Primate ancestor lived with dinos

BBC ^

[JediGirl]

Primate ancestor lived with dinos

The common ancestor of humans, monkeys, apes and other primates may have arisen much earlier than previously thought.

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"

[JediGirl]

bump

[bzrd]

If the latest ape/like to human scenario is analogous to a jig-saw puzzle with 95% of the pieces missing, how much confidence should we have in the underlying premise i.e., that man shares a common anscestor with the apes?

Brian.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

My astrologer says this could or not be true.

[keta]

You miss the point. The amount of evidence or even the veracity of the evidence is irrelevant. Evolution is a fact.

[stanz]

Tree shrews.
Evolutionary biologists have long suggested tree shrews as the prototype for primate ancestry. These were the among the small mammals which survived the extinction of the dinosaurs.

[Cleburne]

The females gave birth to a single offspring, which clung to their fur.

One can deduce this from a few scraps of bones? I, for one, am curious how such ideas can be substantiated.

[ImaGraftedBranch]

The females gave birth to a single offspring, which clung to their fur.

ha.
Bwa-ha.
Bwa-ha-ha.
ba-haha-haha-haha-haha-haha-haha-ha.

ahem.

Excuse me for laughing.

They know this...how?

[Alberta's Child]

Reminds me of a story I heard about two members of the Israeli knesset who were traveling on the same flight back in the 1970s. They were friends even though they came from opposite ends of the political and moral spectrum.

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."

[PatrickHenry]

From the lead article:
According to a computer model, no more than 7% of all primate species that ever existed have been dug up.

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.)

[jlogajan]

That reminds me of the story that creationists tell made up stories.

[jlogajan]

They know this...how?

"... 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.

[Ronzo]

Disney took a lot of heat from critics of all sorts for portraying primates co-habitating with dinosaurs in their CGI flick "Dinosaur." Now, it looks like they were right all along!

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...

[AdA$tra]

Evolution is a fact.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Prove it!

[keta]

question: is evolution an absolute certaintly or not?

[arthurus]

You miss the point. The amount of evidence or even the veracity of the evidence is irrelevant. Evolution is a fact.

You miss the point. The amount of evidence or even the veracity of the evidence is irrelevant. Evolution is a doctrine.

[keta]

In some circles, I haven't heard the word "theory" associated with evolution in many years: either by my colleagues or by mentors such as Lewontin. Perhaps I should tell them that they belong to a class different from one you mentioned.

[keta]

Um, that was actually my point too.

[jlogajan]

question: is evolution an absolute certaintly or not?

Beyond "cognito ergo sum" is anything an absolute certainty?

[bzrd]

Evolution IS a fact, depending of course on how one defines it; it can mean that gene frequencys have changed over time, for example. Does this mean that it is an indisputable fact that we are descended from the porverbial ape-like anscestor?

I would call this an unwarranted speculation.

Brian.

[aomagrat]

[keta]

Your answer reminds me of my days of advising the DOS in talks with the Japanese. Although "no' is not in their vocabulary, there are still many ways to say it.

[bzrd]

Speaking of failed computer simulations, I liked Dawkin's Weasel applet because he inadvertantly demonstrated that evolution optimizes existing genes, rather than producing new ones, such as required to sustain the ND hypothesis.

Brian.

[jlogajan]

Evolution is as "certain" as the existance of your parents. You may, in fact, be the only being in the universe and have imagined your parents existance. There's no way to prove anything exists besides your own imagination.

So if we do indeed take your parents existance as "certain" then we can take evolution as the basis for advanced life on earth as "certain."

[bzrd]

Evolution [Darwinism actually] is simply the best naturalistic explanation for the diversity of biological life. The fact that it doesn't explain it all that well, is a commentary on the naturalistic assumptions that undergird the theory.

Frankly, I think it is time for a paradigm change.

ID anyone?

Brian.

[Virginia-American]

anthropology, and nothing I or my colleagues have seen would convince us that evolution, the kind where species become new and different species, is a fact.

Humans, chimps, gorillas, et al ("great apes") have a shared genetic defect that makes it impossible to synthesize ascorbic acid. Isn't this evidence of common ancestry?

[bzrd]

Saying evolution is a certainty, without defining the word "evolution", constitutes meaningless phraseology. I am an "evolutionist" according to some definitions; for example, I wouldn't for a minute, debate the existence of natural selection acting on random mutations.

I just don't believe it does all the science establishment says it does i.e., explain the existence and diversity of biological life.

Brian.

[bzrd]

My Ford F-250 [gas-guzzeling enviro-abomination] has much in common with my wife's Taurus.

I can tell you in all certainty, that they share a common designer.

Brian.

[jrherreid]

Heh heh... monkeys.

[Grut]

Evolution is a fact.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Prove it!

Did you ever notice how squirrels don't freeze in the middle of the road nearly as much as they used to?

[keta]

That is of course, Lewinton's argument which was probably the fodder for Twain's astute observation.

“In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a triffle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippe River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three quarter long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling inventment of fact.” -- Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi

[Junior]

One can deduce this from the fact that all extant primates give birth to a single young that clings to the mother's fur. If this trait is shared by all current species it most probably arose in a common ancestor. If the last common ancestor of all living primates lived 85 million years ago, it is fairly safe to assume that it also gave birth to a single young which clinged to its fur.

[AdA$tra]

But some humans (adding the the thoery of Devolution) don't know better than to get out of the street/insterstate: here

[Paulus Invictus]

Hey, it's true! Didn't you see the movie "Dinosaurs" in which a little animal like the one called our ancestor rode around on big dinos. Even better, they all spoke English too, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that English has a much longer history than we thought.

