Jurassic Beavers Challenge Current Mammal Theories 155
Bombula writes "According to a BBC article, Castorocauda lutrasimilis, a beaver-like creature discovered in the Jiulongshan Formation in China which apparently lived 164 million years ago, poses challenges to conventional theory of mammalian history. That is, of course, assuming this is a genuine fossil - no small assumption, given Chinese fossils' track record of forgery, fabrication, and fraud."
Discussion of fake fossils (Score:5, Informative)
Discovering Beaver (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Discovering Beaver (Score:5, Funny)
"I haven't seen this many fossilized beavers since I worked at the old folks home" Ouch.
Re:Discovering Beaver (Score:3, Funny)
"...When I think of a duck's friends, I think of more ducks. But, they could have like, a beaver in tow. Cause if you're an animal, you want to have a beaver as a friend, cause they have some kick-ass houses. That shit is on the lake. Lakeside my ass, lake on!"
Re:Discovering Beaver (Score:2)
What? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:What? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, sorry, that one is British.
Re:What? (Score:1)
Re:What? (Score:2)
Oh, never mind...
Jurassic Park Beavers......... (Score:3, Funny)
OH NO....ARGHHHHHHH!!!
Re:Jurassic Park Beavers......... (Score:2)
Of course, the first IMAX movie I ever saw was "Beavers" [imdb.com].
okamura fossils (Score:1)
from the annals of improbable research:
"The Okamura Fossil Laboratory," by Earle Spamer. During the 1970s and 1980s Japanese paleontologist Chonusuke Okamura published a profusion of microphotographs. These documented the fossils of previously unknown "minicreatures" -- minireptiles, minibirds, minidinosaurs, minidragons and minivertebrates. All of these creatures were 1.0-1.5 milimeters in size. [This report includes photomicrographs of a minibrontosaurus (Brontosaurus excelsus miniorientalis), a min
Chinese Beaver (Score:3, Funny)
More like a platypus (Score:5, Informative)
The fossil even has spurs on its hind legs just where the modern platypus has its unique-amongst-mammalia poison delivery system. Front legs equipped for burrowing suggests in may have also used very playpus-like diggings.
While detailed dental structure is particularly important for cladistics, it is also something that can be subject to high selection pressure -- you have to keep eating -- so it would not be that unlikely that an otter-like snout would evolve into that equally unique to mammals duck bill during a 165 million year river journey from China to Oz.
Re:More like a platypus (Score:2)
National Geographic (Score:3, Informative)
from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/02 23_060223_beaver_2.html [nationalgeographic.com] courtesy SeaMonkey history
Re:More like a platypus (Score:1)
Re:More like a platypus (Score:2)
The article is a little confused; it says:
"Like modern beavers, the creature had fur, a broad scaly tail, and webbed feet for swimming. It was about the size of a small female platypus and had seal-like teeth for eating fish. "
Modern beavers are RODENTS, and they eat tree bark (to be accurate, the growth layer under the hard bark) and small shoots. Beavers have RODENT type teeth for gnawing;
If it sounds to be too good to be true (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand - the mammals didn't originate from nothing 65 million years ago, but they were at the time more adaptable than the reptiles. This means that mammals must have existed earlier than 65 million years ago, but it is likely that they resembled mice and other small mammals and fed on insects and vegetation.
Most fossils that we actually have from the jurassic period are large and important as they seem they are likely to be the top of an iceberg where the mass of animals are likely to be small. Unfortunately - small dead animals are likely to dissolve completely or have been eaten to the very last piece. This means that finding small fossilized animals will help us to understand the evolution better - so start digging!
Re:If it sounds to be too good to be true (Score:3, Informative)
Mammals originated in the Triassic period over 200 million years ago, they are as old or maybe even a tad older than dinosaurs. Most known fossil mammals are small and shrew-like, but recently suprisingly large [amnh.org] and advanced [nationalgeographic.com] forms have been found. This new find is just the newest reason to rethink the evolution of Mesozoic mammals. Looks like they were way more diversified already in the age of dinosaurs than previously thought.
Re:If it sounds to be too good to be true (Score:1)
No one in the subject has claimed that for I-don't-know-how-long. Fossil mammals have been known from Creataceous, Jurassic and Triassic deposits for years. But they've mostly been small fossils, implying small animals. Actually, one of the commonest types of fossil has been teeth, for the taphonomic reasons you give:
Unfortunately
Uhh... It Was a Joint US/Chinese Team (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uhh... It Was a Joint US/Chinese Team (Score:1)
Where exactly did this long track record of forgeries come from? Archeoraptor was a hoax found in China. But that's because, IIRC it was found from a vendor off the street. It's not like people in America weren't peddling Fiji mermaids years ago, or making Bigfoot prints now.
