New proto-mammal fossil

CabVet said:

Actually, what I am looking for is the difference between "bowing down in mourning" and "bowing down in mourning".

Click to expand...

The way you Arab phoned Psalm 38:6, it looks like there isn't any.

Are you trying to make a point?

AV1611VET said:

The way you Arab phoned Psalm 38:6, it looks like there isn't any.

Are you trying to make a point?

Click to expand...

Oh, so you cut the Psalm in half and I am the one that "Arab phoned" it? Nice one.

My point is that Psalm 38 doesn't describe anything remotely similar to a bone disease or much less a Neanderthal. Even if "bowing down" was some sort of back disease, it would not lead to all bones shrinking to the size of children's bone. From what I know of the Bible, something like that would be described much more dramatically.

CabVet said:

Oh, so you cut the Psalm in half and I am the one that "Arab phoned" it?

Click to expand...

Yes.

CabVet said:

Nice one.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

CabVet said:

My point is that Psalm 38 doesn't describe anything remotely similar to a bone disease or much less a Neanderthal.

Click to expand...

Should it?

CabVet said:

Even if "bowing down" was some sort of back disease, it would not lead to all bones shrinking to the size of children's bone.

Click to expand...

Okay -- if you say so.

CabVet said:

From what I know of the Bible, something like that would be described much more dramatically.

Click to expand...

To God?

He's the One Who did it.

Why would you describe in detail what He did ... to Him?

AV1611VET said:

Keep looking.

Click to expand...

says the man with nothing.

AV1611VET said:

What these are, Hispid,* are artists' conceptions; which have the effect of duping the common people into assuming authenticity.

Show just those fossils in Post 10 to the public, and they'll just say, "Meh."

But show that picture in Post 15 to the public, and it's a different story.

Click to expand...

Sure, same with pictures of the sun or galaxies all false colour, enhanced, composite shots. In a newspaper you're not going to get the raw data (not if you want people to read it anyway).

There's something called the Ten Icons of Evolution, and I believe they're designed to do just that -- dupe the public.

Click to expand...

That's an awfully paranoid view of the world.

* Is "Hispid" okay, or do you prefer "Cheeky Monkey"?

Click to expand...

I've gotten pretty used to hispid these days but cheeky is fine too or Tony, I'm not bothered. Cheeky Monkey was my favorite handle but it's been a long while.

Cheeky Monkey said:

Cheeky Monkey was my favorite handle but it's been a long while.

Click to expand...

Cheeky Monkey it is then!

Unless I forget!

essentialsaltes said:

"A newly discovered fossil reveals the evolutionary adaptations of a 165-million-year-old proto-mammal, providing evidence that traits such as hair and fur originated well before the rise of the first true mammals."

In addition to these mammalian features, "Luo and his team identified clearly non-mammalian characteristics as well. Its primitive middle ear, still attached to the jaw, was reptile-like."

Bottom line... two more gaps in the fossil record.

Click to expand...

Let's not forget about the other one published in the same issue of Nature. They died only a few million years apart. There's a bit of a disagreement as to their implications re: mammalian evolution, but both have quite a bit of them preserved, which is great in itself when it comes to early mammal things.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7461/full/nature12429.html (Megaconus)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7461/full/nature12353.html (the other one)

By the way, I trawled through the supplementary figures of the Megaconus paper but for some reason they don't bother to properly image the fur remains. I'm not sure what's up with that, I thought they would make a bigger deal of it, at least a closeup or something. Am disappointed.

AV: there are two in the picture because they are two halves of the same slab of rock.

CabVet said:

Oh, so you cut the Psalm in half and I am the one that "Arab phoned" it? Nice one.

My point is that Psalm 38 doesn't describe anything remotely similar to a bone disease or much less a Neanderthal. Even if "bowing down" was some sort of back disease, it would not lead to all bones shrinking to the size of children's bone. From what I know of the Bible, something like that would be described much more dramatically.

Click to expand...

And let's not forget that Neandertals being "bowed down" is a myth anyway. They were decent, upright folks, thank you very much.

AV1611VET said:

Split Rock, please tell me if I'm wrong or not.