[shekkian]

I see truth in the title of this thread. The catch is it wasn't 65 million years ago.

[william clark]

"And so, in accordance with what we think your last wishes might well have been..."

[shekkian]

If you claim evolution to be a fact and say the amount of evidence is irrelevant, it is not a fact, but a doctrine.

[Tokhtamish]

Your answer reminds me of my days of advising the DOS in talks with the Japanese. Although "no' is not in their vocabulary, there are still many ways to say it.

The Japanese say "sore wa tottemo muzukashii desu" (That would be very difficult) when they want to say no. But to continue, doesn't science already theorize that around that time volcanism all over the world and the thinning of the lush grasslands that supported the previously vast herds of herbivores was already wreaking havoc on the food chain before the meteor hit ? Weren't the dinosaurs species already dying out creating lots of space that mammals could take advantage of ?

In a world of very big predators, of allosauruses and plesiosaurs and deinonicus (velociraptors) mammals could only survive by staying small and furtive.

[Outraged]

I think I found the missing link!!!

[jlogajan]

I am actually receiving my minor degree in the field of anthropology, and nothing I or my colleagues have seen would convince us that evolution, the kind where species become new and different species, is a fact.

Immediately get your money back and transfer to an accredited learning institution.

[metesky]

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.

I analysed a gap once, but was told by colleagues that my analysis had a hole in it.

Insert "gap between your ears" joke here:___________________

[gore3000]

What a load of nonsense! These so-called scientists are revising the supposed origin of primates based on a percentage derived from how many dead species have not been found! Are these people morons? Did they pass first grade? What is a supposedly legitimate news organization like the BBC doing giving them even a half an inch of space?

Seems evolutionists just operate on arrogance and gall, not only do they postulate the age of this non-existent species for which not a trace has been found, but they can even tell us what it looked like and of course, like all good evolutionists painted for us a tree showing this non-existent species:
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.
Where did they find this out? In a Chinese opium den? Reading tea leaves? Ms Cleo told them? Seems that paleontology has become the refuge for non-publishable science-fiction writers.

[gore3000]

As if the garbage in this article were not enough (see post above) the supposed "earliest primate" is itself a fraud.

PALEONTOLOGICAL FRAUD

A great example of paleontological fraud is Eosimias. Eosimias was trumpeted by evos, by so called scientists and by the press 'the missing link of human evolution'. Here's Eosimias:

Time Magazine's Eosimias illustration
The Evolutionary tree showing Eosimias's place in it

This must be quite a find indeed! The whole history of man, the missing link, finally found! A great new specimen found!

There are many links to the pictures above, however you will have to look for a long time for the pictures of the bones showing this fantastic find. I found a site which showed the bones and guess what, they were from those totally unscientific folk called creationists. Imagine the nerve, the total gall of these people of showing the evidence, the bones, upon which those gorgeous drawings were made! How unscientific can they get?:

Alas! Here's the picture! The proof of macro-evolution, the proof that Darwin was right! The proof that God does not exist!

From:Evolution in the News - September 2000
In case you missed it, the "evidence" is in the case being held by the man, the bones are two, just above the white ruler.

However, this is not the only evidence for Eosimias of course. Here's the story of the lower jaw and tooth of Eosimias:
In a separate article in the journal Nature, the group reported on more fossils from a previously discovered third primate called Eosimias centennicus. They had discovered its teeth and jaws in the mid 1990s. Now they?ve got ankle bones, which they say backs up their controversial claim that Eosimias is an early ancestor of humans.
from:A Shrew Size Primate

Of course, they did not bother to show the rest of the evidence of Eosymias, the lower jaw and teeth:

from:    Picture Gallery of Fossils from China
Note that the jaw bones had been found some 10 years earlier in a part of China hundreds of miles away from the ankle bone find.

One may ask how the jaw bones and the ankle bones were determined to be of the same creature? What scientific explanation could there be for such a determination? No doubt they were genetically linked through evo supermollecular retro-dna analysis to each other(a wonderful new invention which can trace non-existing DNA back hundreds of millions of generations). From this awesome evidence they made the drawings, the articles, the missing links and a whole new family tree for mankind! And the best part about all this is that your taxes paid for this wonderful discovery!

Short list of the purveyors of this fraud:    Carnegie Museums--- Athena Review--- Myanmar.com--- Northern Illinois University--- Northern Illinois University --- Arizona University --- Science News--- ABC News--- Northwestern University--- UC Davis--- BBC News--- Post Gazette---

[jennyp]

Reminds me of a story I heard about two members of the Israeli knesset who were traveling on the same flight back in the 1970s. They were friends even though they came from opposite ends of the political and moral spectrum.

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."

That is really ironic! It reminds me of my two friends, Dave and Tim, who were shooting the breeze on my front porch one summer day back in the 1970s. They were friends who had visited each others' houses, and gotten to know their families up close.

Dave marvelled at Tim, because whenever he was at Tim's house, Tim's father would often approach him to make sure he was comfortable, to see if he wanted a pop, etc.

"I must say," Dave finally spoke up, "I admire your dad for the respect he shows you -- My dad doesn't treat me nearly as well as yours treats you."

"That is because your dad is a creationist," Tim said. "Your dad doesn't respect you because he thinks you are one step farther away from the Divine source of life than he is. My dad respects me because he believes in the theory of evolution -- he knows I am one step farther away from a monkey."

Sometime I'll tell you about the time my creationist professor dropped a chalk on the floor & ran out screaming... :-)

[jlogajan]

Zing! Too funny! ha ha