Ida, media sensation
News of the discovery of a 47 million year old primate fossil has just been released. The skeleton, nicknamed Ida, has been classified Darwinius masillae. It was a female animal which lived during the Eocene epoch. It was discovered in Messel, Germany as long ago as 1983. It was privately sold off in two parts which were later acquired for the University of Oslo Natural History Museum. A team of scientists have been examining it for the past two years.
Ida is a lemur-like creature but differs from a lemur in many respects, in particular, the absence of a toilet claw and a toothcomb. Darwinius masillae is part of a larger group of primates, Adapoidea, not simply a lemur. The scientific paper is available and can be found here.
This is clearly an extremely interesting and important find. But the media reports – television, radio and press – are running sensational reports about this being the “missing link” and that it provides “proof” of our – human – evolution from the animal kingdom. The hype is that Ida is our direct ancestor, even that Ida show human characteristics. Here’s but one example:
Evidence in the talus bone links Ida to us. The bone has the same shape as in humans today. Only the human talus is obviously bigger.
This is obvious nonsense. Having the “same shape” is so non-specific as to be meaningless. And as for “Missing link”: this is an archaic phrase now adopted by creationists to cast doubt on the fact of evolution. The tactic is to demand that scientists produce every single morphological change – the full evolutionary record – which is impossible. And of course when any fossil of a new transitional creature is found, another gap, or missing link, is added.
At first glance, this media onslaught with pretty much the same (wrong) message is puzzling. But dig a bit deeper and you will find a well-coordinated public relations effort to promote an upcoming documentary and a new book titled The Link. The press release from the University of Olso has a huge heading: “The Link”. They have a website named, you guessed it, The Link, where they describe what they’re doing:
The scientific publication of Ida has been carefully timed so that the film, book and website can be launched at the same time. The scientists see this as a new way of presenting science for the 21st century, where a major scientific find becomes available to everyone, wherever they are in the world at the same time. Ida connects to us all, and we can all share in understanding her.
This “link” they’re talking about is the one directly to humans. A member of the team, Dr Jens Franzen takes this to unbelievable lengths, describing Ida as “like the Eighth Wonder of the World”, because of the extraordinary completeness of the skeleton. He can’t contain himself:
It was information “palaeontologists can normally only dream of”, he said.In addition, Ida bears “a close resemblance to ourselves” he said, with
nails instead of claws, a grasping hand and an opposable thumb – like
humans and some other primates. But he said some aspects of the teeth
indicate she is not a direct ancestor – more of an “aunt” than a
“grandmother”.
Others are more circumspect. Dr Chris Beard, curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History and author of The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey, said he was “awestruck” by the publicity machine surrounding the new fossil.
He argued that it could damage the popularisation of science if the creature was not all that it was hyped up to be.
Dr Beard has not yet seen scientific details of the find but said that it would be very nice to have a beautiful new fossil from the Eocene and that Ida would be “a welcome new addition” to the world of early primates.
But he added: “I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans.”
Quite. I’m all for popularising science, but this is not the way to do it. It doesn’t always have to be about us. There is enough beauty and wonder to revel in this find. It doesn’t have to be turned into a proto-human media sensation.
Technorati Tags: evolution, science
Comments
3 Comments on Ida, media sensation
-
Mamsell on
Fri, 22nd May 2009 3:31 pm
-
Ida Brown on
Thu, 28th May 2009 2:00 pm
-
Tim on
Fri, 29th May 2009 11:38 am
David Attenborough was gushing uncontrollably about how Ida is the Missing Link. I’d always thought he was on the side of serious science.
Where did the nickname Ida come from? Who’s idea was it to use Ida?
@Ida
Let me guess why you’re interested in the name….
According to The Guardian, it was named by Dr. Jørn Hurum, the paleontologist from Oslo University who assembled the scientific team to study it.
Hurum chose Ida’s nickname because the diminutive creature is at the equivalent stage of development as his six-year-old daughter. Hurum said Ida is very excited about her namesake. “She says, ‘there are two Idas now, there’s me I’m living and then there’s the dead one.’”
Well I guess there at least three!
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
-
Recommended
