Fossil of "Sphinx" discovered in NE China

The legendary "Sphinx" eventually found its counterpart version in archeological fossil. Chinese and American paleontologists found two distinct kinds of bone characteristics in the fossil of a sharp-mouthed mammal excavated in China's Liaoning province. The mammal's upper part makes people believe it was viviparous while its lower part looks like oviparous, reports Wen Hui Daily.

The latest issue of the British magazine Nature reports the unprecedented discovery. The magazine editor as well as paleontologists marveled at the discovery and believed it might change the traditional theory on mammals evolution.

Li Gang, one of the coauthors of the paper, said the existing mammals are classified into two groups - the viviparous therian which have fully evolved bones such as kangaroos and elephants, and the oviparous monotreme which have comparatively primitive bones. The newly discovered fossil possesses the characteristics of both bones, a fact which won it the title "world No.1".

Analysis of the fossil revealed that the mammal was 12 centimeters long and weighed about 15 to 20 grams. It lived about 120 million years ago in early Cretaceous period.

Further examination also found many evolutionary discrepancies. For example, it had the teeth of therians but also retained the lumbar ribs found only in primitive mammals.

So what is the explanation for this peculiar phenomenon of "lion body and human head"? Li Gang reasoned that the mammal finished synchronized evolution for both its upper part and lower part a long time ago. However, for some special survival need it had to let its evolved lower part to "retrogress" into a more primitive state.

> you have different breeds of horses, but aren't they the same species?

Yes. But separate the horses geographically and eventually they won't be.

> My original question was about whether in Darwin's theory parallel species shouldn't evolve/adapt to survive in much the same manner when they face the same environment/events?

Assume "horses." Let some breedign group romp around the steppes of Asia. Now, extact some and dump them in the American plains. Leave humans out of it. Even though these are somewhat similar environemtns, WHY do you think that these two separate groups would necessarily evolve in the same direction? The two mechanisms of evolution are natural selection and mutation. Mutations are random.

> I mean no one thinks we evolved from the line that produced elephants.

Depends on how far back you go. Humans and elephants do have a common ancestor, probably on the order of 60 or more million years ago, I suppose.

> If evolution is not to the "fittest" --meaning a natural progression toward a "better" product--

Wrong meaning. "Fittest" simply means "best capable of producing the most viable offspirng in a particular environment." For humans, that has generally meant "smarter." For gorrillas that meant "stronger." "Better" is a concept without much meaning here.

> but to the 'fitted'--meaning adapted to the external conditions--then couldn't apes be evolved from humans?

No. The fossil record *AND* detailed DNA analysis shows the relationships and trends.

Well, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.

"Assume "horses." Let some breedign group romp around the steppes of Asia. Now, extact some and dump them in the American plains. Leave humans out of it. Even though these are somewhat similar environemtns, WHY do you think that these two separate groups would necessarily evolve in the same direction?"

Uh...because faced with the same environment, eating grass, quadripedal, horses wouldn't turn into eagles over time because there would be no need for a drastic change to survive.

For gorrillas that meant "stronger." Why? I don't see that gorillas really have much use or need for strength. For all their show when frightened, they seldom use their strength according to what I've read.

They are herbivores primarily and live in areas where there aren't many natural predators of any size that attack them. So can we assume that they are on their way to evolving into smaller animals that won't need as much fodder to survive?

> because faced with the same environment, eating grass, quadripedal, horses wouldn't turn into eagles over time because there would be no need for a drastic change to survive.

Depends on what you mean by "time." As environemtnal pressures and mutations kick in, you could have horses that evolve into tall giraffe-like critters, some that bulk up into things like rhinos, some that smallerize into small deer-like critters. The deer-like critters could over the eons turn into even smaller rodent-like critters. Those pseudo-rodents could become runners, shifting more and more to bepidalism; the forelegs could become more like arms. The fur could mutate into something like feathers, the arms could strengthen to wings, and you're on your way to something vaguely eagle-like.

Nobody, except for some creationists using dishonest tactics to try to portray evolution as a farce, would suggest that horses would, should or even could give birth directly to eagles. But genetics and the fossil record have shown several times that one type of animal *can* become something very different... over a substantial length of time. Each step along the way tends to be fairly small, but with a vast number of small steps, massive changes can occur.

> I don't see that gorillas really have much use or need for strength. For all their show when frightened, they seldom use their strength according to what I've read.

Perhaps. But when they have need of that strength (say, fighting off predators or males competing for gorrilla-chicks), those who don't have it lose out. Those who do have it reproduce more.

> They are herbivores primarily and live in areas where there aren't many natural predators of any size that attack them.

And that's largely due to their size. Gorrilla territroy is not devoid of predators, including several species of large cats; being big makes the adults less vulnerable.

> So can we assume that they are on their way to evolving into smaller animals that won't need as much fodder to survive?

Perhaps they are *now*, since human activity is greatly reducing their turf. However, they'll likely simply go extinct in the wild logn before substantial evolution occurs. But remove humans from the equation and there's no need for gorrillas to get smaller... they have all the gorrilla-chow (bamboo and such... not rare or endangered) they could ever want.

> For a mutation to "kick in" as you put it, would it only be a one-time deal where the gene was sympathetic to the original species as far as being able to procreate, but would maintain the separate/different DNA lineage and breed true?

