Michael D. Lemonick: Ida: Humankind's Earliest Ancestor! (Not Really)
[LEMONICK, is the author of "The Georgian Star" out Nov. 2009, and is a visiting professor at John Hopkins, Princeton, and Columbia.]
From the beginning, Ida's unveiling has been a master class in ballyhoo. A week ago, the first breathless press releases began to arrive, portending the presentation of the now famous 47-million-year-old primate fossil from Germany: "MEDIA ALERT," the notice shouted in all caps. "WORLD-RENOWNED SCIENTISTS REVEAL A REVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC FIND THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING."
The press releases were followed by an international press conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, the publication of a book, The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor (Little, Brown), an ABC News exclusive and on May 25 a prime-time television special on the History Channel. Of the avalanche of media-related promotion, Jorn Hurum, a Norwegian paleontologist involved in Ida's discovery, told the New York Times, "Any pop band is doing the same thing."
This isn't exactly the stamp of approval most scientists look for, though, and in this case the puffery is especially unfortunate because the actual scientific finding, described in a paper published on May 19 in the online journal PLoS One, really is important. First, the young mammal, which would have looked like a cross between a lemur and a small monkey, is astonishingly complete. "Most of what we understand about primate evolution is pieced together from bits of teeth and jaws," says Michael Novacek, curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History. Ida, by contrast, has pretty much every bone, from the skull to the tip of the tail, and they're all in place. Not only that: you can see impressions of its fur in the surrounding material, and there are even the remains of what was presumably Ida's final meal (leaves and fruit) still visible where the digestive tract used to be.....
For their part, the authors of the new paper clearly lean toward the idea that Ida is one of our distant ancestors. They don't claim they've proved it, though — in fact, they carefully include a disclaimer that "we are not advocating this here." Even if they were, though, and even if paleontologists all agreed on the matter, Ida could at best be considered a first step on an evolutionary pathway that took another 40 million years to reach the divergence point between chimps and our earliest hominid ancestors.
All of which renders the press release touting a "revolutionary scientific find that will change everything" absolutely true — as long as by "everything," you mean "whether the branch of the primate family that includes monkeys, apes and humans comes from the suborder strepsirrhinae or the suborder haplorrhinae," according to the PLoS One paper. And by "change," you mean "adds information that may or may not help settle the question, but whose implications won't be known for a long time in any case."
Most paleontologists will roll their eyes at that sort of overhyped nonsense, especially given that there's real science lurking underneath. After wading through the false advertising, though, most people might have a hard time finding it.
Read entire article at Time
From the beginning, Ida's unveiling has been a master class in ballyhoo. A week ago, the first breathless press releases began to arrive, portending the presentation of the now famous 47-million-year-old primate fossil from Germany: "MEDIA ALERT," the notice shouted in all caps. "WORLD-RENOWNED SCIENTISTS REVEAL A REVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC FIND THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING."
The press releases were followed by an international press conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, the publication of a book, The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor (Little, Brown), an ABC News exclusive and on May 25 a prime-time television special on the History Channel. Of the avalanche of media-related promotion, Jorn Hurum, a Norwegian paleontologist involved in Ida's discovery, told the New York Times, "Any pop band is doing the same thing."
This isn't exactly the stamp of approval most scientists look for, though, and in this case the puffery is especially unfortunate because the actual scientific finding, described in a paper published on May 19 in the online journal PLoS One, really is important. First, the young mammal, which would have looked like a cross between a lemur and a small monkey, is astonishingly complete. "Most of what we understand about primate evolution is pieced together from bits of teeth and jaws," says Michael Novacek, curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History. Ida, by contrast, has pretty much every bone, from the skull to the tip of the tail, and they're all in place. Not only that: you can see impressions of its fur in the surrounding material, and there are even the remains of what was presumably Ida's final meal (leaves and fruit) still visible where the digestive tract used to be.....
For their part, the authors of the new paper clearly lean toward the idea that Ida is one of our distant ancestors. They don't claim they've proved it, though — in fact, they carefully include a disclaimer that "we are not advocating this here." Even if they were, though, and even if paleontologists all agreed on the matter, Ida could at best be considered a first step on an evolutionary pathway that took another 40 million years to reach the divergence point between chimps and our earliest hominid ancestors.
All of which renders the press release touting a "revolutionary scientific find that will change everything" absolutely true — as long as by "everything," you mean "whether the branch of the primate family that includes monkeys, apes and humans comes from the suborder strepsirrhinae or the suborder haplorrhinae," according to the PLoS One paper. And by "change," you mean "adds information that may or may not help settle the question, but whose implications won't be known for a long time in any case."
Most paleontologists will roll their eyes at that sort of overhyped nonsense, especially given that there's real science lurking underneath. After wading through the false advertising, though, most people might have a hard time finding it.