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.

[Ahban]

"In other words, he's saying that we must assuming only the natural and reject the supernatural (within scientific experimentation) because once we start assuming a "god", we throw out any chance of objectivity -- if you allow explanations outside of known properties of the natural universe, then you can just make anything up for your reasoning and justify it as a "miracle".

Thing is, he's right."

The thing is, he is blinded by his dogma, as you seem to be. The idea that the order and complexity of this universe is soley the result of unguided chance is what is hard to believe. The idea of God takes less faith than believing that nonsense.

What you are doing is starting out with an unproven assumption that there is no God and calling that "objectivity". Ridiculous. It is simply a decision you have made that by your own confession you cannot prove or disprove scientifically. It then becomes a matter of labeling your personal preferences as "objectivity".

If you RULE OUT in advance, regardless of the evidence, an explanation outside the known properties of the universe then you close the door to the unknown. Thus Naturalism posing as science is a threat to the progress of real science. What you call "supernatural" today may be a natural part of a higher plane of existence that we can one day discover- if investigations into it are not ruled out in advance by the high priests of Naturalism that have taken science captive.

[Ahban]

PS- the quote is solid. The "justification" he supplies to support his naturalist dogma in no way undoes the fact that he is admiting that he is refusing to consider theistic options regardless of evidence.

[PatrickHenry]

If you RULE OUT in advance, regardless of the evidence, an explanation outside the known properties of the universe then you close the door to the unknown. Thus Naturalism posing as science is a threat to the progress of real science. What you call "supernatural" today may be a natural part of a higher plane of existence that we can one day discover- if investigations into it are not ruled out in advance by the high priests of Naturalism that have taken science captive.

Every swami and holy man in the world is entirely free to explore the unknown properties of the universe. I've always assumed that this is what they do for a living. Scientists don't know how to explore the spiritual domain. Their instruments aren't capable of registering such phenomena. When the supernaturalists have some solid evidence to show for their efforts, I'm sure the scientific community will be delighted to receive it.

[Ahban]

"How, exactly, does one formulate a supernatural hypothesis?"

I propose that mankind did NOT arise by natural descent from previously existing hominids, but was divinely created less than 50K years ago.

There. I just did it.

[Dimensio]

I propose that mankind did NOT arise by natural descent from previously existing hominids, but was divinely created less than 50K years ago.

Okay. On what basis do you make this hypothesis?

[Dimensio]

The "justification" he supplies to support his naturalist dogma in no way undoes the fact that he is admiting that he is refusing to consider theistic options regardless of evidence.

What evidence? He's denying supernatural explanations because when you start allowing for them, you can explain any gap in your knowledge with "then a miracle occurs", and thus you really don't ever learn anything.

[Dimensio]

The idea of God takes less faith than believing that nonsense.

Which "God", exactly? You see, there have been several thousand proposed throughout human history.

What you are doing is starting out with an unproven assumption that there is no God and calling that "objectivity".

No, my position is that because no one has provided evidence for any gods, I've no reason to assume the existence of any. You're the one introducing some specific "God" construct, but you don't have any evidence for it, so you'll need to get in line behind the few thousand other people that got here before you, each with their own "God" construct to pitch, each offering as much evidence as you.

If you RULE OUT in advance, regardless of the evidence, an explanation outside the known properties of the universe then you close the door to the unknown.

So are you suggesting that, when we come to a point when our current scientific understanding is insufficient to explain a phenomenon, we should just chalk it up to a sudden miracle, a point where the laws of physics were temporarily suspended, and stop all inquiry at that? And you call me short-sighted?

[Ahban]

"I've always said that the governing philosophical presuppositions of science are determined by the theoretical content of science, rather than the other way around. (Historically these presuppositions have always been modified to accommodate genuinely successful theories,"

Then you may be displeased to learn that you have made a mistatement. Here is what scientist Richard Lewontin said on the issue....

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin

Do you see? It is NOT the theory, facts or evidence that drives his rules. It is the philosophical presupposition. And unless you are a famous scientist like he is I'd say that he speaks for the community moreso than you do.

Look, I agree that what you say is the way it SHOULD be, but the guys you look to are doing it the OPPOSITE of the way you think it should be done.

As far as me proposing a "supernatural hypothesis" goes, many have been proposed and verified at least to the extent of their naturalistic counterparts. The trouble is not that we have failed to propose valid ideas- its that the Dr. R. Lewontins of this world refuse in advance to consider them. They would prefer the most outlandish naturalistic hypothesis to the most intitutive theistic one. And somehow they have sold otherwise smart guys like yourself on the idea that this constitutes "objectivity".

PS- Your example is anchronistic. Materialism was not even named before Newton and gravity. His theory was already part of the "natural world" long before the "classical dictum of amterialism" was ever codified.

[null and void]

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

Touché. My patents are for much simpler products.

FWIW, I've only been an engineer for 30 years. Maybe with a few billion years practice...

[Ahban]

"Even many people who suspect philosophical naturalism maybe be empty or even false will admit that methodological naturalism is necessary for science. It's basically what science is about, the study of nature."

