The Big Question: Is 'Ida' really the missing link between humans and animals?
Why are we asking this now?
The fossil, nicknamed "Ida", was discovered in 1983 but the scientific paper describing it has only just been published amid great secrecy to coincide with the commercial launch of a popular science book and a television documentary. The creature in question has been named Darwinius masillae in honour of Charles Darwin and it lived 47 million years ago.
It is the most complete fossils of any member of the primate group of animals, which include lorises, lemurs, monkeys, apes and of course Man. The skeleton is almost perfectly preserved, clearly showing anatomical details that mark the animal out as a member of the group of animals that were part of the transition from the prosimians, such as the lemurs, to anthropoids, such as apes and humans. It is for this reason that the people behind the discovery and its publicity have called the fossil "the link" between the very first primates and the lineage that eventually led to Homo sapiens.
What is so special about the fossil?
There are several features that make Ida stand out, other than the almost miraculous preservation of about 95 per cent of its skeleton. The first striking anatomical feature – other than the absence of a penis bone or bacculum, making Ida unmistakably female – is the animal's opposable thumbs, which she used for climbing trees and picking up items of food such as berries and fruit. Opposable thumbs on a five-digit hand are a signature feature of monkeys and apes and were essential for the precision grip needed to make and handle tools, a key development in human evolution.
What else have we learnt about her?
Other anatomical features include the presence of a distinctive ankle "talus" bone in Ida's foot, another link to human anatomy. Only the human talus is obviously bigger, according the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo, which was involved in the scientific analysis of the fossil. Further interesting features of its anatomy are the absence of a "toothcomb", a fused row of teeth in the middle of the lower jaw, and a "toilet claw", a grooming claw on the second digit of the foot. These features are attributes of lemurs but absent in monkeys and apes, indicating Ida's transition to anthropoid primates.
Furthermore, Ida's fingertips end in nails rather than claws, which is another link with monkeys and apes. Her eye sockets housed large, forward-pointing eyes that probably gave her good 3-D, binocular vision. Her big eyes would have been useful for a lifestyle of night-time foraging.
How big was she and how old?
She was about 3ft long from head to tail and her adult teeth were in the process of pushing out her milk teeth when she died. Scientists said she was about nine months old and was at that vulnerable stage of life when she was not yet fully grown but no longer requiring constant maternal care. The Oslo University scientist who studied her, Jorn Hurum, said that she was probably at the same developmental stage as his six- year-old daughter called Ida – hence the name.
X-rays and other scans also showed that Ida had a fractured wrist bone that was in the process of healing. This may have contributed to her death as it would have made her less agile than if her wrists were uninjured. The fossil is so perfectly preserved that it even shows the contents of Ida's stomach – her last meal was berries and leaves. Even the distinct impression of her fur coat can be seen around the skeleton.
What sort of world did Ida live in?
The epoch she lived in was known as the Eocene, which began about 55 million years ago, about 10 million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs. It was during the period that the warm-blooded mammals continued their evolutionary transition from small, shrew-like creatures that lived alongside the dinosaurs to the large and diverse array of animals we see today, from rats, sheep and elephants to dolphins, bats and humans.
The place where Ida lived was a semi-tropical forest near a volcanic lake in a region that became a disused pit called Grube Messel near Darmstadt in Germany. The Messel pit has yielded a rich assortment of Eocene animals, such as fish, birds, bats, turtles and dwarf horses, many of which may have died from the poison gases given off from the lake.
Who discovered her?
An unnamed fossil collected found her in the Messel pit by splitting apart a slab of rock at the base of a place called Turtle Hill to reveal two mirror-image impressions in the rock, known as the part and counterpart. The less detailed counterpart was subsequently sold to a dinosaur museum in Wyoming in America but an analysis revealed that parts of the impression had been tinkered with to make the fossil seem more complete than it was.
Then what happened?
The detailed "part" of the fossil was kept hidden until it was eventually sold in 2007 to the Natural History Museum in Oslo. It is by studying this section that scientists realised the fossil's significance in the early evolution of the primates.
Are there any doubts about the significance of the find?
The Oslo scientists have run an exhaustive set of tests on the fossil and have concluded that it is completely genuine and authentic, according to their scientific paper. But one of the slightly suspicious aspects of the story is how it has emerged in a blaze of publicity co-ordinated by the television documentary company that was given access to the scientists, along with the involvement of a publisher with a book to sell on the subject.
What's unusual about that?
Usually, new discoveries of this significance is first published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature where the claims are meticulously analysed by teams of experts.
However, this study was published in a free-access, on-line journal called PLOS which said that it announced the study to coincide with a press conference in New York organised by the American Museum of Natural History and its media partners. Rather than being in control of when the announcement should be made, which is what journals like Science and Nature usually insist on, PLOS was in the hands of other, more media-savvy organisations that could manipulate the spin and the hype.
So is Ida the missing link?
No, she is not "the link" because there is never going to be one missing link between humans and their primate ancestors. Neither is Ida our direct ancestor. She belonged to a branch that evolved in parallel to the ancestral line of primates that eventually gave rise to humans.
Ida is an important and fascinating discovery at the roots of the primate lineage but unfortunately it could become mired in hype and exaggerated claims – such as Ida being "our earliest ancestor". She was not "the link", but simply one of many, many links in the long and complicated descent of man.
