You’d have to be quite literally living under a sedimentary rock stratum to miss the recent news on the discovery of a fossilized “link” to humans. Published in PLoS ONE, entitled “Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology” the paper behind the headlines describes a 47 million year old lemur-like primate species discovered in Germany. Named “Ida” after the discoverers daughter, the specimen has been classified as Darwinius masillae.
In 27 detailed pages (and numerous supplemental ones), the authors analyze and describe the most completely preserved example of an early primate. What makes this particularly remarkable is that not only is the specimen completely intact, but also the last meal of the organism is preserved inside what used to be its stomach. The authors demonstrate that Ida firstly lacks a grooming claw and tooth claw (characteristics of modern day lemurs) and secondly has opposable thumbs and fingernails. These two traits are what the authors suggest Ida a direct ancestor of humans.
However, was most surprising was how the release of the study was coincided with mass media coverage including news reports, television specials, an interactive website, a movie and a book in the works. Furthermore, an epic new conference was held in New York at the Museum of Natural History to the unveiling of Ida by Michael Bloomberg. You’d almost think following this coverage that this wasn’t an advertising campaign for “Land of the Lost” and Will Farrell would then drag out some dinosaur bones.
What is really interesting about this study is that the press releases came long before anyone had a chance to see the paper. “World renowned scientists reveal a revolutionary scientific find that will change everything” it was claimed. This was followed by an exclusive preview in The Daily Mail (not the first place to come to mind for announcing science) and an “unofficial” interview in the Wall Street Journal. Whilst there is a large discussion that scientists should promote their work to the media, utilizing the hype machine in the manner by which the History Channel and A&E network has done, may not lend the right credence to the work.
Subsequently, the blogosphere has since been full of discussion on both the merits of the study and the treatment by the media. This has been a wonderful example of the use of blogs, where instant reactions can be written in response to science, whereas previously before blogging this would have taken time to be published in other journals. A number of major points were raised online, which I have summarized here:
1. What’s wrong with the term “missing link”?
The term “missing link” appeared in numerous should not be used. Further, as John Wilkins over at Evolving Thoughts points out in the aptly titled post, There is no missing link. Over at A Primates of Modern Aspect, there is further explanation
The term originates from the “Great chain of being” or scala naturae, which is a medieval pre-darwin concept. In this, the chain represents the hierarchical links from the most basic elements (earth/rock) to the highest form (God). In-between lie (in ascending order) animals, men, kings and angels, with every imaginable thing fitting somewhere in the chain. Therefore, extinct species can be fitted as “missing links” in the chain. From this explanation, it can be seen how contrary to evolutionary theory the phrase “missing link” is.
2. Could Darwinius masillae be an evolutionary ancestor of humans?
This is where there is a lot of debate. There have been some excellent explanations here
here here which also quote a range of experts in paleontology who either disagree with the findings or argue for caution on the implications of the data.
Cladistics have shown that modern primates can be subdivided into two major groups; the Strepsirrhines (which comprise of lemurs) and the Happlorrhines (which include apes, monkeys, tarsiers and humans). Further, the Strepsirrhines have been proposed to have evolved from Adapids and Happlorrhines from Omomyids. In the paper, the authors argue that Ida shares distinct features with Haplorrhines than are absent in Strepsirrhines; in particular the lack of a tooth comb and grooming claw. Therefore, the authors propose Haplorrhines evolved from Apapids. Another explanation for these findings are convergent evolution (the occurrence of a trait in unrelated lineages). The classical example of this is the wing, which is common to both birds and bats, but was not present in their last common ancestor.
Further to this, the methodology of the paper has been criticized in that in the PLoS ONE paper compares only 30 traits between Ida and primitive or higher primates, as opposed to the standard practice of 200 to 400. Furthermore, it is suggested the authors neglected to compare Egyptian anthropoids and newer fossils from Asia and do not perform adequate phylogenic analysis
Whether “this is the first link to all humans”, as Dr Hurum stated, will be debated for some time.
3. Should science be sold through the media in this way?
Everyone agrees that this is a truly remarkable fossil. The conclusions of the study as outlined below are the obvious debate point. However, the media bombardment in the last few weeks certainly have raised this story out of the exposure of usual scientific publications. Dr Jorn Hurum, author of the PLoS ONE paper and the person to unveil the fossil in New York, is no stranger to working the media and promoting science on television.
However, Dr Hurum is an great presenter of the work and his desire to promote science in the media exampled in this quote “If we really want kids to get involved with exciting scientific findings, no matter what kind of field, we really need to start thinking about reaching people other than our fellow scientists. This paper could have been drowned in other papers and would have been read by 15 people around the world.”
Dr Hurum has a regular spot on Norwegian television and previously worked with the History Channel on the documentary “Predator X”. In last weeks airing of The Link
on History Channel, Dr Hurum is the lead character in a “dream team” of paleontologists including Holly Smith, Jens Franzen, Jörg Habersetzer and Philip Gingerich. In a 1 ½ hour science-a-thon, the program builds the drama from the discovery and purchase from a collector to “save it for science” to the implications of the fossil in terms of evolution (“the origins of every person on the planet”). We have graphics, 3-D renditions and the paleological lighting equivalent of lab colored chemicals. The conclusions are that Ida is not a true lemur and therefore must be an anthropoid. Human connection established. On the whole, the program, although well presented is a bit long and could have the same message in half the time. With the “secrecy” regarding the find we also only hear the opinion of the “dream team”. It would have been nice to get the comments of other experts in this field. And hear less of the term “missing link”.
4. How does this help or hinder the debate with creationists?
Within hours of the first stories being published, comments on articles were in their hundreds between proponents of evolution and creationism. Nothing unusual there for a mainstream story on evolution, but the potential of over hyping a finding could have implications in the arguments of creationists. The main worry is that all the hype and claims of a “missing link” by the media fuels the beliefs of anti-evolutionists and especially if Ida turns out not to live up to the hype.
Already anti-evolutionist blogs have critical of the presentation of the data including here
“the fossil was hailed as humanity’s missing evolutionary link before the technical details of the find were published”. And the entertaining headline Lemur Monkey Falls From the Sky, Robbing Man of Sleep, in reference to Dr Hurum’s statement of not sleeping for two days after first seeing the fossil
Furthermore, creationists have seized on the disagreement over where Ida fits in with primate evolution, which fuels the old argument point of “scientist don’t agree on the theory of evolution”. The parallels used between the discovery of Ida with that of the “holy grail”, do not help the case in terms of seeing evolutionary theory like a faith.
Overall, the discovery of Darwinius masillae is indeed a great finding for the study of primate evolution. Whether Ida turns out to be a transitional form in anthropoid primate evolution will be of discussion for quite some time to come. In the end perhaps this story tells us more about how science and the relationship with the media is changing. Brian Switek said it best in The Times, “She (Ida) truly is an amazing find, but for now I think that she has taught us more about science communication than our ancestry.”