Posted on 12/03/2003 4:53:26 PM PST by Pharmboy
LONDON (Reuters) - Fossils discovered in Ethiopia's highlands are a missing piece in the puzzle of how African mammals evolved, a team of international scientists said on Wednesday.
Little is known about what happened to mammals between 24 million to 32 million years ago, when Africa and Arabia were still joined together in a single continent.
But the remains of ancestors of modern-day elephants and other animals, unearthed by the team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists 27 million years on, provide some answers.
"We show that some of these very primitive forms continue to live through the missing years, and then during that period as well, some new forms evolved -- these would be the ancestors of modern elephants," said Dr John Kappelman, who headed the team.
The find included several types of proboscideans, distant relatives of elephants, and fossils from the arsinoithere, a rhinoceros-like creature that had two huge bony horns on its snout and was about 7 feet high at the shoulder.
"It continues to amaze me that we don't have more from this interval of time. We are talking about an enormous continent," said Kappelman, who is based at the University of Texas at Austin.
Scientists had thought arsinoithere had disappeared much earlier but the discovery showed it managed to survive through the missing years. The fossils from the new species found in Ethiopia are the largest, and at 27 million years old, the youngest discovered so far.
"If this animal was still alive today it would be the central attraction at the zoo," Tab Rasmussen, a paleontologist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri who worked on the project, said in a statement.
Many of the major fossil finds in Ethiopia are from the Rift Valley. But Kappelman and colleagues in the United States and at Ethiopia's National Science Foundation (news - web sites) and Addis Ababa University concentrated on a different area in the northwestern part of the country.
Using high-resolution satellite images to scour a remote area where others had not looked before, his team found the remains in sedimentary rocks about 6,600 feet above sea level.
I'm going to be out of town this weekend, but I didn't want the other side to be lacking advocacy. So for all of you and for Lurkers who may be interested in biophotons:
Biophotons are photons (light) produced by cell activity, in a phenomenon also known as ultraweak bioluminescence and dark luminescence. The exact origin of this emission is as yet unclear.
Like all objects animate and inanimate, cells emit a characteristic "black body" distribution of wavelengths of photons, in a manner directly related to temperature. However, after compensating for this distribution, a number of photons (on the order of as many as 100 photons/cm²/sec) are detected over a range of wavelengths in the visible to ultraviolet range. The amount of light emitted is quite small; comparable to that observed from a candle viewed at a distance of 10 kilometers. The detection of these photons waited upon development of sensitive photomultipliers in the 1960s and 1970s.
It is not particularly surprising for a cell's metabolism to produce light; for example, many bacteria and other cells produce light through the use of a particular protein (luciferin). Given the extremely small number of photons produced (the above number corresponds roughly to a single photon per cell per hour, assuming a rather large cell diameter of 100 micrometers), for many years the predominant theory was that these photons were a random by-product of cellular metabolism.
Normal cell metabolism occurs in a chain of steps, each step involving a small energy exchange, for greater efficiency. With some degree of randomness ensured by thermodynamics, it would then be expected that some (unknown) number of these chains would possibly "skip" one or more steps. The resulting loss of efficiency would then be detected as a photon being emitted.
According to the simplest model of this theory, the observed frequency at which photons would be detected would then be expected to obey a standard random distribution. However, some scientists have claimed to detect a significant variance from the expected distribution of photons, as well as an additional coherence or coordination of the time when photons are emitted by distinct cells. The photons emitted as part of this (unknown) luminescent process were dubbed "biophotons" (by F. A. Popp) to indicate their origin. At present there is no adequately tested theory for the production of these extra photons; and the final answer may require a careful examination of the experimental method, and could involve a variety of modes of production. For example, in keeping with the "random production" theory, biophotons are more prevalent in damaged cells, presumably due to the extra presence of free radicals.
In the absence of a mechanism which produces these photons, some have speculated that biophotons are involved in various cell functions such as mitosis; or alternatively that they are produced and detected by proteins in the cell nucleus, possibly DNA.
It is further speculated by some that these emissions are part of a system of cell to cell communication of more complexity than the modes of cell communication already known, such as chemical signalling; and that they are important in the development of larger structures such as the organs.
Some have been inspired to associate biophotons with the concept of "Qi" from acupuncture, and these emissions have even been postulated as being fundamental to consciousness
A Model for Biophotons (by a novice)
International Conference on Biophotons in China 10/2003
Remarks on an Article in New Scientist
…Yet some believe that biophotons are far more than just distress signals. In the early 1990s, Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, a biophysicist at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, discovered that some cells can detect and respond to light from others.
He shone infrared light onto a mixture of cell-sized latex beads and mouse fibroblast cells. Many of the cells began to stretch out their arm-like pseudopodia for light scattered towards them by the beads, and soon these cells were heading directly for the beads. Some even turned 180° to reach them. (With little power and a wavelength of around 850 nanometres, the light created virtually no heat, so the cells weren't simply moving towards warmth, argues Albrecht-Buehler.) And since some cells reached out to two different light sources of equal intensities at the same time, it seems that they could "see" each source distinctly, he suggests.
In other experiments, Albrecht-Buehler spread hamster cells on both sides of a sheet of glass. As the cells grew, he found that those on one side shifted around until they lay at angles of more than 45° to those on the other side of the glass. But when he added a filter layer to the glass that blocked infrared light transmission from one side to the other, the cells grew in random directions (New Scientist, 7 November 1992, p 14).
