Study Re-evaluates Evolution of Mammals

[popopot]

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/science/28cnd-mammal.html?ei=5088&en=8f6973daa8292236&ex=1332734400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

The mass extinction that wiped out dinosaurs and other life 65 million years ago apparently did not, contrary to conventional wisdom, immediately clear the way for the rise of today’s mammals.

In fact, the ancestral branches of most mammals, including primates, rodents and hoofed animals, emerged long before the global extinction and survived it more or less intact. But it was not until at least 10 million to 15 million years afterward that the lineages of living mammals began to flourish in number and diversity.

Some mammals did benefit from the extinction, but these were not closely related to extant lineages and most of them soon died off.

These are the surprising conclusions of a comprehensive study of molecular and fossil data on 4,510 of the 4,554 mammal species known to exist today. The researchers are to report the findings in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature, and they said this is the first virtually complete species-level study of existing mammals.

Writing in the journal, the leaders of the project said the “fuses” leading to the explosive expansion of mammals “are not only very much longer than suspected previously, but also challenge the hypothesis that the end-Cretaceous mass extinction event had a major, direct influence on the diversification of today’s mammals.”

They said their analysis of more than 40 lineages of existing mammals showed that diversification rates “barely changed” in the aftermath of the extinctions at the boundary of the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods. The transforming changes started 10 million years later and lasted until about 35 million years ago.

Other scientists said the so-called “long-fuse model” opened a door to a better understanding of the evolutionary history of mammals and will force a re-examination of the ecological and other causes underlying the more recent proliferation of mammals.

The international team that produced the new “supertree” of mammalian evolution was led by Olaf R. P. Bininda-Emonds of the Technical University of Munich in Germany and Andy Purvis of Imperial College in London. Other members included paleontologists, mammalogists, evolutionary biologists and other researchers from Australia, Canada and the United States.

In another article in Nature, David Penny and Matthew J. Phillips of Massey University in New Zealand, who were not involved in the research, wrote, “Inferring a good tree of such scale is groundbreaking, and the methods will be used as a model for tree-of-life studies — whether of birds, flowering plants, invertebrate groups or other organisms.”

They also noted that a similar analysis for birds, published recently in the journal Biology Letters, revealed that more than 40 avian lineages survived the mass extinctions. Most paleontologists now think that birds descended from dinosaurs. So in a sense, even dinosaurs in one form escaped the calamity.

Until now, however, most paleontologists had favored a “short-fuse” model in which mammals came into their own almost immediately after the dominant reptiles vacated their habitats. Before the extinctions, most mammals were small nocturnal creatures.

The new study confirmed and elaborated on earlier research by molecular biologists indicating that many of today’s mammalian orders originated from 100 million to 85 million years ago. The reasons for this evolutionary burst are not clear.

Drawing on both molecular and fossil data, the researchers said they found that the “pivotal macroevolutionary events for those lineages with extant mammalian descendants” occurred well before the mass extinction and long after. They emphasized that the molecular and fossil evidence provide “different parts of this picture, attesting to the value of using both approaches together.”

But the researchers conceded that much more research would be required to explain “the delayed rise of present-day mammals.”

Ross D. E. MacPhee, a curator of vertebrate zoology at the American Museum of Natural History who was a team member, said that paleontologists were previously dubious of the claims by molecular biologists of such an early ancestry of today’s mammals. The fossil record of mammals in the Cretaceous period, they contended, was too sparse to support such an interpretation.

“Now we know the ancestors of living mammal groups were there, but in very low numbers,” Dr. MacPhee said.

“The big question now is what took the ancestors of modern mammals so long to diversify,” he continued. “Evidently we know very little about the macroecological mechanisms that play out after mass extinctions.”

[bigboab]

These studies never have definite conclusions. That would put them out of a job. It also keeps the argument about Darwinism and Creationalism(sp) alive.:)

[MaxOverlord]

I find it funny that those in the "evolution field" are willing to concede to an idea that you and i came from a single hydrogen atom cooked up in an ancient "ooze." Yet, they cannot come to believe in the possibility that we were "created." Life comes from life...and consciousness from this. If anyone can give me an example of life starting from anything other than any other pre-included life than i am all ears.

[j2k4]

I find it funny that those in the "evolution field" are willing to concede to an idea that you and i came from a single hydrogen atom cooked up in an ancient "ooze." Yet, they cannot come to believe in the possibility that we were "created." Life comes from life...and consciousness from this. If anyone can give me an example of life starting from anything other than any other pre-included life than i am all ears.

All ears? :blink:







Well and succinctly put, actually. ;)

[vidcc]

It's funny how the "creationist" can't explain how the creator was created or show evidence.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

It's funny how the "creationist" can't explain how the creator was created or show evidence.

