Morning:
6°c
Attenborough welcomes ‘missing link’ lemur fossil to Kensington
Mark Prigg, Science and Technology Editor26 May 2009
Ida, the lemur-like fossil hailed as the “missing link”, will go on display at the Natural History Museum tomorrow.
An exact cast of the fossil has been donated to the museum by the University of Oslo. The announcement came as the real fossil, which is 47 million years old, was taken to the Kensington museum today, where it was shown to staff and Sir David Attenborough before being returned to Oslo for further research.
Experts say the discovery of the fossil is clear proof of Darwin's theory of evolution — although other scientists have expressed reservations about the importance of the discovery.
Ida was a nine-month-old female, weighing two pounds and about two feet long, including her tail. She had opposable thumbs and toes and fingernails instead of claws, a clear sign that she was an ancestor of modern primates, say researchers.
When alive, Ida probably looked more like a lemur than a monkey, but with a shorter snout and shorter hind limbs. “Ida is a link between the apes, monkeys and us with the rest of the mammals and ultimately the whole animal kingdom,” said Sir David. “I think Darwin would have been thrilled.”
Sir David has narrated a documentary on the fossil, Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link, which will be screened at 9pm tonight on BBC1.
“This fossil rewrites our understanding of the evolution of primates,” said Jorn Hurum, the lead researcher on the Ida project. “We will also be building a 3D model of the animal's foot, which will prove how it moved,” he added.
Museum staff said that since the discovery was announced they have been inundated with calls from the public wanting to see it. Sharon Ament, director of public engagement at London's Natural History Museum, said: “We hope that the cast continues to capture the imagination of our visitors, and we will endeavour to keep our visitors updated on new scientific research relating to it.”
Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, Ida is 95 per cent complete. Palaeontologist Jerry Hooker said this was critical. “Fossil primates are notorious for being incomplete and the source of much discussion and debate because they often consist only of isolated teeth or bones whose association is uncertain,” he said.
Other palaeontologists have said that it is difficult to draw a straight line of evolution between a primate from 47 million years ago and modern man. The team which did the work on the fossil said it “could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here”.
Reader views (18)
Keith Price - Can you wag your Tail? Check you do have one. In some it can be a few inches long. You do not need to search hard for evidence of evolution, but you do need to be honest and open your eyes.
- Gary, Brentwood, 27/05/2009 08:12
Report abuse
My mistake - I just wrote a commnent that said I supported Keith Price's view generally. I had mis-read his comments about changing species vs. natural selection. Further reading of his comments showed glaring fault in his reasoning. (Simply put, there has to be something that forces change in anything - it doesn't just 'happen')
(Oh, and I AM well read, Keith).
The "fake Archaeopteryx" claim is a well-documented Creationist attack on evolution, one amongst many that range from occasional reasonable questions, to hysterics & outright fabrication ....and I’m a Catholic.
- Rogan, Irving, 26/05/2009 21:44
Report abuse
This Dr Flew is not a world renowned DNA scientist he is a philosopher. Sir David Attenborough is not just a TV presenter but a Zoologist and geologist. The archaeopteryx is not a fake and there are nine fossils that have been found of this primitive bird, are they all computerised fakes to. The Chinese myth as already been dealt with recently by Dr Alice Roberts in her program the incredible human journey. (Some experts even claim we do not all in fact share the same evolutionary process the Chinese is a good example.) There was one Chinese expert who made this claim, the geneticists proved him wrong, the Chinese come from the same stock as all the rest of us. Keith thanks for the laugh about the computer generated fake we all had a really good laugh in our laboratory. Your account of how life started is about as correct as your account of how the archaeopteryx is a computer generated lie. Your knowledge of biological and evolutionary science is childish. The religious ideas are based on faith with nothing to back them up, they are just myths and stories written by goat herders many thousands of years ago and altered so many times by various people to suite their own needs. Scientists can back their claims with good hard evidence and that is why they rule and decide what happens and not people who delve in voodoo and other silly myths.
