Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor

[beer good]

Did you see Sir David Attenborough's programme about Ida? All the evidence they had about Ida was there and it was not very convincing. If you have not seen the programme what are you basing your information on?

Answering a question with a different question, I see. Oh well. No, I haven't seen that programme, but there are other sources of knowledge than TV. The article Champagne posted (and btw, I agree with her thoughts on the media circus surrounding this) is a good one if you're interested in the scientific side of it. Here's an article which explains it in more layman-like terms (including some skepticism; that's the nature of science, you have several different people examine your findings - not just the guy who paid for it). Also, re: the "missing link" nonsense that the press has been throwing around, this post is a short but good read. Or if you want something inbetween, the wikipedia page is pretty good too.

Incidentally, and feel free to add this to the list of questions I'm sure you'll answer eventually... you're saying the evidence isn't very convincing.
a) What do you find unconvincing about it? Based on this trailer, Sir David himself certainly doesn't seem unconvinced, but what does he know, right?
b) Evidence of what, exactly? Nobody's claiming Darwinius masillae (that's Ida to you) was human. The species is thought to be an early primate, making it a distant ancestor of monkeys, apes, and humans.

Yes I believe in evolution; but not for humans?

Or do you now deny that monkeys evolve, too? I'm getting really interested in that other thread you said you'd start where you explain how humans are the only species to not evolve.

There are definitely legitimate questions to be asked around the Darwinius find, and if it were the only proof of human evolution, I agree that it would be sketchy. But as I'm sure you know, it's only one link - and not the strongest one - in a very long line of very consistent evidence. And hey, look; here's another one we hadn't found before, published just the other week.

 

[ylris611203]

I'm getting really interested in that other thread you said you'd start where you explain how humans are the only species to not evolve.

How did Maybe that is for another thread turn into that other thread you said you'd start .

I guess the same way that science sees things; if it want's to find something it will.

The evidence isn't very convincing at all; for two years they could find no link, until a small bone in the foot seemed to sway things their way. This is even less convincing than Lucy and with her they only ever had 40% of her bones to swing it their way.

It's all very interesting. What I want to know is when they first found remains, where they looking for the missing link and develop their theory to prove the connection,

The fossil was found by an unnamed fossil collector who found her in the Messel pit and Ida (named after the daughter of the person who purchased her) was kept in a private collection for 25 years before being sold in 2007 to the Natural History Museum in Oslo for $1,000,000.

 

[Robert]

The fossil was found by an unnamed fossil collector who found her in the Messel pit and Ida (named after the daughter of the person who purchased her) was kept in a private collection for 25 years before being sold in 2007 to the Natural History Museum in Oslo for $1,000,000.

I don't think that's important. It's not the first time a fossil of this type was found, it's just the most complete. I got the impression that the theory goes back to previous finds.

 

[beer good]

How did Maybe that is for another thread turn into that other thread you said you'd start .

My mistake; I apologise. I assumed that since you're the one who brought it up, you might be interested in explaining why you see it that way. Of course, I realise that when every one of your arguments is founded in willful ignorance, it becomes difficult to defend them after a while. So much easier to claim to have the facts on your side but you're not going to tell us.

until a small bone in the foot seemed to sway things their way

If someone had claimed that one day a monkey gave birth to Isaac Newton, this would be a good argument; then we would expect changes to be huge and in-your-face. But evolution works in small increments. See above re: long chain of consistent evidence. Also, as previously stated, it's not just the foot that's leading people to see Darwinius as a possible ancestor of all primates. And again, since you "believe" monkeys evolve, why don't you believe that Darwinius is part of that?

...Don't tell me: it's a secret, right?

 

[ylris611203]

I don't think that's important. It's not the first time a fossil of this type was found, it's just the most complete. I got the impression that the theory goes back to previous finds.

You don't think this is important. A private collector has had this in his collection for 25 years and the world did not know about it. The same world that was been waiting 150 years, since Darwin first published his theory, for this sort of evidence.

Your right of course, because human did not evolve from chimps, apes or what ever.

But for those who do believe, it must make them wonder what other evidence is locked away in private collections.

 

[ylris611203]

My mistake; I apologise. I assumed that since you're the one who brought it up, you might be interested in explaining why you see it that way. Of course, I realise that when every one of your arguments is founded in willful ignorance, it becomes difficult to defend them after a while. So much easier to claim to have the facts on your side but you're not going to tell us.

