Missing Link: 47-Million-Year-Old Monkey Fossil Discovered in Collector’s Drawer

May 19, 2009

(ChattahBox)—The find of the century; a remarkably intact 47-million-year-old fossil of a monkey like creature, originally discovered in a pit in Germany 25-years ago, is about to be unveiled today in Washington, DC at the Museum of Natural History as part of a well coordinated media blitz campaign.

The fossil, dubbed Darwinius masillae is being hailed as the missing link in human evolution and yet such a monumental find sat in the drawer of a private German collector for 25 years, until discovered and purchased by the University of Oslo.

Jorn H. Hurum, a scientist at the University of Oslo, discovered the incredible fossil owned by the German collector in 2006, while he was on a collection junket to Hamburg’s mineral and fossil fair. After obtaining the fossil, Hurum put together a team of the world’s most renowned scientists and paleontologists to authenticate and study the monkey like missing link.

For three years, the find was treated as top secret and kept under wraps, requiring scientists involved in the project to sign non-disclosure agreements. During that time, a media blitz and PR campaign was taking place behind the scenes, the likes of which is unusual for a scientific discovery.

On Tuesday, in addition to the big media hoopla taking place at the Museum of Natural History, a peer-reviewed article will appear in PLoS, a scientific journal and that’s just the beginning.

The media campaign for Darwinius masillae also includes a book deal, the launching of a website and most importantly, an exclusive premier of a documentary detailing the find on the A&E owned History Channel, which debuts on Memorial Day. The BBC in Britain and ZDF, the German broadcaster, will be allowed to show the film after the History Channel’s world premier.

On Wednesday, the fossil will make an appearance in the Good Morning America studio as part of an exclusive media access deal. The book, entitled, “The Link” published by Little, Brown is already published and ready to go, with 110,000 advance copies already shipped out.

All of the media attention about to be awarded to this little monkey fossil is certainly exciting, but experts may differ after the media attention fades, on whether the fossil is indeed a precursor to higher primates, in other words, the so called missing link in the human evolutionary chain.

Meanwhile we all can enjoy the spectacle.



11 Responses to “Missing Link: 47-Million-Year-Old Monkey Fossil Discovered in Collector’s Drawer”

  1. conficker on May 19th, 2009 5:49 pm

    I love how there is a debate between:

    Religion – no evidence of any kind, completely unrealistic with magic, flying horsemen, giants, and man-eating-and-regurgitating fish, arks that can hold all 300,000,000,000 species of animals (not to mention that the plants just survived sub-marine). No explanation whatsoever for dinosaurs. 2 historians from the period mentioned Christ, which isn’t a name, but rather means “The Anointed One”. Exact clones in multiple different flavors of the same religion dating back to “The Book of the Dead” written by the Egyptians. Never ending genocide caused by Christianity, and other spin-offs. And, did I mention… Who created god?


    Science – as much evidence as possible for any given time, different theories with open minds to new discoveries, no non-sense, did I mention… evidence? Fossils dating to before the bible could have possibly allowed the existence of any living creature. Black people in hot climates (Africa) with extra melanin to protect the skin from sun light. White people (Nords) from the cold climate with a higher tolerance to vitamin D deficiencies. Dwarfs found in the Galapagos. A moth with a 14 inch proboscis to penetrate the longest flower pistil in the world, which is the only pollinating flower in the region. The list goes on longer than what Chattah Box’s database could hold.

    This is like fighting that Harry Potter is real against somebody who says look through this microscope at a new species of Monera that I found.

  2. Tadd on May 19th, 2009 11:23 pm

    I laugh at the fact that the so-called debate is … you.

    As far as the authentically of religion vs science … I’m more of the mindset that science and religion can co-exist because one proves the other. Not proves it doesn’t exist.

    And asking ‘who created God’ is an illogical question since if you think about it the answer is simple. A point of creation is dicated by human understanding or the passing of time. If you look from a creationist standpoint – God created time. As we understand the passing of seasons. So therefore there is no such thing as a creation date for God since he would be outside the grips of human time.

    However – the money thing feels slightly bogus. A 47 million ‘money like’ thing found in some guys drawer? Something really doesn’t sound right. If this really is the “missing link” than why is it there? And how can they honestly prove it’s that old? Carbon dating has been proven wrong many times – not to mention how can they prove it’s just not a genetic freak chimp?

    Maybe I’m just missing something but it sounds more like something we’ll read about in ten years saying “Oh yeah, that monkey was a fraud, sorry”.

  3. Missing Link: 47-Million-Year-Old Monkey Fossil Discovered in Collector’s Drawer < It’s all about the trends on May 20th, 2009 8:46 am

    […] yet such a monumental find sat in the drawer of a private German collector for 25 years, until dis click for more var gaJsHost = ((“https:” == document.location.protocol) ? “https://ssl.” : […]

  4. Jeff on May 20th, 2009 3:23 pm

    Well to reference the ARK. There were not 300,000,000,000 species on the ark. Just the base ones. And as far as science backing evolution that is laugable as well. Evolution goes directly against the 1st and 2nd law of thermodymanics. These laws are the basics of life and how they work. These laws state that things are winding down, which is a fact, since it can be proven, and repeated over and over. evolution states that things are getting better..”evolving” upward. There is not evidence for this. You also have to take into consideration when evolution was “made” up. It was a time of religious unrest. People did not want to be tied down to any one religeon and basically wanted to act as “animals”. So Darwin come with this theory that people are animals. So now they have free will to act like it. Also the Bible does describe dino’s. It is just not very important to what the Bible’s purpose is. Truth be told creation just like evolution is a theroy. The main difference is that creation is the only theory where all the variaitions of people and animals fit. I am a creationist and I will be the first to admit, that yes it is a theory, just like evolution is. To be a fact it has to be able to be proven over and over and has to be able to be documented. Well neither can be proven over and over, however only one is truly documented and not made up. Yes I know this is my opinion.