Re:Uhh... It Was a Joint US/Chinese Team (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uhh... It Was a Joint US/Chinese Team (Score:1)
Re:Uhh... It Was a Joint US/Chinese Team (Score:2)
Oh, and we can always take article summaries literally? Even if we do, "found" can mean "bought", you know. Many major fossil "finds" these days are actually bought by fossil dealers from more common people who do the "finding", and then sold to the scientists who start the process of bringing them to front pages of periodicals near you (or not, as the case may be), which periodicals then proclaim "a startling find was found in China recently" (faceti
Track of fabrication? (Score:1)
I would highly appreciate if someone pointed me to the mentioned Chinese fossils' track record of forgery, fabrication, and fraud.
PS Complaint without URL looks like a slander :-).
Re:Track of fabrication? (Score:2)
Problems with interpretations, too (Score:1)
The Chinese government's interpretation
Re:Problems with interpretations, too (Score:2)
The Chinese might have their own ways of interpretation, but since this critter was found by a US/Chinese team, and has been peer-reviewed by Science (the journal, that is), we can be pretty certain of the accuracy of the interpretations.
Beavers with mammal glands? (Score:2)
Not surprising (Score:1)
No stopping me (Score:2, Funny)
Wow - was wondering what to call my new band... (Score:2)
Yeah!
Re:Wow - was wondering what to call my new band... (Score:2)
An All-Girl Senior Citizens Band?
Come to /. for your 2 day old news (Score:1)
Why do fossils lie? (Score:2)
Everyone knows chinese fossils lie and cannot be trusted. Remember that fossil that claimed to be a dragon?
Re:Why do fossils lie? (Score:2)
One of Stephen Jay Gould's many books was titled "The Lying Stones of Marrakech", and the first chapter dealt with this issue in his usual entertaining and informative style. The "lying stones" were fake commercial fossils from North Africa.
fraud? what racist crap! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
A little respect please (Score:1)
Re:A little respect please (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A little respect please (Score:1)
Re:A little respect please (Score:2)
Article name (Score:1)
Re:Article name (Score:2)
Re:Article name (Score:1)
Interesting news, but ... (Score:2)
You'd be hard put to find any paleontologist who has ever insisted that such a mammal didn't exist. The most you'd find is a lack of mention of such a mammal. But the fossil record is notoriously incomplete, and nobody with any understanding at all would claim that the fossil reco
Re:Interesting news, but ... (Score:2)
Re:Interesting news, but ... (Score:2)
What evidence? It's been known for quite some time that proto-mammals dominated the Triassic and were the largest creatures on Earth at the time. Rapid, catastrophic climate change (think "the worst possible greenhouse effect you can imagine") killed all the big proto-mammals, leaving only the much smaller ones to carry on. After the world began to recover and become more temperate dinosaurs took center stage, primarily due to their meth
DellaToothus (Score:1)
Ta Ta Toothicus? I can't find any links, but I thought someone else might remember.
Karma Whoring (Score:3, Informative)
Fraud or Paradigm Paralysis? (Score:1, Insightful)
it seems that so many who claim to appreciate science don't even wait for the science to address this issue - they just reject it b/c it doesn't fit their paradigm?
oh, i get it. you have faither this evidence is false and that is a good thing?
okaaaay!
You just need to look at it the right way (Score:1)
Recently found? (Score:1)
Ahem (Score:2)
I wouldn't worry about it, the beavers are just jealous.
Badabing (Score:2)
So I guess Bea Arthur having an internal struggle of, uh, mammoth proportions.
Bad smell... (Score:2)
Once I made the mistake of having day-old beaver, and the only thing I can say is that it was like a dried up crusty grilled cheese sandwhich with just a hint of mayo.
I can't imagine how one from the jurassic era would taste?
Ohhh. You mean animals? I though we were talking about...
Yea, what have the chinese ever done for us (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose papermaking, the compass, gunpowder and printing never were that noteworthy anyway...
Re:Yea, what have the chinese ever done for us (Score:2, Funny)
To be fair, those inventions were made before the Socialist era...
Re:Yea, what have the chinese ever done for us (Score:1)
Re:Yea, what have the chinese ever done for us (Score:1)
Oh the irony! (They also invented cast iron making by mixing tin and copper back around the 6th century AD)
I also presume (Score:1)
Re:Yea, what have the chinese ever done for us (Score:1, Informative)
Hey Smartacus, alloys of copper and tin are bronze. Iron is an element.
Re:Yea, what have the chinese ever done for us (Score:1)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:4, Insightful)
Every single time the theory of evolution needs to be revised, you ID/creationist zealots pounce and proclaim that "evolution is disproved!!!" Bullshit.
A scientific theory is subject to revision when and if new data shows itself. That is in part why they're called theories - theory in science does not mean "guess", as ID proponants like to insinuate, but rather means an explanation for a phenominon that is as current as our understanding can make it. When we learn more, we go back and make changes to a theory to account for the new data.
Theories are almost never completely thrown out, but are often radically altered as we become more knowledgeable; Einstein didn't disprove Newton's theories about motion, but because of him we do know far more than Newton did in his time.
This does not disprove Darwin. Quit salavating; your bias is showing.
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1, Troll)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
Wooooosh! (Score:1)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
It is the final nail in Darwin's coffin!
If this fossil really is 164 million years old then evilution is wrong and therefore the Bible is right and the earth was created by God 6000 years ago!