- Stephend, London, England, 26/05/2009 21:05
Report abuse
I only hope the little creature is not a fake, it looks almost too perfect.
- Barbara Steward, Northumberland, 26/05/2009 20:31
Report abuse
Peter, Camberley - try looking up Sarcosuchus imperator (a crocodile that was LARGER than present day crocs). While you're at it, try also looking up dromaeosaurids and troodontids. If you need it spelling out after that, then there's little point in trying - you would obviously not be looking at the question honestly anyway.
Keith. While I agree with you generally on this subject, the "fake Archaeopteryx" claim is a well-documented Creationist attack on evolution, one amongst many that range from reasonable questions, to hysterics & outright fabrication ....and I’m a Catholic.
Peter, Creationists cite their 'absolute proof' of faith, then demand that science should be able to offer similar 'absolute proof'. Faith is proof only to the believer - science needs the far more substantial way-station 'intermediate proofs' of missing links and the like.
For Creationist nay-sayers I have one question - what would it sound like if there was a celestial-grade 'snapping of the fingers'? A big bang, perhaps? It wouldn't deny deity, just push back the start date a tad. Why can't dinosaurs be part of the ‘plan’ like other animals?
- Rogan, Irving, 26/05/2009 20:14
Report abuse
Gary, Brentwood: Ref. the question of Darwin vs God.
Darwinism is a rational and well documented and generally proven explanation of how we � and all other life � evolved. Some evolutionary branches failed because nature has a tendency to eat its own mistakes. Darwinism is a part of logical thinking. As such it should be taught in schools.
God is a figment of imagination to explain the inexplicable that evolved into various species of dogma, AKA �religion�. (sub-species have briefly existed, e.g., leprachauns, faeries, elves and goblins).
The dogmatists have evolved their individual scriptures, and over the millennia have - ironically - been attempting to validate Darwin's �survival of the fittest� by attempting to kill those who worship a different scripture.
Being illogical and destructive concepts that cannot be proven, only indoctrinated, Gods and religions should not be taught at schools.
Ref the separate evolutionary process claimed for Chinese, DNA analysis shows that we � and indeed all humans - are all of the same basic stock... which should give the BNP nightmares!
- John, Dorset, UK, 26/05/2009 20:05
Report abuse
Why is it assumed to be a "link"? Is there any chance it is the remains of a critter now extinct?
- Lily, North of the Watford Gap, 26/05/2009 18:19
Report abuse
"the idea that one species "becomes" another species is a typical error of creationists who are either too lazy, or ignorant, to understand the underlying science of evolution by natural selection: which would be supported by overwhelming evidence even if we had not a single fossil (e.g. molecular biology alone would suffice)."
Utter tosh from you again Akan. Attenbrough himself told us how archaeopterys was a german fake. Of course he says that 1 species becomes another - that is the whole point behind the "Galapagos finches" notion. Are you now saying that both Darwin and Attenbrough are lazy and ignorant, You need to do some serious reading before you start putting me down Little Al
- Keith Price, Luton, England, 26/05/2009 18:02
Report abuse
"Keith - I take it you've never bothered to visit a Natural History Museum to see the solid evidence for evolution."
I did indeed live in Onslow Gardens very close to the NATIONAL HISTORY Museum, and visited it countless times - my favorite exhibit being the London Elephants." I remember well the fiasco of the "archaeopteryx fake." If you saw David Attenbrough's latest TV programme you will recall how, two-thirds of the way through the analysis of possible evolutionary exploration, he suddenly cast down all doubts and alternative ideas, including all the world's religious ideas about creation, and told us, for well over fifteen minutes, how we all began life swimming in and then out of a green pool of fluid after a thunderbolt, from an unknown source obviously, , suddenly hit the pool and stirred up life within. I laughed immensely at the thought, as it far more resembled an incident at Crouch End Swimming Baths that I had witnessed some years ago, than any significant evolutionary incident - in that incident, a young boy playfully threw an electrically motorised truck into the shallow end of the baths, and the sight, seconds later, of sundry adults diving out of the deep end in amphibious mahher, was remarkably reminiscent of a scene from the feature film - 2 Milion Years BC starring the delectable, but equally primitive Raquel Welch.