Are the claims for Ida's significance overstated?
Yes...
* She is not the missing link but one of many links in the long chain of Man's descent.
* The publicity statements were hyped to make her appear more special than she is.
* She was not on the direct line of descent that led to Homo sapiens but a side branch.
No...
* It is the first time such a well-preserved primate fossil has been revealed.
* Her features clearly show the transition from lemur-like animal to ape-like primate.
* It is remarkable that such an old and important fossil has survived so well.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
It says "Science" at the top of the page Steve. Perhaps you should post under the heading "Quasiscience for the unintelligent"?
Psssst - Humans ARE animals.
Not being a specialis, to me the whole lump of rock with the fossil therein is "a fossil".
Sorry to have stirred things up with what was, I thought, a light-hearted comment.
igor1st
igor1st
Plus we know that the flying spaghetti monster was a satrical notion created by Bobby Henderson in 2005 and if you were to ask him, he would admit as such. Plus we know about spaghetti and can trace it's origins to 12th century italy. Dunno bout meatballs, but before the conception of either of those things, who could have conceived of a flying spaghetti monster? :p
Also, if God created the entire universe, there is more evidence for God than for evolution as the entire universe would be the evidence.
We know natural selection happens and we can see it happen. T-rex turning into a chicken is not possible through natural selection. There are so many problems with turning a lizard into a bird. Cold blood, warm blood. Scales, feathers (and no, there are no feathered dinosaurs). Lung anatomy.
As amazing a find as Ida is, it is nowhere near what people are hyping it to be.
If you look at everything around you... all life, physics.. from astrophysics, down to physics on the atomic level. If you look at how everything reacts to everything else, or how the blood flows in the viens of living creatures. If you look at how particles orbit the nucleus of an atom, and how planets orbit their parent stars... Do you honestly believe that this is all by chance?? Is it not MORE than obvious that all that you see was DESIGNED to be that way?
With all the brillant minds on this planet, I find it amusing that science and religion are so split on these topics. How can atheists believe that everything just "is" and not question who made it so, or what put it there, or why things are the way they are. Do they really accept "chance" as the answer?
And why cant creationists consider that God created life AND evolution. Does believing in God mean you have to accept the "God snapped his fingers and there was man" story of creation? Is it not possible that God created this universe and everything in it, designing both the laws of physics (from astro to atomic), and also the process of evolution knowing (because he is God) that the eventual product of his design would in time produce mankind?
My point to amwg is this.... Evidence of a higher being is all around you. If you cannot tell that everything was designed to be the way it is, then youre cheating yourself of what we're all after.... the Truth. Nothing is a coincidence, open your eyes.
No doubt you'll be amazed to learn that not all primates living 47 million years ago were human ancestors.
My point about Quasiscience was the failure to recognise in the headline that humans ARE animals (hyping hype).
(And , in my view, blaming the sub-editor is from the dog-ate-my-homework bag of excuses.)
Doesnt 'prove' the theory of evolution, its a piece in the massive jigsaw. So still a theory...
The creature in question has been named Darwinius masillae in honour of Charles Darwin and it lived 47 million years ago.
* She is not the missing link but one of many links in the long chain of Man's descent.
* The publicity statements were hyped to make her appear more special than she is.
* She was not on the direct line of descent that led to Homo sapiens but a side branch.
Compare and wake up call.
MP Quits Over A Duck House
I heard this over the TV and was not very sure what I had heard. Now I understand it is a duck house.
Westminster's all a-flap over this: a "Stockholm" duck house which a Tory MP claimed £1,645 of taxpayers' money for.
I thank you
Tell me what do you want me to do about these in the time when I don?t have money and they cannot help BOTH
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
I personally have no problem equating hard line evolutionary theory with the existance of a higher being, but then I'm not looking at it from an extremely limited Abrahamic angle, (i.e. a benevolent bearded god who created man in his image and nature (and women) for the use of man) nor from the somewhat limited hard line Dawkin-esque atheist angle either.
Maybe it was all that acid I took in the 90s man......... But theres some deeply mystical shit going down.....as Jimi Hendrix once said;
'Uuhhhh.....yeh.....baby!'
Complete series of fossils, notably the evolution of the horse, have been found. if you read about the finches on the Galapagos Islands, you wouldn't really be able to argue that species do evolve and adapt... not by magic but forced by environmental change favouring specific individuals.
I think the Bible is supposed to be considered alagorical, rather than taken literally and if you look at it that way, the stages of creation are not dissimilar to the evolutionary phases. eg life came from the sea, plants came before animals, humans are most recent. The Creation Story may be an Ancient trying to explain how they believe life evolved, in a very simple way, for the people of that time.
It amazes me when people come up with the "only a theory" and think that these are ideas that will someday be upgraded to facts given the right information. A scientific theory is an explanation of the facts, it is the model that is proposed to help us understand the ovbserved facts.
Things fall (fact) - gravitation theory explains why. Things evolve (fact), evolutionary theory explains why.
This should not be difficult to understand. There are countless observed instance of evolution, there is a plethora of supporting facts from multiple scientific disciplines. There is no suggestion within the scientific community that evolution is not a 100% fact.
As for your post in general I assume you are joking with you 5000 year figure. You do know that is complete and utter nonsense? please say yes, it upsets me to think I live in a world where someone so misinformed can exist.