It is NOT necessary, for science, its only necessary for NATURALISM posing as science. It is a choice in advance to refuse to consider all possiblities regardless of where the evidence might take you. Its a dogma.

"Maybe if God popped out from somewhere, said "Here I am!", and started doing sufficiently wonderful magic we could eliminate "natural" causes. Or maybe we would just be discovering more than we had known before about what "natural" includes."

Ahha! What you said right there! What is now thought of as "supernatural" may one day be found to be nature on a higher plane of existince, if inquiry in that direction is not squelched by naturalists posing as scientists saying "we can't investigate that, its not a scientific hypothesis".

[bluejay]

FWIW, I've only been an engineer for 30 years. Maybe with a few billion years practice...

LOL. I like that.

[null and void]

Remind not to hire any engineers that ever worked for you.

I never worked for bluejay. Do you need a good micromachinist?

[null and void]

;^)

[Ahban]

"So are you suggesting that, when we come to a point when our current scientific understanding is insufficient to explain a phenomenon, we should just chalk it up to a sudden miracle, a point where the laws of physics were temporarily suspended, and stop all inquiry at that? "

Nope. I did not say that. I will re-state what I originally said. If you want to attack something with my name on it, attack what I actaully put down, not some straw-man. Here is a repeat from my orginal #328) post....

You may not be able to study the "supernatural" but you can rule out natural causes. The more certain you are that all natural causes have been ruled out then the more certain you can be that the supernatural hypothesis is the correct one. Can one ever be 100% sure of the supernatural hypotheses? Probably not, but the same is true of natural hypothesis. We just have confidence levels.

You further write...

"No, my position is that because no one has provided evidence for any gods, I've no reason to assume the existence of any. You're the one introducing some specific "God" construct, but you don't have any evidence for it, so you'll need to get in line behind the few thousand other people that got here before you, each with their own "God" construct to pitch, each offering as much evidence as you."

The trouble is you have already ruled out in advance any hypothesis that might include God as an explanation, so I am unable in advance to provide you with anything you would accept as proof. This despite billions of changed lives (including mine) throughout human history. This despite the gigantic roll Christianity has had in uplifting mankind and even advancing science. You would discount all that and pretend that some forgotten mesopotamian idol be accorded as much crediablity as the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

Tell me, if God ever did reveal Himself to mankind, logically speaking, where in history might He have done it?

[Anthem]

I absolutely do not believe ... that I came from ooze.

The Bible says God made man from clay. What's the difference?

What if evolution is God's method?

[Ahban]

" He's denying supernatural explanations because when you start allowing for them, you can explain any gap in your knowledge with "then a miracle occurs", and thus you really don't ever learn anything."

The goal then just shifts to HOW God did it. The search for cause and effect would still continue. Think about how much science took place when there was a Christian world view. Did that sort of thinking infect Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Mendal, and the host of other giants of Western Science who were Christains?

Actually it is now NATURALISM that poses the biggest threat to scientific progress. What is now considered "supernatural" may one day be shown to be merely a higher plane of nature- if investigations in those areas are allowed to proceed.

[Anthem]

there are no "skeletal remains" of transitioning "apes" to "humans"

Well, they aren't exactly "apes", but there are plenty of skeletal remains of what are known as various types of "hominids", like Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis.

[RightWingAtheist]

Well, first of all, bats did NOT evolve from rats but from insectivores-and many of these DO have a rudimentary form of ultrasonic detection, and it would make sense that this would be exaptated, and further specialized into the complex system used by bats. What's more, trilobites did not leave any living ancestors, although they are closely related to horseshoe crabs. Go and read The Origin of Species or any other layman's text on evolution out there, and after you do so, you would perfectly understand how the process of evolution by natural selection works.

[Dimensio]

They are both rodents and very closely related.

Bats are not rodents. In fact, evidence suggests that they are more closely related to primates than rodents.

[Ahban]

"Okay. On what basis do you make this hypothesis?"

Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere.

I base it on the molecular DNA evidence as presented in this thread...

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b47d7b94f92.htm

...and some more similar evidence that has come to light since then. THey did a study that sequenced a LOT more base pairs and STILL came up with a date for mankind's last comman male ancestor of < 50K years ago. Add to it the Vela Supernova may well have caused mutation rates in the past to be higher than now. This would mean that the actual dates are even less, since it is extrapolating based on todays rates.

Add to it the "Cultural Big Bang". Human culture, art, relgion, and the like, do not slowly evolve. They show up suddenly and fairly recently. On viewing some cave art that was among the oldest known, Van Gough emerged from the cave and exclaimed, "We have learned nothing!"

Add to it that a fossil "gap" appears on the near end of the scale. With DNA tests ruling out Neadertal man as an ancestor, and a preponderance of evidence that the other candidates went extinct about 100K ago, there was nothing around for modern man to evolve from.

VadeRetro and I have had good go rounds on this, with him trying to find good candidates for that 100K to 50K gap. He will find one, but then to his credit when more evidence comes forth that shakes the date he will fess up, while never letting go of the hypothesis he chooses to defend.