But how do we get from a trilobite to a hog or an elephant, not to speak of a fly, a cockroach or a centipede. 
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.
But how do we get from a trilobite to a hog or an elephant, not to speak of a fly, a cockroach or a centipede.
Billions? There may have been billions of humans throughout all of history, though in the early stages, there may have been a grand total of thousands or tens of thousands of a particular sub-species of human. Only a very small percentage would have ended up fossilized. What's this obsession with complete skeletons? If a skeleton is missing a leg, does that make it somehow useless?
Now even in the transitional "theory" there should be plenty of co-mingling of the "apes" and "humans".
First, humans are apes. Second, by mingling, do you mean human sub-species should have mated with gorillas? That's just absurd. Sure, humans and gorrilas have a common heritage, but we're different species, why would we mate with one another?
There is evidence that homo sapiens mated with homo neanderthalis in Europe, however.
Yet we "humans" lock many "apes" up in zoos and steer clear of those yet in the wild. Talk about a need for revenge, if what the "E's" claim to be true those "apes" might catch up with their relatives.
This rant makes no sense whatsoever.
And using empirical evidence to prove the validity of other empirical evidence is different in what way? What is your definition of "independent proof"? How can you get outside the system of empirical proof any more than a Bible believer can get outside the Bible? Where is your proof that empirical evidence is the only acceptable standard? You can't even prove it using empirical means: stand alone science is founded on a belief, not fact.
Creationists want a double standard in this debate- Creationism only needs to be internally consistent with the Bible, while evolution needs to provide hard evidence that survives peer review. You can't have it both ways- either Creation must be subject to independent peer review or evolution need only be internally consistent. Under peer review, creationism loses. Unless, of course, you can provide me independent proof of the existence of Noah's Ark.
I agree about the double standard. Believers in the Bible should not resort to material evidence to prove it's validity. Supernaturalism negates the applicability of science to the investigation of the origin of life. And the other side of the double standard is that believers in naturalism should not resort to supernatural evidence for morality and ethics.
1) Innate knowledge= belief; 2) you cannot prove the existence of the Holy Spirit, since this is an article of faith; 3) track record- please provide an example.
Only haruspexs who made no mistakes in their predictions are candidates for internal consistentency.
How is the Bible any more accurate? (and, of course, this begs the question- which Bible? Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox?)
When you can prove the validity of relying on empirical evidence (and only empirical evidence) for all knowledge, then you'll be out of the faith boat and have a basis upon which to demand proof of others. Until then, welcome to the ship.
Sigh. VadeRetro has posted pictures of transitional skulls about a billion times. Do you care to rebut them?
Museums are full of skeletons showing transitions between our various ancestors. Are they all frauds? Is there anything, anything at all, that would be enough proof to convince you on this matter?
Just look at this earth, the INDEPENDENT SOURCES are every where.
When I look out the window, all I see are things that came about through natural processes,whether evolution, plate tectonics or whatever. You still haven't given any evidence to the contrary.
WHO gave your "PEERS" their credibility, a bunch with the same mindset.
Well, following your logic, a Phd in biology is meaningless. All science is meaningless. Who says architects are the only people allowed to design buildings, or doctors are the only people allowed to perform surgery? Who gave medical professors their credibility, a bunch with the same mindset.
I have asked many times before. Can you give a single example of a new species suddenly and spontaneously being created?
Can we perform a experiment with a sealed glass jar and watch a new life form suddenly appear inside of it?
Until you can provide the alternative evidence, your side of the debate is rather lacking.
Validity of the Bible's teachings as to morality and spirituality need not be based on material evidence. However, if you want to prove the literal truth of Bible stories such as Noah's Ark, you need material evidence for your claims if you want those claims to be any more convincing than, say, the Greek myth of Athena springing fully-grown from Zeus's brow. Without evidence, both those stories are nothing more than myths.
Supernaturalism negates the applicability of science to the investigation of the origin of life.
If you're going from the premise that life was caused a supernatural event, sure. Many do not share your premise, though.
And the other side of the double standard is that believers in naturalism should not resort to supernatural evidence for morality and ethics.
So, you're saying belief in evolution is incompatible with belief in a higher code of morality and ethics?
Isaiah Chapter 53. You may not agree that this evidence of a track record, but that is only because you believe in a different standard. You can't prove the standard of empiricism alone is any more vaild than the standard of Scripture. Like I said, welcome to the boat.
I was referring to your comment about apes getting revenge on humans. I never said evolution is "truth." I do believe it is the best theory for explaining how we got to where we are today as a species. If you can think of a better theory, based on the available evidence, I'm all ears.
You "E's" sure do have a need to CONTROL.
Control what?
If "evolution" is "truth" there is no ORDER.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
I don't really care what creationists believe. I have no desire to shoot down their worldview. On the other hand, it does seem that creationists have a major desire to disprove evolution. Why is that, I wonder?
The study of human evolution is very hard and admittedly often directed by persons with liberal agendas; but that does not make emerging facts incorrect or give the lie to the whole issue of evolution. We cannot convince people of faith that there was no Garden of Eden; we understand that. And you need to understand that we cannot be swayed by myths and stories.
How can one apply material evidence to a supernatural event? This inability to prove a supernatural event with material evidence is not, however, proof that the event is a myth that did not occur.
So, you're saying belief in evolution is incompatible with belief in a higher code of morality and ethics?
No, go back and read my statement. A belief in naturalism is incompatible with belief in a code of morality and ethics. It's a naturalist basis for belief in evolution that makes evolution incompatible with belief in a higher moral code. A belief in evolution from a non-naturalist basis may or may not be incompatible with belief in a higher code of morality and ethics.
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.