Skip to comments.California scientists discover mouse-like mammal related to elephants
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 ...
Not the same thing, no backbone.
ROFLMAO!!! Good one.
Where are the tusks? Does it eat peanuts too?
A gene here, a gene there...
Most likely no relation to elephants.
Remember the time when taxonomists thought that the giant panda was a giant raccoon rather than a bear?
If you put him in the zoo in Wash DC, he lets everyone punch him in the shoulder.
Later he begs to go to lunch with those same people.
He swells with pride if photographed with them.
Did they find it near Disneyland or Disney Studios?
God created elephants so that rinos can take over.
Why do scientist have to come with such stupid sounding names?
and.. I’m interested in how Darwinists incorporate this cute as a bug little critter into the elephant evolutionary tree. It’s one thing to leap from gorillas to human, but which came first - the elephant, or the mouse with elephant DNA that acts like an antelope?
and if the elephant (or mouse) DNA branched into so many variations, why didn’t gorilla DNA? (I know the Christian answer but I’m always interested in the evolutionist perspective)
African Scientists Develop Shrink Ray!
Evo answer would be: LUCK
What was he doing in California???
Thanks for prompting me to look that up! I’d forgotten about that.
Yes. DNA sequencing did kind of mess up that whole ‘tree of life’ thing a bit, didn’t it?
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.”
No, theory is not confirmed hypothesis. Theory is strictly abstract thought, even in science; claims to the contrary abound among “scientists”, however.
And facts in science are confirmed by repeated observation and testing. Both are missing here. If they were present, then one can derive scientific law from them.
Never mind the “testing” methods that still masquerade as real science. DNA analysis is still in its infancy, furthermoreand DNA itself is a computer program, which indicates intellect involved in its design (if not, then computer programs of all kinds would spontaneously appear in nature). Remember the recent debunking of the widely-accepted theory of “junk DNA” which was found to have a purpose after all?
Ultimately, man cannot live by science alone.
It has made some questionable assumptions, but even that difficulty can be weathered by placing science itself in the context it deserves.
It is the hired hand. It can’t ever be the master.
The maximum "natural" rate of genetic change can be seen in human domesticated animals like dogs, cats, cows, horses, etc.
Dogs, for example, in just a few thousand years have "evolved" into many sizes, shapes & temperaments.
But they are all still indisputably dogs, closely related to wolves, from which they came, and so readily interbreed.
A few thousand years of selective breeding cannot change that.
But millions of years of evolution certainly can change it -- turning separate breeds into science-classified species, orders and families, increasingly incapable of interbreeding.
HiTech RedNeck: "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."
Agreed, but the fact is that natural evolution proceeds at a relatively slow pace.
Long term results can be seen in the much larger DNA differences of the 105-million years separating elephants vs. elephant-shrews, compared to more similar DNA from just a few million years separating humans vs. great apes.
And that was the question addressed above.
There is some question begging embedded in your explanation, I believe I see.
The modern atheistic science has fixed upon a theory that a naturalistic evolution explains the progress, if not also the appearance, of all life. It gets cleverer and cleverer when challenged, but it has the advantage of the great fog that still exists about most of the picture. In spite of herculean extractions of comprehensive, if approximate, genomes, most of that data is still in the dark and only depends on existing creatures. The dinosaur that died a few million years ago usually can’t yield up enough DNA. Finding fossils is itself fortuitous.
The hubris of this kind of approach to science has, IMHO, spilled over into the global warming panic. There are some things that mankind has too little data to draw any kind of purely scientific conclusion about, and this is another one of them.
I've seen nothing suggesting that "dark matter" might somehow change evolution theory.
But I would certainly agree with the proposition that what science thinks it knows about reality is orders-of-magnitude less than reality itself.
And that means new discoveries -- or new perspectives on old discoveries -- could change everything in science.
A shift to enforced atheism certainly has changed “evolution theory.”
I think psychology is staring into the face of God and doesn’t even realize it yet. IMHO of course.
It's a problem in education, wherein teachers don't make clear to students that science begins with the assumption of "methodological naturalism", an assumption which can be neither proved nor dis-proved, but is totally necessary for science to "work".
Any experiences or conclusions relating to divinity, divine interventions and our spiritual natures are all far outside the realm of science, which can neither confirm nor refute them.
Sorry FRiend, but you are forbidden by US law from attempting to redefine what is, or is not, "science".
"Science" is defined solely by scientists -- not anti-scientists like yourself.
Scientists say that a "theory" is defined as a "confirmed hypothesis", confirmed by successful tests and/or observations.
Yes, strictly speaking, no theory is ever fully confirmed, because no test can ever "prove" a theory.
The best it can do is fail to falsify the hypothesis, and such failures accumulating over repeatable tests convince scientists to accept the hypothesis as a "confirmed theory".
Yes, occasionally a "theory" is converted to fact by confirmed observations -- the great example here being the ancient hypothesis/theory that "the earth is round", first established by mathematical calculations, then confirmed by sailing around it, and now made a certain fact by observations from outer space.
But most "theories" (i.e., long-term evolution) will remain just that -- confirmed hypotheses, since no observations of past evolution are possible.
But evolution itself is based on and supported by innumerable confirmed observations, firmly falsified by none.
Olog-hai: "Remember the recent debunking of the widely-accepted theory of junk DNA which was found to have a purpose after all?"
It's true that some functionality has been discovered for a small portion of what was called "junk DNA".
But for most of that 98% of DNA, it's functions, if any, are still unknown.
It remains an area of our genome where mutations can accumulate generation by generation, without causing noticeable harm to individuals.
Indeed, I'd suggest that in God's great scheme of things, that is precisely one great Purpose He intended for "junk DNA".
No "begging" here, FRiend, you are fantasizing.
HiTech RedNeck: "The dinosaur that died a few million years ago usually cant yield up enough DNA. Finding fossils is itself fortuitous."
There is no confirmed dino-DNA ever discovered -- none.
Claims of "soft tissue" amount to collagen, which does provide some data, but no DNA.
And the data we have about dinosaurs suggests they were most closely related to today's birds -- giant chickens. ;-)
Bottom line is, the key points to remember about evolution theory are:
HiTech RedNeck: "The hubris of this kind of approach to science has, IMHO, spilled over into the global warming panic.
There are some things that mankind has too little data to draw any kind of purely scientific conclusion about, and this is another one of them."
The confirmed fact is that "global climate change" has been continuous since the Earth was first formed -- no "hubris" in that, just simple observations.
Likewise, "global species change" is also confirmed by the fossil record, DNA analyses, cladistics, radiometric dating, etc. -- again no "hubris" in that, just observations & confirmed hypotheses.
The difference is that "global climate change" attempts to use it's super-computers to calculate future warming, with formulas infused by political motivations & assumptions -- hence, as you say: obvious "hubris".
By contrast, evolution theory makes no efforts to calculate future evolution, only to explain the processes and results we now see.
That's not "hubris", it's just science, FRiend.