Evolution of Mammals Re-evaluated 249
AaxelB writes "A study described in the New York Times rethinks mammalian evolution. Specifically, that the mass extinction of the dinosaurs had relatively little impact on mammals and that the steps in mammals' evolution happened well before and long after the dinosaurs' death."
In the Article--Mod Parent Redundant! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Evolution? I thought Jebus created the dinosaur (Score:4, Informative)
The big thing was grass, it hadn't been around for most of the time the dinosours had existed. The domination of grasses after the CT event really helped the spread of species
Re:This is Great (Score:5, Informative)
Many mammalian lineages predate the K-T extinction (Score:5, Informative)
In particular, by the time of the K-T extinction, I believe that the primate lineage had already separated from rodents, as well as the laurasiatheres [wikipedia.org] (all hoofed mammals, lions, tigers, bears, etc.), xenarthrans [slashdot.org] (armadillos, sloths, etc.), and afrotheres [wikipedia.org] (elephants, manatees, anteaters, etc.).
So, while most mammals in the Cretaceous may still have been tiny shrew-like creatures scurrying around in the underbrush, many of the modern lineages had already come into separate existence.
It is also interesting to read, in the book, that our nearest non-primate relatives aside from the tree shrews are rodents. I can sort of see it: give a mouse a little more finger dexterity and it wouldn't not that different from a lemur. It also might explain why rodents are such good laboratory specimens.
Re:Wasn't this common knowledge? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is Great (Score:3, Informative)
Re:conservapedia is satire (Score:2, Informative)
Nope. It's not satire. It was created by Andrew Schlafly, son of arch-conservative anti-femininst Phillys Schlafly [wikipedia.org], and is used by her Eagle Forum [wikipedia.org].
If the ideas presented on that site induce laughter, it is because neoconservative ideas are completely ridiculous. Really, Mark Twain couldn't produce satire so deep. I honestly hope that the GOP uses that site as their definitive reference. Within two generations, they'll be too stupid to breed.
Re:Shamelessly off-topic, but must be done... (Score:5, Informative)
"Obvious" if you ignore pretty much all work in molecular genetics at least since Watson and Crick.
Once we arrive at a better understanding of how DNA works, perhaps it will be possible to form mathematical models to determine whether or not the "random mutation" theory is feasible.
You mean, the way bioinformaticists and statistical geneticists do all the time, right now, and have been for years?
Maybe it's only feasible during intermittant radiation events that decimate populations by causing widespread mutations, leaving a few individuals with improvements, who go on to reproduce and build up populations again. Maybe it's not possible at all.
Do you have any data, at all, that would support either one of these hypotheses? Or are you just cut'n'pasting from some ID site somewhere?
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Surprise, but not a showstopper (Score:3, Informative)
Many of the original writers and earliest translators could write and speak multiple languages. While you might consider them superstitious they weren't illiterate. William Tyndale, a 16th century scholar and translator was fluent in eight languages. His work influenced Shakespear and the King James version of the Bible.
Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake because a version of the Bible that could be read by all, transferred power from the King and the Pope to the church, which Tyndale translated as congregation or congress (people) rather than church (hierarchy). Many credit Tyndale and his translation for furthering the concepts of representative democracy, individual responsibility, and equality.
Re:What About the Other Dinosaurs? (Score:2, Informative)
And the idea that if you rise all the waters you'll get a pressure-cooker of an atmosphere.
Not to mention the structural integrity of the boat.
Re:Science rethinking. (Score:3, Informative)
Evolution, the historical record of species evolution on earth is being rethought, as there is new evidence to refine our understanding of it, and is as yet theoretical.
Evolution, the process of speciation (the forking off of species) and adaptation through natural selection, is quite firmly proven.
Re:Surprise, but not a showstopper (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What About the Other Dinosaurs? (Score:2, Informative)
You are asking the wrong question. It should be: "Did it not ever rain before the flood?" To make a rainbow, the color of the sky is irrelevant. It takes only rain drops and sunlight. Since the sun did shine before the flood, it must have been the absence of rain that prevented rainbows before the flood.
In order for rain to happen, two things are needed. 1) a low enough temperature and 2) some particles in the saturated air around which drops can form. If conditions before the flood were such that BOTH of these requirements never were met, then there would have been no rain. We are in fact told in Gen 2:5-6 "For the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. 6 But there went up from the earth a mist and watered all the face of the ground."
Since you are ignorant by something as simple as to how a rainbow is formed, it doesn't surprise me that you show ignorance in your understanding of God and the Bible.