Apology accepted. This thread is about Ida and a little bit of foot bone, once and for all proving beyond all doubt that my great great etc. grandfather was a monkey.

It does not follow that because I don't agree with this theory I have a better one or that I have to have one at all.

 

[beer good]

Well, again, you're the one who brought it up before you suddenly decided it was off-topic when you couldn't back it up. And as previously stated again and again, Darwinius is neither the first, nor the last, nor the best fossile proof of human evolution. But you already know that and I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly, so nevermind. :flowers:

 

[Bob Magness]

I think the media was blowing the whole Ida thing way out of proportion. I fully accept evolution but these news stories are somehow making it sound like THIS fossil has confirmed human evolution. Human evolution was already confirmed. It is evident in the already existing fossil record as well as genetics. I am often frustrated with how the media presents science.

 

[Bob Magness]

I really don't like this trend toward reporting major discoveries at press conferences rather than in journals

^^^
I completely agree.

 

[Champagne]

It's all very interesting. What I want to know is when they first found remains, where they looking for the missing link and develop their theory to prove the connection, or did they do an examination of the remains and develop the theory based on the evidence?

No they weren't looking for the missing link because scientifically the missing link is a meaningless concept.

What theory are you talking about? If you're referring to the basic theory of evolution by variation and selection, it's already been developed; scientists are using observations to test various aspects of the theory. If you're referring to something else when you say "develop their theory," what in particular are you thinking of?

 

[Champagne]

How did Maybe that is for another thread turn into that other thread you said you'd start .

I guess the same way that science sees things; if it want's to find something it will.

Rubbish. They want to find cold fusion in the worst way, but the scientific method is what's showing that the various claims haven't held up so far.

The evidence isn't very convincing at all; for two years they could find no link, until a small bone in the foot seemed to sway things their way. This is even less convincing than Lucy and with her they only ever had 40% of her bones to swing it their way.

You do understand that with a bilaterally symmetrical species, 40% of bones is actually more than it sounds, right?

 

[Champagne]

You don't think this is important. A private collector has had this in his collection for 25 years and the world did not know about it. The same world that was been waiting 150 years, since Darwin first published his theory, for this sort of evidence.

Erm, no. This sort of evidence has been found consistently over the last 150 years. This particular fossil is significant because of (a) the high degree of preservation and (b) the overall scarcity of early primate fossils.

Your right of course, because human did not evolve from chimps, apes or what ever.

What did humans evolve from, then? Or are you saying humans didn't evolve? On what are you basing your opinion?

But for those who do believe, it must make them wonder what other evidence is locked away in private collections.

Yep, and I think this is a particular concern for the fossils being found in the Liaoning area, where apparently some of the workers are supplementing their income by selling some of what they dig up.

 

[ylris611203]

Rubbish. You do understand that with a bilaterally symmetrical species, 40% of bones is actually more than it sounds, right?

Wrong. 40% is 40% is 2/5th is 40%.

 

[Champagne]

If the bones are symmetrical from one side to the other, you don't need both sides to know what the bones are like, you just need one. Which means that the researchers know a lot more about the Lucy skeleton than you're suggesting with that 40% figure. They have the pelvis and femur from one side; no more information about the basic anatomy would be obtained if they had both. They have another leg bone from the other side; that gives pretty complete picture of the legs when you realise that the two legs are symmetrical. Same for the arms and the ribs.

 

[ylris611203]

If the bones are symmetrical from one side to the other, you don't need both sides to know what the bones are like, you just need one. Which means that the researchers know a lot more about the Lucy skeleton than you're suggesting with that 40% figure. They have the pelvis and femur from one side; no more information about the basic anatomy would be obtained if they had both. They have another leg bone from the other side; that gives pretty complete picture of the legs when you realise that the two legs are symmetrical. Same for the arms and the ribs.

She is 3.18 million years old and made up of several hundred fragments of bone and these fragments all come from an individual of a single species. They have to otherwise claims that Lucy is who they say she is would be unfounded.

It makes one think.

 

[Champagne]

Erm, they have to what?

 

[ylris611203]

Erm, they have to what?

...come from an individual of a single species. Otherwise there would be more than one Lucy and the bones per individual would be even less than 40%.

To me that was a lucky coincidence.

 

[beer good]

Maybe that is for another thread, this one is about Ida.

Since the thread is no longer only about Ida, how about it?

 

[ylris611203]

Since the thread is no longer only about Ida, how about it?

We originated on Mars.

 

[beer good]

Seems to me you pulled that out of Uranus.