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.
Exactly. As recognized by Barnum Bailey (who purchased it, IIRC).
Oh no, you're not drawing me into this ridiculous debate. Creationists have an obvious agenda, driven by the lack of hard science on their side, and I'm sick of it. Don't ping me to this crap.
Fair warning given.
Are you a theosophist?
The debate exists because there are "fundamentalists" on both sides. The "scientific" fundamentalists like the late Stephen Jay Gould simply won't consider even the possiblity of any causation beyond what can be detected and measured by science. The religious fundamentalists believe in the absolute and literal truth of whatever holy book or teaching they subscribe to.
Of course there's a huge area in the middle that allows for acceptance of evolution in a universal scheme far beyond the possibility of human understanding. It also allows for the possibility of a "C/creator." Because we are all "Strangers and afraid in a world we never made," (to take a few liberties with A.E. Housman), we all tend to buy into and cling to whatever belief system that gives us most comfort.
Interesting to see what you evolutionists will say about your frauds now when you just couldn't get 'em past the public then.
The converse is also patently unproveable. Physician, heal thyself.
Not at all. Physical laws exist now and are observeable. Based on all available evidence, they never change. Granted, it is POSSIBLE that they sometimes change or don't apply, but it's also possible that we're all just plugged into the Matrix. Anything is possible. However, to show that something is in fact true, you need to supply some evidence.
Thanks for that admission. Let's see if your philosphical compatriot, Ichneumon, can find it within themselves to admit the same now too.
My point is made.
I was not part of what ever other discussion you must have with some other poster, so I don't know what else it is you are rambling on about to me.
An evolutionist's hoax is an evolutionist's hoax. Cardiff giant, Piltdown man, and Haekel. They're all yours. Case closed.
Game set and matched, then. I graciously accept your fault.
However, that is not to say that a body of a different dimension not visable to the "man in flesh", did not exist at the time of the dinosaurs.
Odd, I don't recall that particular chapter and verse...
It isn't a matter of "is reality real". It's a matter of ones standard of evidence in the quest for knowledge. Naturalists need to demonstrate that empiricism alone is somehow more "objective" than divine revelation. What empirical evidence can a naturalist put forth in support of the contention that there are observers in the universe other than oneself? Without it, naturalism cuts the mustard in exactly the same way as every other belief system: by faith.
Whattajoke.
Guilt by association, then? Certainly, there are unscrupulous believers of evolution who have attempted to advance their careers through hoaxes. What of it? All three of these examples were eventually debunked by other scientists. There are also a good number of creationist charlatans who make their careers out of pandering to the beliefs of their fellow creationists.
If you choose to go into the evolutionist profession, here is some advice. Never question anything that seems to positively assert evolution. Speak forcefully and positively as if you have some real data. If all else fails, don't be afraid to make something up. After all, who really can check on you. Say something like, "I have a friend who is doing research in micro-biology at the University, and he has found proof of evolution at a microscopic level." It would take someone a lot of work and many questions to get you to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
Some might think that these tactics are unethical, but, given that you don't believe in God, and you don't believe in the Bible, by what standard would it be wrong to lie? Who is really to say what is or isn't ethical. If you throw God and the Bible out, there is no standard by which it would be wrong to lie, so you are free from the constraints of God and the Bible and absolutely free to lie your little heart out. And, even if you decided to make up an arbitrary rule against lying, the definion of, "lie," is purely a fabrication of your own mind. You are not constrained by the Bible or the Spirit of God.
Just take the example of a recent U.S. President who redefined the word, "is," as well as some other words. It's doubtful that his Vice President is capable of telling the truth, yet look at how hard all the news commentators and newspapers have worked to move the former Vice President of the U.S. into the presidency, even though they were unsuccessful. Even now, the news media continues to try to put a positive spin on all the criminal activity, lies, and indecent behavior of that administration. As an evolutionist, you can depend on the support of this same power of the media.
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.