.
Posted on 04/17/2002 1:42:19 PM PDT by Dallas
LONDON, April 17 (Reuters) - A small, 85-million-year-old creature that looked like a lemur could be the common ancestor of all primates, including humans, if predications by a team of international scientists are correct.
Instead of 65 million years ago, they believe primates may have evolved from an ancestor that originated 20 million years earlier when dinosaurs still roamed the earth.
"All living primates must be derived from a single species. We are trying to work out how old that original species was," Dr Robert Martin, of The Field Museum in Chicago, said in an interview.
The oldest primate fossils date from 55 million years ago, which has led palaeontologists to believe that primates originated about 65 million years ago after the demise of the dinosaurs.
But Martin and a team of mathematicians and biologists believe the estimates are flawed because so few fossils of early primates have been found.
"Our calculations indicate that we have fossil evidence for only about five percent of all extinct primates, so it's as if palaeontologists have been trying to reconstruct a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle using just 50 pieces," he said.
FILLING THE GAPS
The team of scientists from the United States, Switzerland and Britain have taken a statistical approach and used a computer model based on the time gap between the oldest known fossils and the last common ancestor in a group, as well as other factors, to fill in the missing fossil record.
Their findings, reported in the science journal Nature on Wednesday, put the split between humans and chimps three million years earlier than previously thought.
"Everything split earlier that we had thought, including humans from chimps," said Martin.
There are about 396 recorded fossil primate species. Field and his colleagues estimate there are as many as 9,000 extinct primate species.
The scientists believe earlier fossils have not been found because early primates were very small and the conditions in southern latitudes, where they probably originated before expanding northward, were not the best for fossil preservation.
The said existing primates can be divided into six subgroups -- lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, New World monkey, Old World monkeys and apes and humans, and their 85-million-year-old common ancestor would have been a creature weighing about two pounds (0.9 kilogram) with grasping hands and feet.
It would have lived in trees in tropical forests, feasted on a diet of fruit and insects and had small litters.
"It is a theoretical reconstruction," said Martin, adding that the characteristics it has are basic to the primate group.
Molecular biologists, using comparisons of DNA sequences, have calculated that the primate split from other placental mammals occurred about 90 millions years ago, which is in line with the conclusions of the approach used by Martin and his colleagues.
"We hope our research will help reconcile the discrepancies between the various dates suggested by palaeontologists and molecular biologists," Martin said.
Lemur? Lemur? Lemur? ...whew! All this time I thought it was a LEMMING!
Only the guys who make the breakthroughs get the headlines. They've usually got to come up with something record-shattering or their efforts are not publicized.
What a lot of pressure!
"Scientists qualify their statements, and religious fanatics do not".
.
A million years here, a million years there, what's the difference? The biggest problem is to coordinate the expert opinions of the Evolution cult clergy and faithfull so that they speak with one voice. And all those Cal Sagan catechism that'll have to be re-printed, oy! And then 6 months down the road the dogma will change again when a new scientific lottery number is drawn. Shoot, I think maybe I'll join the Church of Scientificology instead.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
It may have escaped, but fortunately it was hunted down and killed before it could do any damage.
I find it interesting that geniuses think that the self-correcting nature of science means that all science is wrong. And they only do this when it comes to evolution or life origins. Science is science as long as it fits into their worldview. Other science is garbage regardless of whether the scientific method and observations have proved it (at least, as much as it can be proved.)
Scientists revising their theories! CAN MANKIND EVER SURVIVE???
Ohhh boy. Now you've done it. Expect to be hunted down by Gore3K and medved. While they fight tooth and nail to discredit the first part of your quote, they ignore the simple but factual second part of your quote.
You've been warned.
Statement marked for future reference.
...An interesting claim, but I've noticed not always the case. Again, notice the negative connotation given to people of faith (fanatics) while "scientists" is conveniently lacking of modifiers. This is a tactic often utilized by political liberals. It harkens to the term "moderates", now used to define those not associated with social conservatism....and "extremists". Weak stuff, IMO.
HANG ON!! ARE YOU SAYING THAT "THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO" is NOT QUALIFYING MY STATEMENTS?????
*has an identity crisis*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.