Further analyses of the fossil will no doubt reveal even more about the life and times of this ancient primate. Perhaps they will also clarify her position in the family tree.

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Weak Link."

This article was originally published with the title Weak Link.

4 Comments

1. 1. hotblack 11:41 AM 7/21/09

   "Some authorities, however, believe that anthropoids instead arose from a group of extinct primates called the adapiforms."
   
   One of the beauties of science is that authority is meaningless. Every time I see this word used, I cringe.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. druhim 02:46 PM 7/21/09

   However it is perfectly reasonable to point out that these claims are disputed by some in the community, which is really all the article is doing. Hardly cringe worthy and a bit hyperbolic of you to suggest it is. :)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. robert schmidt 10:42 AM 7/25/09

   "living monkeys, apes and humans" isn't this a little redundant? Humans are members of the great ape family.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Bildad 09:17 PM 7/17/12

   It's very frustrating when things are presented as "authoritative" and they are considered as "scientific fact" when they are not the same. After how often scientists have to rethink their beliefs, it's a wonder the public feels they can trust them much at all. Scientific "fact" (H2O=water) is not the same as "scientific conjecture" about what might have happened millions of years ago, yet they are often confused by scientists and lay people alike.
   What is particular telling is that if one Googles "SCIENTISTS PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT", they will find millions of instances (even without the duplicates) that should cause us to cast a jaundiced eye toward any such "exciting pronouncements". They would be well served to preface their pronouncements with, "We believe by faith that..."

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this