io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 7:46 PM
Mon Nov 9
25 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/01/09
I shall now go eat a banana in solidarity with my ancestors and cousins. Ook.
10/01/09
Though, I take issue with the banana eating. The big yellow Cavendish banana that we eat today is completely artificial. Go eat some african fruits and monkeys, and you'd be closer to the right stuff (though it might not be as delicious!)
10/01/09
10/02/09
From what I've heard, that 98% DNA thing is a factoid that has been misinterpreted by many. We share our DNA with most of the animals on the planet, so that 2% makes a difference.
10/01/09
Isn't this Anthropology 101? Or even Biology 101?
How come every time a new fossil discovery appears in the news, the headlines always say something like "DARWIN PROVEN WRONG. Scientists discover that evolution may be based on genetic changes within populations of organisms over a series of generations rather than whatever the fuck it was before."
10/01/09
The press stinks when it comes to reporting these finds because they will undoubtedly mention this "missing link" term, which doesn't exist.
10/01/09
I mean, it's a lame excuse for watering down science, but it helps an entire branch of my family tree.
10/01/09
10/01/09
Even if there -was- a continuous chain, there could always be claims to be a missing link, just like theres always an inbetween decimal number.
10/01/09
10/01/09
Pshaw! Don't those scientists know that the missing link looks like this.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
Lot's of them.
10/01/09
Anyone?
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
Dad - wear a shirt next time you throw a pool party. Nobody wants to see that.
E.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
Fap!
10/01/09
To me, that is just amazing and shows how incredible life really is. I don't know why some people find it so scary, or even insulting that we just didn't appear out of thin air, or that we have this diverse heritage. I have spiritual beliefs but they are only confirmed when I see stuff like this. I guess to others it has the opposite effect.
10/01/09
10/01/09
Of course I haven't seen her...
10/01/09
The Bible is a good book for religion. The Bible is not a good book for science.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
The Bible : a great book of stories
10/01/09
We should instead compare it to something equaly consistent and logical; BSG
10/01/09
Id happly accept the possibility of, say, a pre-evolved sentient species messing with our dna. Its not necessary, but its a possibility.
However as soon as people think some old book is more trustworthy then hundreds of thousands of people dedicating their lives to studying the world, I get depressed for humanity.
Science is work. Its admitting mistakes, and constantly refineing an idea. If you just get your answers magicaly from somewhere, and your never prepared to admit your wrong, your never going to be right either.
10/02/09
10/02/09
Not sure where you get that from.
10/01/09
10/01/09
Stop. Please. We've discovered dozens of "missing links." Writing like this just gives aid and comfort to Creationists who will quote it out of context and then shout, "Aha! When we find missing links! Those evil Darwinists are still looking for Java Man!"
While this is a great and exciting find, it doesn't prove anything we didn't already know for over a century.
10/01/09
Also, if you consider the "Missing Link" to be the common ancestor, and not just the transitional forms after the split we've found, then I'd say we are still looking for the "missing link", despite how creationists twist that into propaganda.
So, basically, we shouldn't refer to it in this way, despite it being pretty much correct, because creationist scum bags have tagged negative shit onto the word to use against evolution? Isn't that kind of a victory for the creationists?
They can take practically any scientific writing, pull it out of context and peddle it successfully to the ignorant.
10/01/09
1) Science don't work in proofs, only math does.
2) I'm sure the study authors will be happy to know the last 17 years of their academic lives "don't prove anything new".
3) The only reason I'm griefing you about this is because you gave the original author grief about the term "missing link". A sci fi website's pop sci article uses a scientifically not-completely accurate term? Zounds! Obviously you must smash them with rocks.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
If you took the direct ancestors that led to man, and the ones that led to chimp, the first species you find going backwards in time that is in both lineages is the common ancestor I meant with everything I typed that involved "common ancestor".
I fully agree that we probably won't find it, much less be able to prove that it was the most recent common ancestor. I was talking more so in a hypothetical sense than what we'll really uncover.
That most recent common ancestor is the ONLY type of fossil i would consider the "missing link" title appropriate for, but only in regards to the relationship of 2 species. With out specifying the 2 species being related, most species would be links between 2 other species, making nearly every unknown creature a missing link. Using the term that way, as it is often in new stories, is pointless.
But when talking about a hypothetical species that was the most recent, and final, common ancestor, the term seems valid in my mind. Its an unknown species, and it links the 2 separate branches of the evolutionary tree.
To reiterate, I only mean this in regards to examining 2 specific branches of the evolutionary tree, not to any species that forms a tree crotch on the evolutionary tree.
10/01/09
Um, obviously. We never thought we would be. We didn't evolve from modern Chimps, we evolved from the ancestors of modern chimps and us.
Either way, cool article. I did not know ancient apes were palmigrade!
10/01/09
I didn't get too far in my physical anthropology.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
I can see this in some future story where people get genetically engineered for some task or planet, though. The long arms might be useful.