals that we are familiar with in that same ancient fossil record?”