[_ Old Earth _] New Giraffe Fossil Throws Light on Evolutionary Trend

[Barbarian]

The cervical anatomy of Samotherium, an intermediate-necked giraffid
Melinda Danowitz, Rebecca Domalski, Nikos Solounias

Giraffidae are represented by many extinct species. The only two extant taxa possess diametrically contrasting cervical morphology, as the okapi is short-necked and the giraffe is exceptionally long-necked. Samotherium major, known from the Late Miocene of Samos in Greece and other Eurasian localities, is a key extinct giraffid; it possesses cervical vertebrae that are intermediate in the evolutionary elongation of the neck. We describe detailed anatomical features of the cervicals of S. major, and compare these characteristics with the vertebrae of the two extant giraffid taxa. Based on qualitative morphological characters and a quantitative analysis of cervical dimensions, we find that the S. major neck is intermediate between that of the okapi and the giraffe. Specifically, the more cranial (C2–C3) vertebrae of S. major represent a mosaic of features shared either with the giraffe or with the okapi. The more caudal (C5–C7) S. major vertebrae, however, appear transitional between the two extant taxa, and hence are more unique. Notably, the C6 of S. major exhibits a partially excavated ventral lamina that is strong cranially but completely absent on the caudal half of the ventral vertebral body, features between those seen in the giraffe and the okapi. Comprehensive anatomical descriptions and measurements of the almost-complete cervical column reveal that S. major is a truly intermediate-necked giraffid. Reconstructions of the neck display our findings.
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/

The new fossil supports the idea that long necks developed allometrically, and that the supposed "impossible" transition happened in a series of intermediate steps.

 

[AirDancer]

As more work & study is done, there will be found other intermediate fossils found.

I find it fascinating!

 

[Barbarian]

I did a little checking and the body mass/neck length correlates nicely to an allometric progression, where the neck becomes relatively longer as the body mass becomes absolutely larger. This appears to have become adaptive only in modern giraffes and was originally only a consequence of greater size.

The neck length, if it was not allometric, would be linear with the cube of the body mass. But it isn't.

 

[AirDancer]

Giraffes have always reminded me as gracile descendants of diplodocus. Now since this intermediate giraffid has been identified, I'll need to do some reading up on the subject.

 

[Paloma]

Gentelmen, I beg to differ. This is nothing more than an extint variation of a similar type creature. As you know, there are many. Fits perfectly with the Creationsit model and the Bible.

Your assumptions and bias are showing.

~P

 

[AirDancer]

Of course this giraffid is an extinct creature. Its fossil is what we're discussing. The fossil demonstrates beautifully how our Lord God has designed the past!

 

[Barbarian]

There are actually a lot of creationists, faced with a mountain of evidence like this, who have retreated to admitting that evolution is a fact, while still claiming that each phylum or whatever was separately created.

 

[AirDancer]

I'm a creationist .... one who believes that our Lord God has created everything that has existed on this old earth of ours. When Adam was created, he was created with a soul, something that nothing created prior had received. Adam was quite a different and special creation.
I'm also not about to second guess just how long a 'day' is for Him, but considering the fossil record our world has collected, I have no doubt about His sense of humour and the brilliance of His designs. The fossil record also demonstrates His long-term planning capabilities.

It's funny .... I usually point out the unusual design of giraffes to illustrate His sense of humour. And here we are discussing a giraffid!

 

[Paloma]

*Yawn.*

Same old argument over and over.

God built into each creature the ability to change with their enviroment and other stressors due to his for knowledge of coming events. Creatures change yes, ("evolution") but within strick limits. Micro evolution yes, macro, no. Molecules to man did not happen. Confusing micro for macro is common among evolutionsts.

Micro is exaclty what we expect to see. Exactly what the fossil record shows. Exactly what history tell us. The fossils come largely from Noah's flood. The world is young, the evidence clearly shows.

 

[Barbarian]

*Yawn.*

Same old argument over and over.

God built into each creature the ability to change with their enviroment and other stressors due to his for knowledge of coming events. Creatures change yes, ("evolution") but within strick limits.

