Ancient Lemurs Take Bite Out of Evolutionary Tree

Posted: October 22, 2009

View a video featuring Stony Brook University paleontologist, Erik Seiffert.

About 40 miles outside Cairo, Egypt, National Science Foundation (NSF)-supported paleontologists from three American universities are revealing features of a newly discovered African primate and solving a riddle about humankind's evolutionary past.

Lead researcher Erik Seiffert of New York's Stony Brook University and his colleagues say their find has the potential to clear up a portion of the human evolutionary tree by resolving the location of a misplaced species.

"The recently described fossil Darwinius, originally recovered from a disused quarry near Messel, Germany in the 1980s, has been widely publicized as an important 'link' in the lineage to higher primates," said Seiffert. He and his research team recently discovered a lemur-like relative of Darwinius in Africa that they named Afradapis and analyzed its place in primate evolution.

"Our study results indicate that Darwinius and its now extinct relatives, including Afradapis, are not in the evolutionary lineage leading to monkeys, apes, and humans as has been debated," he said. "Instead they are more closely related to the living lemurs and lorises."

They report the finding in the October 20 issue of the journal Nature. NSF supports the research through its social, behavioral and economic sciences directorate's physical anthropology program.

Seiffert's team, which includes Jonathan M. G. Perry of Midwestern University, Ill; Elwyn L. Simons of Duke University, N.C. and Doug M. Boyer also of Stony Brook, base their findings on analysis of Afradapis fossils collected from an excavation site modestly called BQ-2 near the Fayum Depression in northern Egypt.

They first discovered a poorly-preserved Afradapis fossil, a fragment that showed features of the front teeth and jaw bone that were almost identical to those of later Old World monkeys. But it didn't make sense to the researchers that a member of that primate lineage would have been present in Africa at such an early time period, about 37 million years ago.

Soon they recovered additional Afradapis fossils and through dental analysis eventually clarified that Afradapis and Darwinius weren't in the line of Old World monkeys, apes and humans, but had concurrently evolved similar features with their distant relative, a type of anthropoid.

"The similar features evolved through the process of convergent evolution," Seiffert explained. "This means that under similar selection pressures, both lineages came to have similar specializations, but these features were not present in their last common ancestor."

Noted shared specializations from dental examinations include fusion of the two halves of the jaw, reduction and loss of the first few premolar teeth, and the presence of front incisors that are each shaped like a spatula, rather than being shaped more like a cone.

Interestingly, the ancestors of Old World monkeys, apes, and humans developed these features millions of years later, long after Afradapis and Darwinius were extinct. But, reconstructing the most likely family tree of both living and extinct primates, taking into consideration virtually all available anatomical evidence, the paleontologists determined that Darwinius, and its relative Afradapis, are not in the direct evolutionary line with humans.

"Our discoveries certainly contribute to a growing body of evidence that indicates that convergent evolution was a common phenomenon in early primate evolution," Seiffert said.

But...

That's all hypothetical guesses and statements of faith. The reason thermodynamics is considered a law means that it is scientific fact for this universe. It is not up to opinion on whether it is true or not.

The common traits seen in living organisms do not mean we are descendants of a common ancestor. Rather, it just means we all have the fundamental characeteristics for living things to exist. Nothing more. Also, the fossil record does not show dogs being anything other than dogs.

Infinity is concept only, not an actual and obtainable number. Most, if not all, mathematicians agree with this. You can never have one infinity of anything; it simply is impossible.

Just because you have the needed ingredients for life does not mean life must come into existence. Just because I have all the ingredients for a cake in a kitchen near a preheated oven does not necessarily mean a cake is going to form all by itself. This is why spontaneous generation can not be scientifically plausible.

However, an itelligent creator could very well have done all of this.

Patrick of KY @ Nov 12, 2009 15:53:09 PM

But dogs have

never always been dogs. They and we share the same origin, which was neither dog nor human. And the universe is so infinite that life by random is more than likely. Earth is probably so perfect for life that life just had to be. If life is random, it makes it even more enjoyable.

The law of thermodynamic is not proven, it's just that no one has managed to falsifie it yet. And it may very well be invalid under conditions were we have no way of validating it.

Jonas @ Nov 12, 2009 09:36:42 AM

Well...

It's not scientificlly plausible. Life on this planet is too complex for random chance. Look at a cell. There are several machines called organelles that must be made correctly or else a cell would not survive very long or function properly. If it could not function properly, then nature would not "select" it to continue to evolve. Also, somethings on earth are irreducibly complex, like mitosis and the bacterium flagellum. Also, the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution.

Of course, thermodynamics is a law. It is a fact. Evolution is at best a theory, though it is more like a hypothesis. Micro-evolution does exist and we see it in the variations of a species. (Example: there are several dog breeds, but they are all dogs.) I do not believe macro-evolution because we have yet to see living organisms becoming different species (i.e.: dogs becoming something other than dogs).

It is possible that God could have used evolution, however it seems very unlikely that He did.

Also, why do people have a sense of purpose if they are products of random process in a meaningless universe? Where did we get the idea of absolute morals?

Patrick of KY @ Nov 12, 2009 08:16:59 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

National Science Foundation

NSF

Wolves, Moose and Soil Nutrients: The Unexpected Connection

Researchers were startled to discover "hot spots" of forest fertility.

Predicting Who Will Survive Skin Cancer

Using new techniques, researchers may now be able to predict the survivability of skin cancer.

Record Highs Far Outpace Lows Across U.S.

Daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the past decade.

advertisement

Science Discoveries

Science Discoveries

iTunes icon RSS icon

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!