Posted on 04/18/2002 1:58:34 PM PDT by JediGirl
New research suggests the animals from which humans could have emerged were living in the tree tops 85 million years ago, when the dinosaurs still ruled the Earth.
What the earliest common ancestor might have looked like
|
Until now, the widely accepted date was 65 million years ago, about the time when the dinosaurs died out.
But a team of scientists in Britain and the United States has analysed gaps in the fossil record and come up with a new figure, some 20 million years earlier. It means the whole story of primate evolution may have to be rewritten.
The new theory challenges the idea that primates were unable to make their mark on the planet until after the demise of the dinosaurs.
It also suggests that continental drift played a role in how primates evolved in different parts of the world. It even has implications for our own descent - the first humans may have appeared about eight rather than five million years ago.
Jigsaw puzzle
The research, which was revealed in the scientific journal Nature, is based on a statistical analysis of evidence from the fossil record.
According to a computer model, no more than 7% of all primate species that ever existed have been dug up.
Co-author Robert Martin, of the Field Museum in Chicago, US, said current interpretations of primate and human evolution were flawed because palaeontologists had relied too heavily on direct interpretation of the known fossil record.
He said: "Our calculations indicate that we have fossil evidence for only about 5% 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."
|
|
|
Primates |
|
Six subgroups exist today - lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, apes, humans
Dwarf lemur is closest modern match
Primitive primate ancestor was small-brained
|
According to the new work, the earliest common ancestor of all primates was probably a nocturnal, tree-living creature with grasping hands and feet.
It weighed just a few pounds and dined on fruit and insects.
The females gave birth to a single offspring, which clung to their fur.
Co-author Dr Christophe Soligo of the Natural History Museum in London, UK, said the new work put specific events within primate evolution into a very different context.
"The world 85 million years ago was very different to the world 65 million years ago," he told the BBC.
"What we demonstrate is that modern orders of mammals appeared well before dinosaurs disappeared so the initial divergence of modern orders of mammals cannot be the result of the extinction of the dinosaurs."
"We will have to look at new mechanisms of how and why these oldest ancestors evolved"
Brian.
One can deduce this from a few scraps of bones? I, for one, am curious how such ideas can be substantiated.
ha.
Bwa-ha.
Bwa-ha-ha.
ba-haha-haha-haha-haha-haha-haha-ha.
ahem.
Excuse me for laughing.
They know this...how?
The liberal one marvelled at the conservative one, because the young sons of the conservative man approached his father periodically during the flight to make sure he was comfortable, to see if he wanted a drink, etc.
"I must say," the liberal finally spoke up, "I admire your children for the respect they show you -- My children don't treat me nearly as well as yours treat you."
"That is because you support the theory of evolution," the conservative said, "Your children don't respect you because they think you are one step closer to a monkey than they are. My children respect me because I am a creationist -- they know I am one step closer to the Divine source of life than they are."
I need to know a lot more about the assumptions going into this guy's computer model. We routinely scoff at the ID crowd with their alleged models "proving" that evolution is impossible; and the same skepticism should be applied across the board. (But I suspect the article in Nature covers this fairly well.)
"... was probably a nocturnal, tree-living creature with grasping hands and feet."
It's called extrapolation from various clues. All scientific evidence is qualified with "error bars", i.e. probability statement.
Only religious cranks arrogate to themselves absolute certainty.
That is, of course, if you BELIEVE in evilution, which I still have some very significant problems with. But I'm a firm, entrenched, resolute beiever in de-evoloution. I see examples of it on Free Republic all the time...
You miss the point. The amount of evidence or even the veracity of the evidence is irrelevant. Evolution is a doctrine.
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.