Not quite sure what you're asking. But for a mutation to serve a useful evolutionary purpose, it would have to be a mutation that would be passed down. And obviously it would be better if the mutation was actually beneficial. But it need not be beneficial. It coudl even be a mutation that objectively was Bad News. Like, say, when some distinct racial characteristic formed in early humans (take your pick... skin color, whatever). It could have been a mutation that did not help the individual survive agaisnt hte environment, but it might have made that individual more appealign to the opposite sex somehow. Who can say.

> I can't quite fathom a simultaneous mutation in a breeding pair or within a group.

You don;t need to. All it takes is a mutation in the reproductive system of *one* individual. A stray cosmic ray or retrovirus invades an egg cell or an early embryo such that the mutation is carried through to the new individuals reproductive system. His/her children will have the same mutation.

> there is a probability that there was a single common ancestor, probably a female, that passed the mutated, now-human, gene through mating with existing non-human anthropoids?

Yes. Except that it wasn't *one* mutant gene but a long string of them betweenthe common gorilla/human ancestor and modern gorillas/humans.

OK, look at it this way:

Not the best example of a cat morphing into a dog I've ever seen, but it's the best I could find at short notice. The point: at the beginning, it's clearly a cat. At the end, it's clearly a dog. But when does the cat become a dog? There is no single definable step between them. The illustration would be better if the animation was better, but you get the idea. Over many hundreds or thousands of generations, small changes accumulate.

> And the line bred true and separated later somehow so that human anthropoids could no longer breed with humanoids. Fantasic. What are the odds on that happening--and the very small genealogical line being unbroken in the early years by disease or violent death? Could have ended at any time.

Yes, and many such offshoots do in fact die out. Horses, for example, evolved in the Americas and then crossed the Beringia landbridge during one of the ice ages... and then died out in the Americas, only re-introduced with the Spaniards.

> How often do gene mutations that survive occur?

Rather often.

> Is there any documentation on that?

I've seen that, yes. Hop over to Google and do a search.

Man look what I found on another thread. Supports and explains your posts IMHO>

Jeffrey H. Schwartz's Sudden Origins closed Darwin's gaps; cell biology explains how.

An article by University of Pittsburgh Professor of Anthropology Jeffrey H. Schwartz and University of Salerno Professor of Biochemistry Bruno Maresca, to be published Jan. 30 in the New Anatomist journal, shows that the emerging understanding of cell structure lends strong support to Schwartz's theory of evolution, originally explained in his seminal work, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species (John Wiley & Sons, 2000).

In that book, Schwartz hearkens back to earlier theories that suggest that the Darwinian model of evolution as continual and gradual adaptation to the environment glosses over gaps in the fossil record by assuming the intervening fossils simply have not been found yet. Rather, Schwartz argues, they have not been found because they don't exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors-like extreme heat, cold, or crowding-years earlier.

Determining the mechanism that causes those delayed expressions of change is Schwartz's major contribution to the evolution of the theory of evolution. The mechanism, the authors explain, is this: Environmental upheaval causes genes to mutate, and those altered genes remain in a recessive state, spreading silently through the population until offspring appear with two copies of the new mutation and change suddenly, seemingly appearing out of thin air. Those changes may be significant and beneficial (like teeth or limbs) or, more likely, kill the organism.

Why does it take an environmental drama to cause mutations? Why don't cells subtly and constantly change in small ways over time, as Darwin suggests?

Cell biologists know the answer: Cells don't like to change and don't do so easily. As Schwartz and Maresca explain: Cells in their ordinary states have suites of molecules- various kinds of proteins-whose jobs are to eliminate error that might get introduced and derail the functioning of their cell. For instance, some proteins work to keep the cell membrane intact. Other proteins act as chaperones, bringing molecules to their proper locations in the cell, and so on. In short, with that kind of protection from change, it is very difficult for mutations, of whatever kind, to gain a foothold. But extreme stress pushes cells beyond their capacity to produce protective proteins, and then mutation can occur.

This revelation has enormous implications for the notion that organisms routinely change to adapt to the environment. Actually, Schwartz argues, it is the environment that knocks them off their equilibrium and as likely ultimately kills them as changes them. And so they are being rocked by the environment, not adapting to it.

The article's conclusions also have important implications for the notion of “fixing” the environment to protect endangered species. While it is indeed the environment causing the mutation, the resulting organism is in an altogether different environment by the time the novelty finally escapes its recessive state and expresses itself.

“You just can't do a quick fix on the environment to prevent extinction because the cause of the mutation occurred some time in the past, and you don't know what the cause of the stress was at that time,” Schwartz said.

“This new understanding of how organisms change provides us with an opportunity to forestall the damage we might cause by unthinking disruption of the environment,” added Schwartz. “The Sudden Origins theory, buttressed by modern cell biology, underscores the need to preserve the environment-not only to enhance life today, but to protect life generations from now.”

Schwartz, with his colleague Ian Tattersall, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, also authored the four-volume The Human Fossil Record (Wiley-Liss, 2002-05). Together, the volumes represent the first study of the entire human fossil record. Volume 1 was recognized by the Association of American Publishers with its Professional Scholarly Publishing Award. In 1987, Schwartz's The Red Ape: Orang-utans and Human Origin (Houghton Mifflin Company) was met with critical acclaim.

Schwartz, who also is a Pitt professor of the history and philosophy of science, was named a fellow in Pitt's Center for the Philosophy of Science and a fellow of the prestigious World Academy of Arts and Science.

The journal, The New Anatomist, is an invitation-only supplement to the Anatomical Record.

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.