'Original' great ape discovered [New genus "Missing Link" found!]

BBC ^ | 2/18/07 | Paul Rincon

[LibWhacker]

Scientists have unearthed remains of a primate that could have been ancestral not only to humans but to all great apes, including chimps and gorillas.

The partial skeleton of this 13-million-year-old "missing link" was found by palaeontologists working at a dig site near Barcelona in Spain.

Details of the sensational discovery appear in Science magazine.

The new specimen was probably male, a fruit-eater and was slightly smaller than a chimpanzee, researchers say.

Palaeontologists were just getting started at the dig when a bulldozer churned up a tooth.

Further investigation yielded one of the most complete ape skeletons known from the Miocene Epoch (about 22 to 5.5 million years ago).

Salvador Moyà-Solà of the Miquel Crusafont Institute of Palaeontology in Barcelona and colleagues subsequently found parts of the skull, ribcage, spine, hands and feet, along with other bones.

They have assigned it to an entirely new genus and species: Pierolapithecus catalaunicus .

Monkey business

Great apes are thought - on the basis of genetic and other evidence - to have separated from another primate group known as the lesser apes some time between 11 and 16 million years ago (The lesser apes include gibbons and siamang).

It is fascinating, therefore, for a specimen like Pierolapithecus to turn up right in this window.

Scientists think the creature lived after the lesser apes went their own evolutionary way, but before the great apes began their own diversification into different forms such as orang-utans, gorillas, chimps and, of course, humans.

" Pierolapithecus probably is, or is very close to, the last common ancestor of great apes and humans," said Professor Moyà-Solà.

The new ape's ribcage, lower spine and wrist display signs of specialised climbing abilities that link it with modern great apes, say the researchers.

The overall orthograde - or upright - body design of this animal and modern-day great apes is thought to be an adaptation to vertical climbing and suspending the body from branches.

The Miocene ape fossil record is patchy; so finding such a complete fossil from this time period is unprecedented.

"It's very impressive because of its completeness," David Begun, professor of palaeoanthropology at the University of Toronto, Canada, told the BBC News website.

"I think the authors are right that it fills a gap between the first apes to arrive in Europe and the fossil apes that more closely resemble those living today."

Planet of the apes

Other scientists working on fossil apes were delighted by the discovery. But not all were convinced by the conclusions drawn by the Spanish researchers.

Professor Begun considers it unlikely that Pierolapithecus was ancestral to orang-utans.

"I haven't seen the original fossils. But there are four or five important features of the face, in particular, that seem to be closer to African apes," he explained.

"To me the possibility exists that it is already on the evolutionary line to African apes and humans."

Professor David Pilbeam, director of the Peadbody Museum in Cambridge, US, was even more sceptical about the relationship of Pierolapithecus to modern great apes: "To me it's a very long stretch to link this to any of the living apes," he told the BBC News website.

"I think it's unlikely that you would find relatives of the apes that live today in equatorial Africa and Asia up in Europe.

"But it's interesting in that it appears to show some adaptations towards having a trunk that's upright because it's suspending itself [from branches].

"It also has some features that show quadrupedal (four-legged) behaviour. Not quadrupedal in the way chimps or gorillas are, but more in the way that monkeys are - putting their fingers down flat," he explained.

During the Miocene, Earth really was the planet of the apes.

As many as 100 different ape species roamed the Old World, from France to China in Eurasia and from Kenya to Namibia in Africa.

[taxesareforever]

"Gaps" don't invalidate what happened in the past.

You mean in the realm of science. Gaps are necessary in science in order to fit additional puzzle pieces into. You would think that science has explained everything so well in regards to eveolution. All one need do is go to a museum and see how man has progressed thru the lie of evolution. So why the need for "gaps"? It is because evolution doesn't have all the answers and it never will because a lie cannot be proven true.

[gondramB]

""That all cuts into the credibility of scientists and then they wonder why people don't accept their latest pronouncements like they're written in stone. Once burned, twice shy"

Well, its good to be skeptical of sweeping scientific pronouncements in the popular press. Now, Science magazine is better that the local newspaper but still its written to be dramatic.

Look at the difference between the actual quote from the scientist

>>Pierolapithecus probably is, or is very close to, the last common ancestor of great apes and humans," said Professor Moyà-Solà.<<

Then compare the summary as written in Science magazine

>>Salvador Moyà-Solà of the Miquel Crusafont Institute of Palaeontology in Barcelona and colleagues subsequently found parts of the skull, ribcage, spine, hands and feet, along with other bones.

They have assigned it to an entirely new genus and species: Pierolapithecus catalaunicus . <<

Then the more sensational headline from the BBC story
>>'Original' great ape discovered<<

and then headline with comment added on Freep
>>'Original' great ape discovered [New genus "Missing Link" found!]<<

The original scientist knows his work has to be checked by others and Science magazine showed that there will be scrutiny but as you get further from the source it gets more sensational.

