In 1983 2 fossil-hunter/collectors found an interesting fossil skeleton of a creature in a shale pit in Germany.
For whatever reason, they split the thing in 2 and sometime later parted company. One piece went to hang on a wall, another piece went into obscurity.
Then, over the past couple of years, working quietly, a team of specialized foresic experts conducted and completed a diligent examination of the complete skeleton.
And they have decided that this skeleton of a 9-month old infant is by far the oldest common primate ancestor ever discovered.
Her name is Ida and he appears to have had a broken wrist, slipped into a lake and drowned, covered in fine sediment and wonderfully preserved for 47 million years.
"This is the first link to all humans ... truly a fossil that links world heritage," Hurum said.
Here is some context for the age of the new primate fossil: Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) first emerged about 200,000 years ago, but early humans such as Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus anamensis reach back 3 million to 4 million years ago or even earlier. Humans are thought to have split off from a group that includes chimpanzees and gorillas about 6 million years ago. And a group that includes all the great apes (including us) and Old World monkeys (called simians or anthropoids) diverged from New World monkeys in the Eocene, just after the time of Ida. So our primate roots reach back to this time.
This link is to a very detailed MSNBC article.
As I read the article bits and piece like this are peppered through it:
Ida lived at a time when mammals were evolving quickly on a planet that was basically a vast jungle. Early horses, bats, whales and many other creatures, including the first primates, thrived at this time when the climate was subtropical. The Himalayas were being formed.
I am an adherent of Evolutionary Theory. This means I think the theoretical framework of Evolution explains many, many things about this life, despite some glaring gaps. Gaps the anti-evolutionists latch onto in their sad attempts to do something - anything - about this theory they feel destroys their religion. This discovery and the resulting media interest should cause some exploding heads in the Creationist Realm.
The article describes Ida as a transitional fossil
One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.
As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.
These animals sound wild, but the fossil record — which is far from complete — is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."
Ida is a major league transitional fossil, with links to both branches of primates but with a talus a bone in the foot that is directly related to your foot.
Ida has just been unveiled this week and will more or less cause a new re-thinking of evolutionary theory, a refinement in our understanding of it.
Anthropologists have tried to explain that humans evolved from ancient-ape like ancestors - the evolutionist theory. They said two ape-like groups began walking 50 millions years ago, which are divided into two groups: the tarsidae, a tiny large-eyed primate living in Asia; and the adapidae, the precursor of today's lemurs in Magadascar.
The big debate has been whether the tarsidae or adapidae has led to apes, monkey and humans. Scientists now are inclined to believe that Ida, an adapid, could be the missing link in explaining the history of human evolution.
'This discovery (of Ida) brings a forgotten group into focus as a possible ancestor of higher primates,' Gingerich told the Wall Street Journal in a recent interview, without revealing any data gathered by the team of scientists.
(No... not "Newt....Philip Gingerich, president of the US Paleontology Society)
I just wanted to put something up so that folks with interest in evolutionary theory and the fossil record would know and have something to go search out and to know there is a new, heavy-duty addition to the body of evidence for evolutionary theory.
I, personally, cannot wait to learn more.
I also cannot wait to hear the sound of wingnut/Creationist heads exploding as the new fossil evidence enters the mainstream discourse on Evolution.
I can't wait.
Update [2009-5-20 10:35:22 by xxdr zombiexx]: Thanks to TellerCountyBlue for adding a link to detailed criticism of the hoopla surrounding our famous fossil. It's not a party till there's criticism.