The teeth of the newly described Eritreum melakeghebrekristosi are a tip-off to
its position as a missing link in the elephant family tree.
Posted on 11/02/2006 3:42:59 AM PST by Pharmboy
The teeth of the newly described Eritreum melakeghebrekristosi are a tip-off to
its position as a missing link in the elephant family tree.
ANN ARBOR, Mich.—A pig-sized, tusked creature that roamed the earth some 27 million years ago represents a missing link between the oldest known relatives of elephants and the more recent group from which modern elephants descended, an international team that includes University of Michigan paleontologist William J. Sanders has found.
The teeth of the newly described Eritreum melakeghebrekristosi are a tip-off to its position as a missing link in the elephant family tree.
The group's findings, to be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that mastodons and the ancestors of elephants originated in Africa, in contrast to mammals such as rhinos, giraffes and antelopes, which had their origins in Europe and Asia and migrated into Africa. The dating of the new fossil, discovered in the East African country of Eritrea, also pushes the origins of elephants and mastodons five million years farther into the past than previous records, Sanders said.
From 35 to 25 million years ago, representatives of the group known as proboscideans (which includes elephants, mastodons and their close relatives) lived only in Africa and Arabia, and most of them were palaeomastodonts. These animals were shorter and smaller than today's elephants, with short trunks and tusks and simple teeth that were all in place at the same time, as human adult teeth are.
After 25 million years ago, larger proboscideans such as mastodons and gomphotheres—the ancestors of modern elephants—dominated the scene. Elephant-sized, with long tusks and trunks, these advanced proboscidans had more complex teeth that emerged more slowly, so that each quadrant of the mouth had only one or two functional teeth in place at a time.
"The new fossil from Eritrea is important because it shows aspects of dental anatomy in common with the advanced group, including molars with more cusps and complex crowns and the delayed maturation and emergence of molars," said Sanders, an assistant research scientist in the U-M Museum of Paleontology. But the creature that the new fossil represents also had characteristics in common with palaeomastodonts, namely smaller body size and a jaw structure that suggests shorter tusks and trunk.
"In age and anatomy it is exactly the sort of intermediate evolutionists would expect to bridge the gap between archaic and advanced proboscideans," Sanders said.
In addition to Sanders, the research team included Jeheskel Shoshani of the University of Asmara in Eritrea and the Elephant Research Foundation in Bloomfield Hills, Mich.; Robert Walter of Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Penn.; Michael Abraha and Tesfalidet Ghirmai of the Eritrean Ministry of Mines and Energy; Seife Berhe of Global Resources in Asmara, Eritrea; Pascal Tassy of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris; Gary Marchant of the Elephant Research Foundation; Yosief Libsekal of the National Museum of Eritrea; and Dietmar Zinner of Deutsches Primatenzentrum in Gottingen, Germany.
Sanders received financial support for participation in the project from a Scott Turner Award from the U-M Department of Geological Sciences.
please take me off list
Simply amazing what can be determined by a few teeth or a couple of bones.
Well, except that evolutionists don't usually predict "exactly" the sort of intermediate to be found. In fact, Charles Darwin said it this way....
"Hence in all such cases, we should be unable to recognise the parent-form of any two or more species, even if we closely compared the structure of the parent with that of its modified descendants, unless at the same time we had a nearly perfect chain of the intermediate links." - Origin of Species p281 rev1
With a prediction so non-specific, simple species variation can easily be mistaken for intermediates. Thus mistaking common design for common descent.
What list?
While the fishies wanted to jump out of the water to be on land, their descendants wanted to jump off the land to be back in water!
Go figger!
Guesswork alert!!
http://www.explorebiodiversity.com/Hawaii/BiodiversityForgotten/Wildlife/cetaceans/evolution.htm
I don't know what size of pigs live around them, but THIS dude would produce bacon you could use for a belt!
Older Group ... alleged missing link ... Recent Group
The dating of the new fossil, discovered in the East African country of Eritrea, also pushes the origins of elephants and mastodons five million years farther into the past
If alleged missing LINK is between the two groups, then it CAN'T push back the age. Evo math at it's finest!
When this generation's skeletons are excavated years from now, we'll be seen as a new species (maybe several) because some of us have had braces or had their wisdom teeth removed; others have had teeth whitening or {shudder} some have had their teeth sharpened, diamonds implanted. Some new species even had gold embedded in their teeth... an unexpected development and a new missing link!
We've sort of been read out.
If you want the background start here, post 608, then skip to the 650's
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725737/posts?q=1&&page=601
ROFLOL...... exactly.
They were reminding me of the Rain Man when an attempt was made to get him on a plane. The protests became more and more strident...and embarassing.
Not all of them, mind you. Just some.
This article is a simila pseudo-science. They don't talk about theorising that this is a missing link, or that it "could be". It is stated as obvious "facts" with phrases like "the tip off that it is..." etc.
Since I assume they have no DNA sample, they only have a bone of a creature that "looks like" an elephant. I thought we progressed past that baloney by the last half of the last century.
Apparently not.
Complain about the reporters wording, not about the scientist, unless and until you read the scientfic paper itself.
Jim Robinson is a creationist?
He banned someone just for expressing belief in evolution?
See the cites in my post 31.
Among other things PatrickHenry's home page was removed seemingly for being too effective a source for understanding evolution.
And scientists practicing in the field don't "believe in" evolution, we just consider it the best possible explanation for our data. Same as with any other scientific theory.
The paper is not available yet - from the article: 'The group's findings, to be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.'
So where did Ms. Ross-Flanigan obtain the information? From University of Michigan paleontologist William J. Sanders - she quotes him in the story. Specifically she wrote:
The dating of the new fossil, discovered in the East African country of Eritrea, also pushes the origins of elephants and mastodons five million years farther into the past than previous records, Sanders said.
Oh?
Then why hASN'T THE CLONE/COPY OF IT NOT DISAPPEARED FROM another's HOMEPAGE?
Anyone want a used CAPSLOCK key?
I am perfectly aware that the paper has not been published yet. That's why I was confident you had not read it.
As for the statement: reporters put quote marks around direct quotes. As best that was the reporter's understanding of what the scientist sid.
2 more gaps in the fossil record.
A shorter species name would've been nice.
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.