Posted on 06/27/2014 5:36:33 PM PDT by blueplum
(Reuters) - A new mammal discovered in the remote desert of western Africa resembles a long-nosed mouse in appearance but is more closely related genetically to elephants, a California scientist who helped identify the tiny creature said on Thursday.
The new species of elephant shrew, given the scientific name Macroscelides micus, inhabits an ancient volcanic formation in Namibia and sports red fur that helps it blend in with the color of its rocky surroundings, said John Dumbacher, one of a team of biologists behind the discovery.
Genetic testing of the creature which weighs up to an ounce (28 grams) and measures 7.5 inches (19 cm) in length, including its tail revealed its DNA to be more akin to much larger mammals.
"It turns out this thing that looks and acts like shrews that evolved in Africa is more closely related to elephants,"
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Brilliant match!!! (applause)
“Sports red fur”
Another one of them one per centers. Probably drives one of them ritzy Ford Mavericks.
They’re hooked on Latin to try and make themselves sound “smart”. After all, they dubbed mankind “Homo” arbitrarily.
The English names for this little creature are the Etendaka round-eared sengi or Etendaka round-eared elephant shrew, FTR.
“Does it eat peanuts too?”
Yeah, but not nearly as many.
” Biologists plan to return to Africa in the coming months to outfit the new mammals with miniscule radio collars to learn more about their habits, Dumbacher said.”
It weighs less than an ounce, and they plan to put a radio collar on them. I do think they’re kidding us.
All them African Eagles sitting around with their radio direction finders.
“Got another one Steve! Bearing 165. Lunch is ready!”
Yes I do. Twas DNA comarison which showed affinity to bears.
ignoring the conclusions of same technique being used in this case is illogical
Great! More areas off limits to progress because of its habitat.
Nothing new here....
A mouselike mammal related to elephants is not a new discovery, we have known about them for a long time. Their called the GOP leadership.
Elephant Shrews belong to the super-order Afrotheria which includes Aardvarks, dugongs, manitees, hyrax and elephants.
Based on DNA analysis, they split apart from elephants around 105 million years ago, so the relationships are not all that close.
blueplum post #15: "...and if the elephant (or mouse) DNA branched into so many variations, why didnt gorilla DNA? (I know the Christian answer but Im always interested in the evolutionist perspective)"
HiTech RedNeck post #17: "Evo answer would be: LUCK"
No, the explanation is that separation of elephants from elephant-shrews took place around 105 million years ago, making them only distantly related.
By contrast: separations of pre-humans from gorillas (7), chimps (5) & orangutans (12) all happened within the past few million years.
That's why we are more closely related to great apes than elephants are to elephant-shrews.
Explanation or speculation?
see above post.
Sometimes the purported evolutionary genetic change is fast and sometimes it is slow and there is only theory to speculate why. Even if environment played a factor, why the particular kind of environment needed in order to do it happened to be present, would again be a matter of luck. Because if the environment outstrips the capability to adapt, the result won’t be to evolve anything new but to cause an extinction.
Perhaps you know the scientific terms?
Fact is a confirmed observation -- something seen &/or measured.
Hypothesis is a tentative explanation/narrative, subject to future testing & confirmation.
It's more than pure speculation, but not yet confirmed.
Theory is a confirmed hypothesis, confirmed by observations &/or tests.
Much of evolution theory is based on facts -- radiometric dating, fossil cladistics, geological stratigraphy, DNA analysis, etc., etc. -- observed, measured & confirmed many times.
Of course, these all derive from fundamental assumptions, such as methodological naturalism (natural explanations for natural processes) and Uniformitarianism ("the present is key to the past").
Finally, science itself does not require anyone to "believe" a word of any of it, only to acknowledge that these are the best narrative explanations science can produce, so far.
Ultimately it is theorizing.
It is based on one theoretical model, and even then it still needs a lot of “luck” to be able to produce anything.
I don’t sweat the details as much as some do, because it becomes apparent that from any viewpoint you can take, a providential power is intimately involved here. Even if it were (to posit a very wasteful providence) lottery luck, Someone or Something has to have run that lottery.
The inexorable result to a true free thinker, one who is not afraid to think his way towards some traditional faith, is some kind of God.
Uniformitarianism takes hits or at least acquires deeper dimensions with new discoveries. Dark matter is one such discovery.
And notice that question-begging word, “best.”
If “best” means to reduce the concept of humanity to that of mechanical automaton, modern atheistic science does pretty “well.” It is a methodological anathema to speak of soul in the context of science, so much so that people get the idea that science has proven that there isn’t a soul, which is not at all the case.
IMHO: there ought to be a division of the humanities that treats the philosophy and sociology of science. Being a humanity, it isn’t beholden to science, so would not be subject to the question begging challenge of “teaching bad science.”
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.