Posted on 03/28/2007 12:18:37 PM PDT by Pharmboy
The big dinosaur extinction of 65 million years ago didn't produce a flurry of new species in the ancestry of modern mammals after all, says a huge study that challenges a long-standing theory.
Scientists who constructed a massive evolutionary family tree for mammals found no sign of such a burst of new species at that time among the ancestors of present-day animals.
Only mammals with no modern-day descendants showed that effect.
"I was flabbergasted," said study co-author Ross MacPhee, curator of vertebrate zoology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
At the time of the dinosaur demise, mammals were small, ranging in size between shrews and cats. The long-held view has been that once the dinosaurs were gone, mammals were suddenly free to exploit new food sources and habitats, and as a result they produced a burst of new species.
The new study says that happened to some extent, but that the new species led to evolutionary dead ends. In contrast, no such burst was found for the ancestors of modern-day mammals like rodents, cats, horses, elephants and people.
Instead, they showed an initial burst between 100 million about 85 million years ago, with another between about 55 million and 35 million year ago, researchers report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
The timing of that first period of evolutionary development generally agrees with the conclusions of some previous studies of mammal DNA, which argue for a much earlier origin of some mammal lineages than the fossil record does.
The second burst had shown up in the fossil record, MacPhee said. But he said the new study explains why scientists have been unable to find relatively modern-looking ancestors of the creatures known from that time: without any evolutionary boost from the dinosaur demise, those ancestors were still relatively primitive.
Some experts praised the large scale of the new evolutionary tree, which used a controversial "supertree" method to combine data covering the vast majority of mammal species. It challenges paleontologists to find new fossils that can shed light on mammal history, said Greg Wilson, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.
William J. Murphy of Texas A&M University, who is working on a similar project, said no previous analysis had included so many mammal species.
But, "I don't think this is the final word," he said.
The study's approach for assigning dates was relatively crude, he said, and some dates it produced for particular lineages disagree with those obtained by more updated methods.
So as for its interpretation of what happened when the dinosaurs died off, "I'm not sure that conclusion is well-founded," Murphy said.
John Gittleman, a study co-author and director of the University of Georgia Institute of Ecology, said the researchers considered a range of previously reported dates for when various lineages split. They found the overall conclusions of the study were not significantly affected by which dates they chose, he said.
Researchers should now look at such things as the rise of flowering plants and a cooling of the worldwide climate to explain why ancestors of present-day mammals took off before the dinosaurs died out, Gittleman said. The cause of the later boom is also a mystery, he said.
The study's family tree includes 4,510 species, more than 99 percent of mammal species covered by an authoritative listing published in 1993. (Nearly 300 species have since been added to the listing, but the researchers said that doesn't affect their study's conclusions.) To construct it, the researchers combined previously published work that relied on analysis of DNA, fossils, anatomy and other information.
S. Blair Hedges, an evolutionary biologist at Pennsylvania State University, said the new work "pushes the envelope in the methods and data, and that's really important."
He said the demise of the dinosaurs may have affected mammal evolution by influencing characteristics like body size rather than boosting the number of new species created. Such changes wouldn't be picked up by the new study, he noted.
___
But evolution is still a hypothesis...
Of course Evolution is wrong. And of course, its faithful will simply revise it and pretend that its been right all along.
Well if it's true there has to be something behind these "bursts" besides random mutations IMHO.
I wonder if they are taking into account the long-term change in climate from the meteor impact the formed the KT boundary. That in the end may have had a greater impact (pun intended) than the demise of the dinosaurs.
Still stuck on stupid I see.
As opposed to the other side, which doesn't revise, and yet still pretends that they were right all along.
the small amount of data that exists, dont be surprised if this changes again in a few years......humanity has pieced together a tapestry using what we have...but the next major find will always modify what we 'know' now. The basic theory is solid but the details tend to be sketchy.
.....as a believer in our decendence from Neanderthal, despite the current PC version, I hope that the search goes on to conclude that people of european decent are an amalgam of Neanderthal and Cromagnon. Guys like Milford Wolpoff have some interesting points to make on the subject.
Oh, and by the way the Creationists will have a cow with this thread.
The evolutionary tree is different everytime a new textbook is published. Most evolution articles are nearly useless without the picture of the tree with tapirs and lemurs standing on their branches. That includes this thread.
We did not descend from the Neanderthal any more than you descended from your brothers, sisters, or cousins.
The reports of we dinosaurs being extinct have been greatly exaggerated. They've simply been looking under the wrong rocks all these years.
The global warming hysterics ought to think about this. Sometimes the data come out contrary to the "models"
Actually I always argue instead for killing or forcibly brainwashing the unbelievers, but I get voted down at the meetings. Usually.
Preeeeeeee....
cisely!
Actually, I'm thinking that I'll just use the "duck with mango salsa" line rather than humping through Google images, tinyURL and the HTML coding.
Quicker, cleaner and recognizable.
You guys totally distort the opposing view to try to support your own, much like libs do to conservatives.
Creationists don't believe that humans and dinos co-existed because of movies. We simply don't buy that it all happened 65 million years ago. I don't know what you guys think is so whacked about believing that dinosaurs were still around a few thousand years ago. That's much less far-fetched than believing something evolved from nothing, with mutant distortions of the norms taking dominance with each generation instead of dying out sooner as they do today.
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.