P.S.
The seconds law of thermodimechanics prooves evilution is impossible anyway.
-
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1)
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2002/0 1/01/html/ft_20020101.1.html [nationalgeographic.com]
And even wolves evolved from animals before them and so on, generation after generation for millions of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote [wikipedia.org]
ID is wrong, has always been wrong and will always remain wrong. Get over it.
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1)
I doubt it survived that flood you were talking about.
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
The really important thing to note is that toy poodles are morphologically much more different from wolves than humans are to chimps. If you accept that NS can account for dog evolution, then it becomes pretty hard to
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, no, it doesn't prove that. If DNA determines what the animal will look like and how its body functions, then similar animals will have similar DNA, whether they are in any way related or not.
As for being able to draw family trees, you can take random strings and draw a "family tree" for them by comparing them
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1)
Sorry but that is so profoundly ignorant of the facts about genetics. You may not (clearly do not) understand the science of genetics but you cannot deny that geneticists are able to alter plants and animals by manipulating the DNA because you can often see the results of their work with your own eyes. Als
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:3, Informative)
Your highschool biology teacher seriously needs to be shot. You don't have foggiest clue about genetics.
If DNA determines what the animal will look like and how its body functions, then similar animals will have similar DNA, whether they are in any way related or not.
That's like suggesting the New York Times and the Washington Post will contain the same sequence of letters and the same punctuation and the same pictures because they both reported on news for the same day.
Genes to do simi
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
No, I was completely correct. DNA text is vastly more than 4 times as long. If you were to cluster DNA into clusters of 4 then each 4-cluster has 4*4*4*4=64 possibilites. 64 is basicly the same range of one letter of alphanumeric text. 4 DNA letters is 1 text letter, and since the DNA is more than 4 times as long the DNA math probabilites then outstrip the english
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
It should also be pointed out that given the rules for spelling and grammer of English text, the entropy is extremely low. In fact, most 50 letter co
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
But then it crossed by mind that coding DNA (taken 4 bases at a time) would have approximately the same entropy rate as english text. I figured it would simplify things massively to call it a wash and skip the whole issue
-
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1)
If so, please peruse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome [wikipedia.org]
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
With DNA, there are billion ways to get the same result. There is no need for similar creatures to have similar DNA unless they recently got it from a common source, especially given that DNA, especially the non-coding sections, tends to "drift" all over the place naturally. The amount of this neutral drift
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1)
Anyhow, Darwin was the first to theorize into the domain of "speciation," a natural process by means of which new and distinct species could be fo
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:1)
>don't conform to the bible. Do you really think that
>this helps at all?
I didn't advocate doing any such thing. It sounds like you are making a strawman, calling it "mine," and then beating it up.
>You're using OCCOM'S RAZOR for proof!? What the heck
>kind of reasoning is that? There's half a dozen
>anti-razors for that statement. Besides, who is to say
>Creation is the simpl est solution? SEriously, try
>explaining how he created all
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
----- Joke ------->
\O/ \O O/
.| |> <|
/|
"Humourless Darwinists"
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:3, Insightful)
The tissue was inside the bone, and they had to chemically remove the hard minerals before they could take a look at the soft tissues preserved. So I think it's pretty reasonable to say number three, our assumptions about fossilization, is the thing we should be looking at changing.
It's funny how quick people are
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe you've missed something:
People aren't quick to throw out evolution. They've thrown out evolution long ago, and are quick to jump on this and anything else they can find as evidence to support their existing beliefs.
(I don't believe the theory of evolution either, but I try not to jump on this sort of thing, because I have no doubt there will be a good explanation.)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
Then how were the following genes selected, and from what?
A correct theory must explain all observations. Natural selection has real problems with this: there is a rather big descriptive gap between supernova remnant and the simplest bacterium. That
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
No, that's a complete theory, and there are very few of them. A correct theory simply has to have no incorrect parts. Newton's theory of gravity is incomplete but it can be made correct simply by defining the parameters within which it works (ie, well away from where relativistic effects occur).
The theory of evolution can never be complete because we will never know everything needed to complete it, but it appears to be correct within the parameters existing
Re:FU-Darwin (Score:2)
4. "Soft tissue" is a bit of a misnomer. As you noted, this stuff wasn't juicy, and it wasn't really even the original tissue preserved. It was fossilized impressions of tissue that allowed to learn about it's structure. It wasn't the cells themselves. It was remnants of their materials and structures. Without all the journalistic blaring of images of Jurrasic park, the "soft tissue" could be less misleadingly called "impressions and chemical components of soft tissue allowing scie
Re:that's not nice (Score:1)
Re:that's not nice (Score:1)
Heh! Right you are! For all the accusations that Americans are ignorant of the outside world, you should hear the stuff some non-Americans think about the U.S! A Chinese student comes here from Shanghai, and then returns home for a visit halfway through college. Her friends, who have never left China, all say, "You're lucky; you get to eat nothing but pizza and hamburgers!" and "Isn't it scary that they all have guns and shoot each other?" Really happened! People honestly believe this stuff!
Pardon m