So I would say you are right to be skeptical of popular press scientific pronouncements. If it cuts into credibility its the credibility of the main stream media, but we all know that's iffy sometimes anyway.

This discovery will get checked out, they will check the genetics (which takes time) and the authoritative bodies of science will weigh in - the action is in the peer review process and that's slow and not very exciting.

In the mean time we all like fast news and headlines -it gets other scientists interested and if this discovery is wrongly classified then it will almost certainly get corrected.

This isn't even a theory.

The standard to call something a theory is quite high.

>>According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.<<

[RightWhale]

it's all spelled out in a simple straightforward way so a complete beginner can understand it?

They keep revising it. A beginner would become expert just by keeping up with changes. Also, Latin is used, but it is modern Latin, not that Caesar junk they teach in high school.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

So then why are they shooting off their mouths making statements that they're likely to have to retract later. The article is replete with uncertainty; loaded with words and phrases like: *could have been*,*probably*,*are thought*,*Scientists think*,*the possibility exists*,*it appears to show*.

So you are critical of them for being tentative instead of certain, which is how science works, and then critical of them for using tentative language?

That all cuts into the credibility of scientists and then they wonder why people don't accept their latest pronouncements like they're written in stone.

Maybe they'd have more success with you folks if they used a burning bush?

[Antoninus]

We are apes of the primate order.

Speak for yourself...

[gondramB]

I don't get a lot of this eaither -biology has never been my interest and has always been hard for me because its hard for me to memorize things unless I understand them.

And I don't suggest taking Wikipedia as fact - we know it can be manipulated.

But when the articles are clearly written and well source I find them useful.

I have used the Living organisms article and its helped me. It includes this list of the hierarchy and each of the word links to an article for more detail. For examplew following the link for kingdons I found a chart that showed life was originally classified in two kindoms but as more discoveries were made that grew to 6 kingdoms.

Good luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_organisms


>>Organizational terminology

All organisms are classified by the science of alpha taxonomy into either taxa or clades.

Taxa are ranked groups of organisms which run from the general (domain) to the specific (species). A broad scheme of ranks in hierarchical order is:

* Domain
* Kingdom
* Phylum
* Class
* Order
* Family
* Genus
* Species
<<

[From many - one.]

Mandrill Baboon Picture Showing Massive Canine Teeth
http://www.african-safari-pictures.com/mandrill.html

Gorilla, baboons etc:
http://www.baystatereplicas.com/modern_apes.htm

Mainly fruit eaters.

[From many - one.]

Your post was better and faster. ;-)

[BobinIL]

Sorry, but I am NOT related to a monkey or ape. I was created in the image of god, period!

[atlaw]

Sorry, but I am NOT related to a monkey or ape.

You're not mammalian? And you're not a primate?

I was created in the image of god, period!

The suspense is killing me. You've got to post a picture!

[jdlmodelt]

That's some pretty weak-even pathetic philosophical reasoning there dude. Number one you can't compare the apples and oranges. Just because you have memory lapses, doesn't mean undiscovered creatures ever existed. "Bad boy, no soup for you!"

[Junior]

The suspense is killing me. You've got to post a picture!

Counselor, you owe me a keyboard.

[gondramB]

Bobin>>Sorry, but I am NOT related to a monkey or ape. I was created in the image of god, period!<<

As a separate issue from whether we were designed by God as we evolved, created by God as is or evolved without God it appears all life in the animal kingdom has DNA and the that the DNA molecules or nucleotides determine what the animal is and how closely its related to other living things.

You can put this different ways - you can emphasize the similarity with our closest DNA match - the Chimpanzee.

You could say there is only a 1.3% - 4% DNA difference depending on who does the math and how they do it..

or you could say there are 40,000,000 DNA differences which sounds like a lot.

or you could say there are 40 million out of 3 billion which gives you the 1.3% difference.

or you could say that researchers have identified a couple of thousand of those differences of the 3 billion total that are "biologically significant" which makes us sound very closely related.

It depends on what kind of spin you want to put on it. Chimpanzees are our closest DNA match and then you spin how large the gap is. Clearly we are quite different in spite of having a lot in common.

[gondramB]

Sorry about that - should have posted a source link.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

[Suzy Quzy]

I am, all humans are, made in the image and likeness of GOD......we are not apes....well, you might be, but I am not....Human have free will and Jesus came down from heaven to be crucified for our sins, not for apes actions...apes don't go to heaven OR hell, humans do.

[null and void]

And the "missing link" chain is now, what, about a mile long? But, there is room for more.

Yeah. Every time they fill a gap, it creates two new gaps on either side.

Do the math.

[RaceBannon]

you're right, Chimps are definitely thinking of how to improve their lot.....

I am laughing too hard to type, sorry....

[RadioAstronomer]

All of us (including you) are apes in the literal sense.

We fall within the family Hominidae (the great apes)

[Constantine XIII]

All of the apes that came before were just "ok"

[Suzy Quzy]

I SWEAR I did not scroll down and see your post!! RMTA though.