So far, no organism ever discovered was at any kind of a limit. Humans, as they exist today, will never have wings, because no there is no feasible transitional form that could exist for us. That's a kind of a "limit" but perfectly understandable in terms of evolution. The vast number of transitional forms shows us that there is no limit that would prevent common descent, however. if you doubt this, pick any two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected and we'll see if a transitional form exists.

Micro evolution yes, macro, no.

Macroevolution is the evolution of new species. So that's directly observed to happen. You're objecting to common descent. The way to disprove that, is to show that there are no transitional forms between whatever you think didn't evolve.

Molecules to man did not happen.

God says it did. Man was brought forth from the Earth. However, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Even Darwin suggested that God just created the first organisms.

Confusing micro for macro is common among evolutionsts.

You're thinking of common descent, not macroevolution, which is directly observed to happen.

Micro is exaclty what we expect to see. Exactly what the fossil record shows.

See above. The evolution of giraffes from deer-like animals is now understood. Apparently, there are other transitional forms in that line as well, such as Sivatherium.

The fossils come largely from Noah's flood.

Not possible. No way the Earth could sustain that many species. Large animals would have had less than half a football field of space, each. And the oceans would be a paste of marine organisms, impossible for any of them to live in.

The world is young, the evidence clearly shows.

The evidence shows about 2 billion years. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

 

[brother Paul]

Sorry Okapi really has not changed much over time. Despite the way EBs classify I do not agree this is proof of "HOW" modern Giraffes developed longer necks at all (as the Discovery article and some others "interpret" the evidence). Samotherium is just as likely a shorter necked VARIETY that did not survive but that does IN NO WAY demonstrate or evidence that one became the other. Even though Okapi and Sam demonstrate different yet "similar" vertical shape that modern Giraffes lack the idea of transitioning over time is convenient to the theory not factual (could be, might be, does not equal IS)...in fact I never thought Okapi should have been considered Giraffidae...but I can see how when one who classifies by structural similarity they may decide that.

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry Okapi really has not changed much over time.

Remember, evolution is like a branching bush, not a ladder. So finding a transitional fossil with neck bones that are intermediate in structure between Okapis and giraffes confirms another prediction of evolutionary theory. The creationist claim that one could not evolve from the other is falsified by a transitional form.

Despite the way EBs classify I do not agree this is proof of "HOW" modern Giraffes developed longer necks at all (as the Discovery article and some others "interpret" the evidence).

As I mentioned, a structural proportion analysis indicates it was merely a consequence of larger size. Allometry is the phenomenon of differential growth (or lack of growth in a body part with increase in absolute size. If you graph the cube root of the body mass with neck length, it works nicely. In all likelihood, the longer neck was not adaptive, until it got long enough to use as a signal and a weapon. The notion that longer necks allowed higher browsing seems to be wrong, as giraffes normally don't feed that way.

Samotherium is just as likely a shorter necked VARIETY

Species. It's quite different from modern giraffes.

that did not survive but that does IN NO WAY demonstrate or evidence that one became the other.

The transitional form of the neck verterbrae confirms the prediction that they evolved.

 

[brother Paul]

Is we follow the Fossil record precisely (bush, tree, whatever) it goes Sam, Okapi, Giraffe not Okapi, Sam, Giraffe (not that that matters since it proves nothing)

So if we follow the logic (rather the lack thereof) view Sam becoming Okapi, which then becomes Giraffe (but wait we cannot do that and still prove the theory so lets just DECLARE by authority and present a consensus OPINION and millions will swallow...)

 

[Barbarian]

In addition to the predicted transitional form of the vertebrae, we also have genetic evidence for the transition:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090074/

 

[brother Paul]

Already read it, thanks....

 

[Jacks Bratt]

So far, no organism ever discovered was at any kind of a limit. Humans, as they exist today, will never have wings, because no there is no feasible transitional form that could exist for us. That's a kind of a "limit" but perfectly understandable in terms of evolution. The vast number of transitional forms shows us that there is no limit that would prevent common descent, however. if you doubt this, pick any two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected and we'll see if a transitional form exists.

You say that there are avast number of transitional forms. What do you have as evidence of these transitional forms?

Macroevolution is the evolution of new species. So that's directly observed to happen. You're objecting to common descent. The way to disprove that, is to show that there are no transitional forms between whatever you think didn't evolve.

