h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

cool, cheers for that one!

Two in two days! Admittedly this one lacks a bit of the factor, but here's a walking seal transitional:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8012322.stm

Gif

Homo 'hobbit' floriensis: settled...?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8036396.stm

Gif

More progress on figuring out the chemical origins of life on Earth.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090513/sc_afp/sciencebiologylife_20090513210508

Gif

yeah, I saw that, fascinating stuff.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html

"In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans."

not concrete but an interesting addition.

Thanks Ictoan.

Gif

here we go, said paper:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005723

and contrary to the above link it would appear that the animal is from just after the split and is not on the lemur branch of the tree.
Sounds like an amazing specimen.

Worth also noting that she was actually found in 1983 and kept privately by the finder. 20yrs that sat there without informing our world view - one wonders what else is being hidden in cupboards and drawers, people really should get these specimens checked out properly.

I don't think that's particularly unusual with fossils - iirc the first Archaeopteryx specimins had a similar story. One was sold as part of a 'job lot' and it was about 20 years before their importance was recognised.

Gif

maybe not, but it is annoying

There's quite a bit of buzz in the blogsphere about the over-hyping of Darwinius masillae. Not that it's not fascinating and informative (well, to the experts) but from the popular press, you'd think it was the only transitional out there.

Gif

indeed, it is very important, but quite a lot seem to be reporting it as 'the missing link', which it isn't (not in the way they mean). It isn't even the earliest common ancestor for all apes/monkeys/lemurs/whatever. Usual misreporting which misinforms the public and negatively affects science when people find out it isn't what was reported to them.

Ah well, still fascinating though

It's not even entirely clear whether it's on the 'monkey line' or the 'lemur line', so it may not be a human ancestor at all. But of course the press has rushed out with its usual hype.

Expect Creationists to make much of this in their attempts to deny its importance.

Gif

not to clutter up your nice thread, but this seems relevant:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php

another new family relative:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090602083729.htm

"previously unknown hominoid primate genus in Spain... roughly 12 million years ago...bears a strikingly "modern" facial appearance with a flat face"

which has also taught me the word 'prognathic'

Good spot - you even beat Pharyngula to that one

h2g2 - the cutting edge of science blogging!

Gif

heh - but not Dawkins

An (increasingly rare) piece of dissent from the bird-dinosaur idea:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

I'm not quite sure I follow the objection: if *all* known creatures have moveable femurs, how does this link birds to a non-dinosaur group? (Note that Ruben is not denying that birds did evolve from known creatures.) Put next to actual fossils of feathered dinosaurs, it seems sketchy.

It will be interesting to see if 'orthodox' palaeontologists have any response to this.

Gif

And, as if one cue:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/limusaurus_inextricabilis.php

Bird-dino transitional neatly pulls the rug from under Feduccia's claims that dino-bird digit evolution is impossible.

Gif