Tissues favour a criss-cross arrangement of cells because it gives them extra strength, so perhaps the cells on the glass were using light to signal their orientation. If so, they must have some kind of eye. Albrecht-Buehler thinks the cell's centrioles fit the bill. These cylindrical structures have slanted "blades" which he believes act as simple blinds. By only allowing light into the centriole from certain angles, the blinds enable simple photoreceptors inside the centrioles such as haem molecules to tell which direction photons are coming from. And microtubules-hollow filaments that thread through cells-could act as optical fibres, he believes, feeding light towards the centrioles from the cell's wall.
But why should cells want to detect light? The most obvious answer is that they are talking to each other, says Albrecht-Buehler. Cells in embryos might signal with photons so that they know how and where they fit into the developing body.
And now he wants to learn their language. He envisages doctors telling cells what they want them to do in words they understand. You might tell cancer cells to stop growing or encourage cells near wounds to start again. "We may learn to compose our own messages in the language of cells to compel them to carry out specialised tasks that they've never performed."…
14.9 In this connection, I should mention something of considerable interest and relevance that I learned recently from Guenther Albrecht-Buehler (1981, 1991), which concerns the role of the centriole, that curious "T" structure (roughly illustrated in Shadows, Fig. 7.5, on p.360), consisting of two cylinders resembling rolled-up venetian blinds, constructed from microtubules and other connectingsubstances, which lies within the centrosome. In Shadows, I had adopted the common view that the centrosome acts in some way as the "control centre" of the cytoskeleton of an ordinary cell (not a neuron), and that it initiates cell division. However Albrecht-Buehler's idea about the role of the centriole is very different. He argues, convincingly, in my opinion, that the centriole is the eye of the cell, and that it is sensitive to infra-red light with very good directional capabilities. (Two angular coordinates are needed for identifying the direction of a source. Each of the two cylinders provides one angular coordinate.) Impressive videos of fibroblast cells provide a convincing demonstration of the ability of these cells to pinpoint the direction of an infra-red light source. This also provides some remarkable evidence for individual cells having considerable information-processing abilities, which is at variance with current dogma. One may well ask where the "brain" of a single cell might be located. Perhaps its structure of microtubules can serve such a purpose, but it does seem that the centrosome itself must have some central organizing role. In a single (non-neuronal) cell, the microtubules emanate from the centrosome. I gather from Albrecht-Buehler that the specific contents of the centrosome are not known. It seems that it would be important to know what indeed is going on in the centrosome. Does it have some information-processing capabilities? Is there conceivably some structure there that is capable of sustaining quantum coherence in any form? The answers to questions of this nature could have considerable importance.
14.10 I should make clear that I am not arguing for any consciousness (or consciousness of any significant degree) to be present for individual cells. But according to the views that I have been putting forward, some of the ingredients that are needed for actual consciousness ought already to be present at the cellular level. Individual cells can behave in strikingly sophisticated ways, and I find it very hard to see how their behaviour can be explained along entirely conventional (classical) lines.
Nope. Not at all unclear. The origin of biophotons is chemiluminescence. Look at the data. DNA chemiluminesces at the frequency of the DNA base triplet, 300 - 330 nm. Other materials luminesce at lower frequencies. This exactly agress with the well known electronic structure of biomaterials. The rest is tinfoil helmet stuff.
And you're telling me this because?
If you could answer the question without the Bible verses, I would appreciate it ;-) While somewhat versed on the Bible I always have difficulty figuring out the metaphors and allegories that are only clear to a practicioner of Christianity.
I was just curious what you hope to accomplish here. That's all. Seems like a simple question.
I'm so glad you plan to read The Field. I'm a bit more than half-way through now. I think you'll really appreciate the attention McTaggert gives to such notables as Popp, Puthoff, Jahn, Laszlo, et al. She documents all their main experiments very well, IMHO.
The emerging picture is absolutely stunning. Indeed, she is "synthesizing" the classical and quantum worldviews and the result suggests we are standing at a great watershed in history.
As Puthoff put it, "The last century was the atomic age, but this one could well turn out to be the zero-point age."
Just my $0.02, but *everything* I've ever read about Puthoff tells me that he's a **Very** shallow thinker.
EG: "REMOTE VIEWING is a term coined by Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ to describe a form of psychic functioning historically known as clairvoyance" Source
Or did you know Puthoff endorsed Uri Geller!? Betty, I think he's sincere and fooling himself, as opposed to being a calculating cynical psychopath (= no conscience, not mass murderer), but I'm not sure.
Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? Well, I think everyone agrees that the third choice is wrong...
Bottom line, I just can't trust someone who vouches for mental space travel and Uri Geller, and I honestly believe he's the mental equivalent of a black hole.
Well, V-A, if you're at all acquainted with Puthoff's professional history, you would know that he'd already been put through that "meat grinder" a couple of decades ago. But that since then, there has been a "strange new respect" for his experimentally-tested theories -- since they seem to have been confirmed by so many other experiments, conducted in and outside of his particular field, which is laser physics.
I gather his theory of the holographic nature of basic brain function has gathered support in recent times. Stay tuned for further developments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.