- Keith Price, Luton, England, 26/05/2009 17:48
Report abuse
The unproven fact that one species becomes another after hundreds of years of obtaining bones has still not been proven. Even the high priests of this failed Evolutionary admit there are no transitional forms. But even more important than opinions are the scientific facts from cell scientists who confirm the impossibility. If you breed out short legs to get to Great Danes in dogs then its almost impossible to breed a short legged dog from such a development & vice versa. But they are clearly the Dog kind. Evolution regularly claim crocodiles can become birds. There whole structure including bones and coding is far different. When I say far different mean 5% coding, but the coding for 1 mm of DNA/RNA would take books stacked to the moon and back three to four times. 5% looks big when you consider there is no main frame computer program ever written remotely approaches the change in code required from one animal or species to another. Change would be unthinkable. Also any vast change looses information, never gains it. Prove it on your computer, have a head crash and see what happens to your programs. If such events were such good news surely we would cheer not look as if our world had come to an end. Only for those who can easily be mislead are these things possible. The formost DNA scientist in the world, a card carrying athiest all his life, Dr Flew admitted a few years ago he had been wrong all his life. He confirmed high intelligence not blind chance was needed.
- Peter, Camberley UK, 26/05/2009 17:35
Report abuse
I think Keith Price may be confusing archaeopteryx with Piltdown Man (?) No one has ever seriously questioned the authenticity of the former. And no, we were never lenurs or rabbits, the idea that one species "becomes" another species is a typical error of creationists who are either too lazy, or ignorant, to understand the underlying science of evolution by natural selection: which would be supported by overwhelming evidence even if we had not a single fossil (e.g. molecular biology alone would suffice).
- Alan, London, 26/05/2009 16:44
Report abuse
O and there was i believing we were created from the dust that god breathed life in to to create a guy called Adam, and my wife was formed by god taking a bit of rib from Adam to make me a mate!
- Kev, London-UK, 26/05/2009 16:38
Report abuse
What a load of tosh - we've ony been here for 10,000 years haven't we?
- Terry Biddulph, Solihull, UK, 26/05/2009 15:45
Report abuse
Jethro. Sir David Attenborough is just a TV presenter.
Contemplating the origins of homo sapiens has been many thousands of highly trained expert's life work. Like everything from our distance past nothing is for certain and to say with absolute certainty this formed part of our evolution is impossible to answer Some experts even claim we do not all in fact share the same evolutionary process the Chinese is a good example.
Evolution is absolute the route we took is not, people were searching for a missing link whilst presuming they knew the what we were a few steps back or trying to available evidence to fit a theory which is not the way of establishing facts. Why does the question have to be one of Darwin vs God in any case, seems perfectly logical to me both can coexist, one thing for certain is we should not fear what we were as we had no control it. We are what we are, homo sapiens.
- Gary, Brentwood, 3rd rock from the sun, 26/05/2009 12:55
Report abuse
I dunno .... looks a bit like the mother-in-law!
- Paul, London, 26/05/2009 11:38
Report abuse
Keith - I take it you've never bothered to visit a Natural History Museum to see the solid evidence for evolution.
- Cally G, Essex, UK, 26/05/2009 11:34
Report abuse
Keith Price of Luton - are you saying that Sir David Attenborough is lying about all this then?
- Jethro Penzance, Streatham Common, 26/05/2009 11:31
Report abuse
The "missing link" is in the brains of anyone who believes any of this tosh. This so-called fossil is the "archaeopteryx" of the new millennium - a genuine fake, generated by computer, with no scientific sifnificance attached to it at all. We were never lemurs any more than we were ever rabbits
- Keith Price, Luton, England, 26/05/2009 11:01
Report abuse
