The “missing link” that isn’t

In one of my college biology courses, a student stood up and asked that the professor omit all references to evolution in his lectures.  Unconsciously, I slid down in my seat as I eyed him with a mixture of embarrassment and resentment.  Why did he have to interrupt the lecture, one that I actually found interesting?  Why did he have to interject his religious beliefs into a science course?  Why was he taking the damn class if he knew the subject matter would conflict with his personal views?

I admit that I get a sense of satisfaction every time I find popular references to Darwin, “The Origin of Species”, and evolution.  On our last trip to the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, I pointed out the evolutionary tree to Tacy and CJ.  At the Denver Zoo, we took a picture next to the “Are We Related?” placard in the Primate Panorama.  I jumped at the chance to check out The Giant Timeline from Charlie’s Playhouse in honor of Darwin’s birthday.

I also very nearly threw things at the TV during the footage of the Creation Museum in “Religulous”.  Bill Maher may be an ignorant ass on the topic of breastfeeding, but he and I see eye-to-eye where it comes to religion.

So when I saw the news about Ida, I got pretty excited – both as a science geek and an unapologetic proponent of evolution.

In the tradition of assigning human names to fossilized creatures (witness Lucy, an amazing specimen herself), Ida – a complete fossilized primate – has been paraded down the metaphorical red carpet in a media blitz worthy of an Oscar-bound film.  But this movie deal is with The History Channel, and the platform from which the announcement was launched is a site called “The Link”.

From The Link:

“Her skeleton is almost 100% complete. Around the skeleton is a shadow of the fur, and among the bones, where the intestines would have been, are the fossilised remains of her last meal. Studying all these features allows us to reconstruct her life history, the way she moved and her diet. There is no primate fossil from the Eocene from which we can learn so much – in fact, there is no primate so well preserved until we get to human burial…

…Put everything together and Ida’s significance becomes clear: uniquely well preserved; from an era of key significance in primate evolution; and complete enough to help us rewrite our understanding of the primate family tree. Ida helps tell us who we really are and where we come from. We are all descended from Ida’s kind.”

It’s indisputably amazing to recover a fossil as well preserved as Ida’s; even Lucy herself – the most complete skeleton of all early hominids – is only a fragment compared to the remains of Ida.  But Ida is neither a hominid (not even an anthropoid), nor is she the so-called “missing link”, as The History Channel advertises her to be.  Even The Link agrees:

“Ida is an example of a transitional fossil between primitive primates and the prosimian and anthropoid branches, the latter of which eventually led to humans. It’s not correct to describe her as “the missing link” – there are many transitional links in our evolutionary story, but she is the earliest, and one of the most significant links, ever found.”

Science bloggers have jumped on this story from all angles, not least of which being the sensationalism associated with the announcement:

“I would have hoped that this fossil would receive the care and attention it deserves, but for now it looks like a cash cow for the History Channel. Indeed, this association may not have only presented overblown claims to the public, but hindered good science, as well.”

Beyond the media’s billing of Ida as the “missing link”, the heart of the criticism stems from both the sensationalized announcement and the conclusions drawn by scientists regarding Ida’s placement in the evolutionary “tree”.  Without delving into the details of evolutionary biology, I’ll summarize: The scientists behind The Link posit that Ida’s species was a direct precursor to the branch on which apes and hominids are found; other scientists aren’t so sure that the methodology leading to this conclusion was as thorough as it ought to have been.

On one hand, I love that such a monumental scientific finding is being actively popularized.  I wish more people found scientific discoveries more compelling than the latest celebrity gossip, and if a little sensationalism draws attention, so be it.  After all, it’s tough to compete with the latest trials and tribulations of Jon and Kate Plus Eight.

But false advertising is ultimately detrimental:

“…the phrase “missing link” is woefully inaccurate, conjuring up images of life ranked in an unbreakable Great Chain of Being put in place by God, but that has not stopped media outlets from running with the idea. Even though the authors of the paper deny making any such statement, the promotional materials they are associated with (most notably the “Revealing The Link” website) play up this angle to a ridiculous degree.”

If science is going to make a claim – or tacitly approve a claim made by media outlets like The History Channel by not correcting their meta tags – then they’d better be prepared to defend it.  Otherwise, our children are likely to hear from dissenters in their own college biology courses ten years from now about Ida, the “missing link” who wasn’t.

Have you heard about Ida?  Did you already know about Lucy?  When was the last time you went to a museum anyway?

9 Spoke Up