Funny, I learned at an extremely early age that the "but little Tommy was doing it too" was not a viable defense.

[JPaul]

I am baffled at the evolutionary chain which would end in a creature which was all ears. I just don't understand what niche in nature it would find, to say nothing of procreation (aural sex is not an acceptable joke here).

I therefore take this as final and absolute proof of idiotic design.



It's funny how the "creationist" can't explain how the creator was created or show evidence.

Funny, I learned at an extremely early age that the "but little Tommy was doing it too" was not a viable defense.

Tu quoque, you find that a lot here. I'm sure you've noticed it.

[vidcc]

It's funny how the "creationist" can't explain how the creator was created or show evidence.

Funny, I learned at an extremely early age that the "but little Tommy was doing it too" was not a viable defense.
I'm not expecting you to get where I am heading in advance, so I shall expand for you.


those in the "evolution field" are willing to concede to an idea that you and i came from a single hydrogen atom cooked up in an ancient "ooze." Yet, they cannot come to believe in the possibility that we were "created."

The argument is based on unconnected reasoning. Scientific studies are based on observation of evidence. If you like it's based on what the evidence points to.

Creationism is not scientific, it's based on faith and as such cannot be proven. So unless "the creator" can be explained with evidence ( this does not include "because it's written in holy books" or "how can you look at such complexity and not believe in creationism" ), the it is not a scientific theory. So why should they believe it?

[MaxOverlord]

Dear vdcc...you proved my point. Scientist surely will admit that there was life at some point at which you and I "evolved" from. This life could have only come from a source of life. To think that consciousness came into effect through a "big bang" is shallow and absurd. If life was contained in that single Hydrogen atom...where did the atom come from...a life giver...or random chance. You will agree with me that there are laws that govern things. There must therefore be a law giver or if you like someone who enforces such laws. there would be no law in say the US if there were not cops and judges and people to enforce them. If no-one cared about such laws it would be impossible to enforce them. So there surely must be a law giver...life giver. God is Truth...if you believe your bible...Truth exists therefore God exists. You could argue Truth does not exist...but that statement itself is True.......If you want to believe that you came from...say...a star which according to science contains "all that is you" your welcome to it. Just remember next time your at a zoo and looking at an ape your actually looking at your great great great great grandma....lmao.

[JPaul]

So, God = Judge Dredd, never thought of it that way.

"Just remember next time your at a zoo and looking at an ape your actually looking at your great great great great grandma"

Actually the theory is not that we are descended from apes, that appears to be a popular misconception. It's that we have common ancestors with apes. From way back and I mean really way back.

[MaxOverlord]

I was trying to make a synical joke JPaul...I understand we are not directly from apes...although one could argue given the state of "things"....anyway.....Judge Dredd....You have been Judged!!!!!!

[bigboab]

I am baffled at the evolutionary chain which would end in a creature which was all ears. I just don't understand what niche in nature it would find, to say nothing of procreation (aural sex is not an acceptable joke here).

I therefore take this as final and absolute proof of idiotic design.




Funny, I learned at an extremely early age that the "but little Tommy was doing it too" was not a viable defense.

Tu quoque, you find that a lot here. I'm sure you've noticed it.

Is this a warning against hearing aids?:wacko:

[JPaul]

I was trying to make a synical joke JPaul...I understand we are not directly from apes...although one could argue given the state of "things"....anyway.....Judge Dredd....You have been Judged!!!!!!

;) :)

@boab, I can't answer you until they get this automerge thing sorted. I just can't face it anymore.

[MaxOverlord]

One could look at it this way...If you believe in God and die to find out there is a God youll be glad. If you dont believe in God and die to find out there is a God youll be sorry. If you believe in God and die and there isnt a God...you wont know anyway. So you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing. Ill wait for the Right-wing Christian nut-job defense.

[vidcc]

@ MaxOverlord

So your scientific argument is that there has to be a god/creator to have started life. So how did the god come into existence and then how did his "creator"? What scientific evidence do you have?
If scientific reasoning regarding this is absurd, surely it must be equally absurd that a god came about suddenly out of nothing. I will not accept the "he has always existed" stance because although it's arguably possible for something to be never ending it always has to have a beginning.

Your original statement was berating scientist because they couldn't accept god. So offer up scientific evidence.

Science and faith are not the same subject.

Oh and the whole "lawgiver" when describing the creator thing made me smile.................

The lawgiver was an orangutan from the planet of the apes series ;)

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Your original statement was berating scientist because they couldn't accept god. So offer up scientific evidence.

Yea give us some scientific evidence that will be changed in 10 years and will change 10 years later.