  5. Sue on May 20th, 2009 7:32 pm

    Thanks for your comments. Tadd you may very well have a point with the monkey in the drawer aspect of this story. I guess we will just have to wait and see and watch the documentary.

    Jeff many people feel as you do, I personally believe in the Science of Evolution, but these monkey-lemur-missing link claims seem somewhat of a leap. However, that’s not to say it’s not an interesting and important discovery.


  6. James on May 21st, 2009 4:05 pm

    There is a lot of false religion and false propagandistic science out there, however, the truth unites both true religion and true science. As with all supposedly ‘final proof’ finds in favor of evolution, the conclusion pre-supposes the premise: In order for the little monkey with fingernails to be a missing link, one must accept as reality that species can create offspring of a different species which can continue forward and do the same. Scientific research and common observation dictate that species can only multiply more of the same species. Adaptation capability within the DNA can cause some varieties, but remain the same species. Rare instances of cross-species being born are always sterile. The little monkey fossil just proves that their could have been a bunch of little monkeys with fingernails around a long time ago. They came from the first set of little monkeys that were placed on earth by God. All of their offspring were little monkeys until the last one died. All modern humans can only trace their geneology back to the first man and woman that were also placed here by God. They began multiplying roughly 6000 yrs ago. The age of the earth is many millions/billions+ years old, during which time many forms of life have lived and died as part of God’s process of preparing the earth for modern life and man. Life begets life, intelligence begets intelligence. The absence of life or intelligence would remain as such, and fortunately no such condition has ever existed, nor ever will.

  7. Larry on May 21st, 2009 9:42 pm

    Aside from the evolution vs creationism debate, to call this the missing link doesn’t even fit what they are saying about this fossil. The article states that it may be a start of another line of the primates. they called it a lemar-monkey, so where exactly does it fit in the evolutionary tree? They have said many of their finds in the past century was the missing link but when you examine such things as the Nebraska Man, Lucy, and now even the Hobbits, things don’t add up as they would like you to believe. Lucy was more chimp than human even though they always show her to look more like someone intelligent with human features. The truth is that she had chimp feet and hands, not human. Same for the Hobbits. They are more chimp or monkey than anything human. Look at this link http://www.becominghuman.org/ some ideas of where things fit. Genetics point to one man and one woman as being the beginning of Human kind some 100,000 years ago. They came out of Africa and in a very short time had surpassed all other type of Homonoids. To me, this still suggest Genesis 1 & 2.

  8. Andy on May 22nd, 2009 4:42 am

    Interesting discovery I do have to admit though I am sceptical and don’t take the first posters argument about ”where did God come from” whether creationist or evolutionist both have to believe that ”something came out of nothing” .

    When evolution was first touted scientists presumed a ”steady state” universe, one that had always been, beyond time and evolution to a degree depended on this, However when the ‘Big Bang’ theory came dominant this presented a problem for scientists even the great Einstein himself , His equations for relativity indicated that the universe was expanding. This bothered him, because if it was expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner. Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced a ‘fudge factor’ that ensured a ‘steady state’ universe,one that had no beginning or end.

    But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the Big Bang model predicted. So in 1931, Einstein embraced hat would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” He referred to the ‘fudge factor’ to achieve a steady-state universe as the biggest blunder of his career.

    About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book “The World As I See It” that the harmony of natural law “Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”

    He went on to write, “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”

    Einstein understood fully what the Big Bang meant, he considered that only a stupid mind would believe that we just ”poofed out of nowhere”, How can anyone seriously believe that the galaxy s, just ”became’ and that life just ‘became’ from non life !! Einstein originally being an atheist certainly didn’t even consider this.

    Its at least as unbelievable as a creator God!!

    So far as the fossil is concerned i think people are clutching onto straws, its not even a human missing link (as it were) , but I’m sure the museum will make plenty of money from it from people who want to believe it is.


  9. ana on May 22nd, 2009 11:31 pm

    idk i learned about ths in geo… i thnk its intresting

  10. ana on May 22nd, 2009 11:33 pm

    idk i learned about ths in geo… i thnk its intresting
    and i wana learn more about it
    maybe it is true and somethng big mught happen

  11. Himangsu Sekhar Pal on January 4th, 2011 11:51 am

    Proof That There Is A God
    Proof that God has not kept Himself hidden

    A, Properties of a Whole Thing

    If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
    Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
    I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one wants to depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.

    Footnote: If the universe is treated as one whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.


    I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
    Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
    I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
    1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
    2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
    3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
    4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
    5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
    6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
    7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.