Fossils Bridge Gap in African Mammal Evolution

Reuters to My Yahoo! ^ | Wed Dec 3, 2003 | Patricia Reaney

[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.

[Last Visible Dog]

We came from the mind of an autistic boy with a snowglobe.

Interesting. Now you claimed this is a "fact" so we eagerly await your supporting evidence...

[whattajoke]

a) There is no afterlife
b) Darwin is in hell, and I'm not going there
c) Darwin is in heaven, and I'm not going there
d) Darwin is in heaven, but I don't have any reason to meet him.
e) Darwin is in heaven, I'd love to meet him, but he's too busy fending off those who are surprised to see him there.
f) Darwin is in Nirvana, and I'm not going there.
g) Darwin is reincarnated as a finch and may have pooped on my car.

dude, your eternal quest for supposed facts and logical arguments are interesting in light of this line of posts... My position is that there won't be anyone meeting anyone in any afterlife. I've seen no evidence from any field (physics, logic, biology, astronomy, theology) to convince me of an afterlife. That is my position.

[whattajoke]

http://epguides.com/StElsewhere/season6.shtml#ep137

[Last Visible Dog]

If you can find no other outlet for your authoritarian urges I suggest you police your fellow ignorami and leave the supporters of science to monitor their own behavior as needed.

Funny, it is you and not me that is passing judgment on other people - I just asked you to stop the condescending insults. You do seem to be big on data (and arrogance and insults) and short on common sense and the ability to participate in a logical debate.

[bluejay]

If He was a designer working for me I'd fire Him!

I find this kind of attitude to be quite common in young and inexperience engineers. They always seem to know the best way to make a product (and, it goes without saying, that the best way is not the way the product was manufactured). I will give you the same response I offer them - I will take your criticism seriously after you prove that you are capable of making some thing better.

[whattajoke]

I will take your criticism seriously after you prove that you are capable of making some thing better.

Like weevil resistant cotton?

[Last Visible Dog]

dude, your eternal quest for supposed facts and logical arguments are interesting in light of this line of posts...

dude, I did not make any of those statements. You claim nobody will be meeting up with Darwin. Fine. Prove it or accept it is your belief and not fact.

BTW: I don't know if there is an afterlife and I don't know where Darwin will be if there is one AND unlike you I have not made any absolute statements that require supporting evidence.

[whattajoke]

You must be a ball of fun at parties.

[VadeRetro]

Funny, it is you and not me that is passing judgment on other people - I just asked you to stop the condescending insults. You do seem to be big on data (and arrogance and insults) and short on common sense and the ability to participate in a logical debate.

Your contribution seems limited to screaming blue murder when anyone notices that your favored side has offered only facts that aren't facts and logic that isn't logic. Your own participation has been a long, truculent bludgeoning with your refusal to absorb or acknowledge any points inconvenient to you. You're in no position to lecture.

[Junior]

Reality's just a figment of your imagination.

[Last Visible Dog]

My position is that there won't be anyone meeting anyone in any afterlife. I've seen no evidence from any field (physics, logic, biology, astronomy, theology) to convince me of an afterlife. That is my position.

Looking for evidence of the afterlife in this life is like fishing in your underwear...of course you will not find anything.

BTW: that is a fine position but it is a belief AND it is not a fact that nobody will be meeting up with Darwin, it is your belief.

[Last Visible Dog]

You must be a ball of fun at parties.

Actually I am. (that too is not a fact, it is my belief)

[Dimensio]

Actually I want you to support this claim you made "No one will be "meeting up" with him." Meaning you are certain there is no "afterlife". Please bring forth your evidence so we can put this age-old debate to rest.

Thus far, no one has presented evidence that the human consciousness survives brain death. The burden of proof is upon someone asserting as much to demonstrate that this is true. Until then, it's not unreasonable to assume that human consciousnes ends when the object that produces it -- the human brain -- no longer functions.

[VadeRetro]

Looking for evidence of the afterlife in this life is like fishing in your underwear...of course you will not find anything.

Now realize that this is exactly what does not belong in science class.

[Last Visible Dog]

Reality's just a figment of your imagination.

A rather profound statement. At the pedestrian level this statement seems laughable but when you approach it honestly and intellectually you will find it is very default to "prove" the nature of reality. That said - now what - we can just give up and take bong hits, eat gummy bears, watch TV, and have sex OR we can just understand there is very little certainty in the known universe (and then do the other stuff). The only real problem is it deflates intellectual arrogance.

[bluejay]

Like weevil resistant cotton?

Not sure what a weevil is - I assume it is some kind of parasite.

It is especially curious to criticize a product that is so incredibly easy to modify. Keep in mind it is a lot easier to make some thing that serves only a single purpose and is not modifiable then to create some thing that can be easily modified in the future. To me, the fact that transgenesis is possible (and so incredibly easy) is just another proof of Creator's greatness.

P.S. Oh, I see. Weevil is a kind of beetle.

[Last Visible Dog]

Now realize that this is exactly what does not belong in science class.

Fishing in your underwear does not belong in science class (unless it is somebody else’s underwear - preferably the opposite sex).

VadeRetro, man of science, I totally agree with you (after life study does not belong in science class – at least not the current level of science – you never know about the distant future)

[Last Visible Dog]

Thus far, no one has presented evidence that the human consciousness survives brain death.

But we all know absence of evidence is not proof of anything.

The burden of proof is upon someone asserting as much to demonstrate that this is true.

My point exactly. You asserted no one will be meeting up with Darwin (in the after life) so the burden of proof is on you.

Until then, it's not unreasonable to assume that human consciousnes ends when the object that produces it -- the human brain -- no longer functions.

And it is fallacious logic to claim the absence of life after death is a fact - it is merely your belief.

BTW: you position is impossible to prove because it is impossible to prove a negative.

[Dimensio]

But we all know absence of evidence is not proof of anything.

Right. I also have no evidence that invisible space pixies don't have a plan that will make me rich. However, because no evidence has surfaced that such things exist, I try not to waste my time worrying about them.

You asserted no one will be meeting up with Darwin (in the after life) so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong, but this isn't surprising from you. The assertion was made that people will be meeting up with Darwin sometime in the future. I was stating the negation of that assertion, and I based that negation on several known facts.

And it is fallacious logic to claim the absence of life after death is a fact - it is merely your belief.

You're just trying to make an argument, asserting that any position -- no matter what it is -- is "faith-based" because it cannot be proven to 100% certainty. Your method of "reasoning" would have us assuming absolutely anything, because one person's assumption is no better than another. I don't think that you actually live your life that way, however, because I suspect that you only present this point of view in order to troll for replies.

Mind you, I can't prove that about you. It's just an observation based upon evidence. Don't assume that I'm stating it as a fact.

[PatrickHenry]

PatrickHenry remains aloof!