Anyone else come to the point that sometimes scientists just seem to be grasping at straws because they are afraid to say "I don't know"? I mean come on, they still keep changing their minds whether or not eggs are good for us.

[vidcc]

Your original statement was berating scientist because they couldn't accept god. So offer up scientific evidence.

Yea give us some scientific evidence that will be changed in 10 years and will change 10 years later.

Anyone else come to the point that sometimes scientists just seem to be grasping at straws because they are afraid to say "I don't know"? I mean come on, they still keep changing their minds whether or not eggs are good for us.
Is that your proof that god exists?


Science is a constant search, it's a constant questioning. Scientist are always saying "we don't know" that's why they search for answers. Some things can be conclusively proven others the search goes on. Find one scientist in the evolutionary field that claims "we have all the answers". The point is that without evidence a scientific conclusion or even just a theory cannot be achieved.

Faith in a creator is a set belief that is without question. This doesn't mean it's correct. Heck religion encompasses many faiths with many different ideas as to how life came about. All based on faith without proof.

As I said science and faith are different subjects. You can't reach a scientific conclusion based on faith, there has to be evidence.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

To bad that from the same evidence, different conclusions can sometimes be made.

[vidcc]

To bad that from the same evidence, different conclusions can sometimes be made.
And what's your point?

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

That your "creationist" and your "scientific evidence" are both complete and utter bullshit. No one knows, no one will ever know unless you travel through time. Either way you look at it, odds are you are wrong.

[Busyman™]

Dear vdcc...you proved my point. Scientist surely will admit that there was life at some point at which you and I "evolved" from. This life could have only come from a source of life. To think that consciousness came into effect through a "big bang" is shallow and absurd. If life was contained in that single Hydrogen atom...where did the atom come from...a life giver...or random chance. You will agree with me that there are laws that govern things. There must therefore be a law giver or if you like someone who enforces such laws. there would be no law in say the US if there were not cops and judges and people to enforce them. If no-one cared about such laws it would be impossible to enforce them. So there surely must be a law giver...life giver. God is Truth...if you believe your bible...Truth exists therefore God exists. You could argue Truth does not exist...but that statement itself is True.......If you want to believe that you came from...say...a star which according to science contains "all that is you" your welcome to it. Just remember next time your at a zoo and looking at an ape your actually looking at your great great great great grandma....lmao.

Hmmm, I've said some of this before. However, creationism is not science. It is faith.

It should not be taught in science class. It has no basis in science. At least the theory of evolution can some yield some exploratory aspects.

I believe in intelligent design but that is a faith belief (with a bit of logic). An atheist actually has a faith but that involves in believing that we came from something unintelligent. To me, when comparing those two faiths, it is a simple choice.....

an intelligent being created the laws of physics or
those laws were just "there" from the get go.

I choose to be believe the laws were created.

[Biggles]

One could look at it this way...If you believe in God and die to find out there is a God youll be glad. If you dont believe in God and die to find out there is a God youll be sorry. If you believe in God and die and there isnt a God...you wont know anyway. So you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing. Ill wait for the Right-wing Christian nut-job defense.

Commonly known as "Pascal's wager" it is somewhat flawed in that an all knowing God would see through such a base ruse. I was slightly perplexed by the Ontological argument earlier that "God is Truth etc.," on whose word do we have it that God is "Truth"? :)

I am also not entirely convinced by the consciousness argument either which seems a reification to me .... but then what do I know I am probably just an old cynic :dabs:

[bigboab]

Creationists are opening a museum in Kentucky later this year.


Creationists believe that the Garden of Eden did exist, that the world is 6,000 years old, that God created man and animals simultaneously, and that the flood wiped out every living creature that wasn’t inside Noah’s Ark.

Iraq is the site of the Garden Of Eden? The Ark ended up in Turkey. Noah's wife got burnt at the stake in France nearly 4000 years later. It is little wonder that some people find it difficult to believe. It's all too confusing for me.:wacko:

[vidcc]

That your "creationist" and your "scientific evidence" are both complete and utter bullshit. No one knows, no one will ever know unless you travel through time. Either way you look at it, odds are you are wrong.

I have made no claim as to the accuracy of the conclusions. My point is why god is not part of scientific conclusions/theory.

[blackjackal]

I find it funny that those in the "evolution field" are willing to concede to an idea that you and i came from a single hydrogen atom cooked up in an ancient "ooze." Yet, they cannot come to believe in the possibility that we were "created." Life comes from life...and consciousness from this. If anyone can give me an example of life starting from anything other than any other pre-included life than i am all ears.

And not just that, but how can they make these claims when they don't even have the technology to have discovered all existing fossils?