Can you tell me where Macro evolution is observed to happen?

God says it did. Man was brought forth from the Earth. However, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Even Darwin suggested that God just created the first organisms.

You state that "man was brought forth from earth" The scripture I read states :

Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This would not suggest that man was just brought forth from the earth like some evolving being but that God formed him, some suggest with his own hands. God then breathed life into his nostrils. This would suggest that God formed man as a man and then brought him to life with His own breath. I fail to see and cannot believe that this would be explained by God forming the first life forms and allowing great amounts of time to eventually evolve into a human adult man.

Also, women were not around until there was an adult man. This is evident as the scriptures clearly state that God put Adam into a state of sleep and used one of his ribs to make Eve. This would be impossible for Adam to evolve and live as the only human until he was an adult and then have a woman created from him by God.

It just bends the biblical account to far and has too many twists for evolution to be the truth. God made man, breathed life into him. Later He took a rib from this first created man and made woman. There was no ape or any other precursor to human kind. My Bible leaves no room for that analogy.

Not possible. No way the Earth could sustain that many species. Large animals would have had less than half a football field of space, each. And the oceans would be a paste of marine organisms, impossible for any of them to live in.

Where do you get the evidence of the ocean being a paste of marine organisms and large animals having such a small space of land?

 

[brother Paul]

The order of the fossil record (if transitional) demonstrates de-evolution of Sam to Okapi (but we know this is not true either)....Samotherium roamed Africa, Eurasia, and even in China. In other words, in places we find neither Giraffes or Okapi....the consensus opinion is a contrived lie engineered to make the theory appear to be real. Nothing more....

And yes it does shed light on Evolutionary theory...it shows the deceptive presentations some EBs will hodge-podge mix'n'match unrelated factors to fool and propagandize the public!

 

[Barbarian]

You say that there are avast number of transitional forms. What do you have as evidence of these transitional forms?

Let's hear from an honest YE creationist on that:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
(my emphasis)

Can you tell me where Macro evolution is observed to happen?

Any of the numerous speciation events, Most creationists now admit it.

However, it is not correct to assume that a few thousand species would have produced the millions of species extant (alive) today. There are fewer than 30,000 extant species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and possibly land-reproducing amphibians (many salamanders) that were represented on the Ark. The millions of other species are the invertebrates (>95 percent of all animal species), fish, and a few aquatic mammals and reptiles that survived in the water during the Flood. The processes of speciation discussed above need to only double the number of animal species from 15,000 to 30,000. This is certainly a feasible process based on observable science.
http://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species.1 According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view.


Darwin showed how the fixity of species ran counter to all the evidence he had been collecting for twenty years. His book managed to convince most scientists that species were not fixed or unchangeable. In the process, the church was proved wrong, with tragic consequences.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/

You state that "man was brought forth from earth" The scripture I read states :

Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Yep. The difference is, God gave man an immortal soul, and that is the difference between us and other animals.

This would not suggest that man was just brought forth from the earth like some evolving being but that God formed him, some suggest with his own hands.

God doesn't have hands. Jesus says He is a spirit and a spirit has no bones. The creationist belief twists Genesis too much.

Where do you get the evidence of the ocean being a paste of marine organisms and large animals having such a small space of land?

There is rock miles deep, which are made of the packed bodies of tiny marine organisms. If you put that many in the ocean, it would be a paste, not a liquid.

And the large animals, if you add up all the fossils:

With our present knowledge, it appears impossible to harmonize this belief with the actual number of fossils in existence.


Robert Schadewald wrote:


"Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation [in Africa]. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth." 1


That is, if all of the fossils of animals in the Karroo Formation had been alive at one time, were drowned during the flood of Noah, and ended up evenly spaced around the entire land surface of the earth, there would be 21 animals per acre. 2 A very conservative estimate is that there are about 100 fossils elsewhere on earth for each fossil in the Karroo Formation in Africa. Thus, assuming that all of these animals were evenly distributed, there would have been over 2,100 living animals per acre of land - "ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs" when the flood hit. This is clearly impossible.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm

 

[brother Paul]

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand....

 

[Barbarian]

Just answering the question. Obviously, the predicted transitional between Okapis and giraffes is evidence for descent, but the genetic data is also strong confirmation.