[Busyman™]

I find it funny that those in the "evolution field" are willing to concede to an idea that you and i came from a single hydrogen atom cooked up in an ancient "ooze." Yet, they cannot come to believe in the possibility that we were "created." Life comes from life...and consciousness from this. If anyone can give me an example of life starting from anything other than any other pre-included life than i am all ears.

And not just that, but how can they make these claims when they don't even have the technology to have discovered all existing fossils?

It's called a theory.

[Biggles]

I find it funny that those in the "evolution field" are willing to concede to an idea that you and i came from a single hydrogen atom cooked up in an ancient "ooze." Yet, they cannot come to believe in the possibility that we were "created." Life comes from life...and consciousness from this. If anyone can give me an example of life starting from anything other than any other pre-included life than i am all ears.

And not just that, but how can they make these claims when they don't even have the technology to have discovered all existing fossils?


How would they know they had discovered all existing fossils and what difference would that make?

Surely the more fossils that have been unearthed the more established evolution has become as a theory? One of the complaints used to be that all early human fossils could be put into a single bucket and that was no basis for a theory - now there are now enough fossil remains to fill a pick up truck and more are being found all the time.

[thewizeard]

I am going to reveal the Truth, to you, later, in the Lounge. There you will agree. :)

[JPaul]

Look chaps, evolution happened. We may not know exactly every detail of every aspect of how it worked. However it did happen.

Science works thusly - observe, record, analyse, theorise. That is what has happened with things like the theory of evolution, archeology and all of the other sciences which attempt to prove where we came from. Bear in mind they are not that old as fields of science. The theories are adapting as more data is obtained. That's the way it works.

However that's true about pretty much every part of science. Physics for example is getting to the stage of realizing that everything we ever believed to be true is pish. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, all great men. All achieved great thing. All talking shite.

See everything your Physics Master taught you. Pure bunkum, absolute mashed potatoes. That's just the way it works tho'

The reason there is no scientific proof for the existence of God is that it's not a scientific question. Any more than you asking me, "Did you enjoy your holiday in Mallorca" is a Geography question.

[bigboab]

There isn't any proof in the existence of God. That is why the question cant be answered.

They don't call the roll in Philosophy classes at University. All the students start arguing as to whether they actually exist, or not.

[JPaul]

Of course there's proof, there just isn't any scientific proof.

[bigboab]

Of course there's proof, there just isn't any scientific proof.

Could you enlighten us with some tangible proof?:)
The scientists are winning at the moment. They have fossils etc to back them up.

[vidcc]

Of course there's proof, there just isn't any scientific proof.
I appreciate you may just be stirring the soup here, but What "proof" exactly is there. other than hearsay. :blink:

[JPaul]

Of course there's proof, there just isn't any scientific proof.

Could you enlighten us with some tangible proof?:)
The scientists are winning at the moment. They have fossils etc to back them up.

Where did the word "tangible" suddenly appear from boab. :naughty:

You were a cop. You know there is testimony, documentary evidence and eye witness accounts. You know that Jesus Christ made certain claims and that if he did in fact rise from the dead then those claims are corroborated by that.

There are claims of God making himself known to man, there is witnesses testimony of miracles occurring, of people being cured of illness. etc.

There is proof. There isn't scientific proof.

[bigboab]

Could you enlighten us with some tangible proof?:)
The scientists are winning at the moment. They have fossils etc to back them up.

Where did the word "tangible" suddenly appear from boab. :naughty:

You were a cop. You know there is testimony, documentary evidence and eye witness accounts. You know that Jesus Christ made certain claims and that if he did in fact rise from the dead then those claims are corroborated by that.

There are claims of God making himself known to man, there is witnesses testimony of miracles occurring, of people being cured of illness. etc.

There is proof. There isn't scientific proof.

Jesus Christ was only one of many Prophets of that era. He was one of the few Prophets that practiced magic.

There are today many people who claim they can 'cure' illnesses. They have all been proved charlatans.

[JPaul]

Where did the word "tangible" suddenly appear from boab. :naughty:

You were a cop. You know there is testimony, documentary evidence and eye witness accounts. You know that Jesus Christ made certain claims and that if he did in fact rise from the dead then those claims are corroborated by that.

There are claims of God making himself known to man, there is witnesses testimony of miracles occurring, of people being cured of illness. etc.

There is proof. There isn't scientific proof.

Jesus Christ was only one of many Prophets of that era. He was one of the few Prophets that practiced magic.


Good point. There is evidence from many other sources that God exists. From a variety of religions throughout the World.

Once again, not scientific evidence. Evidence none the less.

[vidcc]

I wonder, should we accept such quality of "proof" in all our lives.

Aliens from other universes have been visiting us therefore scientologist have proof.