Finding, say a leg bone of an unclassified animal, then classifying it, gives scientists the green light to say, "We have found the fossil of [whatever]"?

In other words, finding just a tooth or a jawbone or an inner ear constitutes "finding a fossil"?

Making it look like you found the whole thing.

Is this correct?

Click to expand...

Many extinct species are based on fragmentary fossils. Many are not. You are implying that paleontologists just make stuff up or exaggerate based on fragementary fossils, as S.O.P. "Here's a tooth, this is a missing link!" In reality, this rarely happens. In this case, as with most where the fossil makes news, the fossil is well preserved. Your purpose is to dismiss all fossils as "a few bones," especially those that are significant transitionals... is it not?

AV1611VET said:

This is correct.

These diseased guys (not modern vs. primitive) were ostracized from the population and lived in caves and other communal dwellings.

Click to expand...

Assertions provided with no evidence deserve to be dismissed. This is just a fantasy you made up to support your dogma.

AV1611VET said:

Behold! Hesperopithecus haroldcookii!

A picture is worth a thousand words, isn't it?

Click to expand...

How far back did you have to go for that one? Go ahead and tell us the date it was published and then tell us where it was published.

Split Rock said:

Your purpose is to dismiss all fossils as "a few bones," especially those that are significant transitionals... is it not?

Click to expand...

That is correct.

Until I saw Cab's picture in Post 10, which looks pretty thorough.

(Albeit, I'm suspicious of this "inner ear" thing. But I'm not qualifed to interpret bones anyway, so I'll take their word on it.)

The hair, fur, or feathers mentioned could be something this creature ate, or something it got eaten by.

It's still a long way to the drawing in Post 15 though.

Split Rock said:

Assertions provided with no evidence deserve to be dismissed.

Click to expand...

Dismiss them, then.

Split Rock said:

This is just a fantasy you made up to support your dogma.

Click to expand...

If you've got something better, I'll listen.

Split Rock said:

How far back did you have to go for that one? Go ahead and tell us the date it was published and then tell us where it was published.

Click to expand...

No, thanks.

I was posting a picture to show how finding body parts leads to someone drawing these things in their natural habitat.

You know. Blue skies in the background. Others hanging around. Expressions on their faces. Etc and so farce.

AV1611VET said:

No, thanks.

I was posting a picture to show how finding body parts leads to someone drawing these things in their natural habitat.

You know. Blue skies in the background. Others hanging around. Expressions on their faces. Etc and so farce.

Click to expand...

Since you won't bother, I'll do it for you:

1. The year: 1922.
2. The publication: Illustrated London News
3. The artist: Amédée Forestier

Henry Osborn, who misidentified the tooth described the drawing published in the Illustrated Londen News as: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate."

Split Rock said:

Henry Osborn, who misidentified the tooth described the drawing published in the Illustrated Londen News as: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate."

Click to expand...

Okay with you then, if I echo the same sentiment about the picture in the OP's link?

AV1611VET said:

That is correct.

Until I saw Cab's picture in Post 10, which looks pretty thorough.

(Albeit, I'm suspicious of this "inner ear" thing. But I'm not qualifed to interpret bones anyway, so I'll take their word on it.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, ear bones are tiny, so you wouldn't be able to examine on a photo that size even if the fossil was the most perfectly preserved thing ever. I have access to better photos in the supplementary info, and I can just about make out the little bits of bone there. The microscope is the palaeontologist's best friend.

The hair, fur, or feathers mentioned could be something this creature ate, or something it got eaten by.

Click to expand...

I'm miffed by the lack of information on the fur. I think any dinosaur palaeontologist worth their salt would photograph the ever-living crap out of any feather remains they found, and then here are these people, with one of only two examples of fur preservation in not-quite-mammals, and they don't even show a decent picture of it???

It's still a long way to the drawing in Post 15 though.

Click to expand...

Well, the drawing is basically just taking the known skeleton and fleshing it out with what we know about living mammals. Its general features are probably not too far from the truth provided it was made by someone who knows basic mammalian anatomy, but it's eye candy, not data.

AV1611VET said:

Okay with you then, if I echo the same sentiment about the picture in the OP's link?

Click to expand...

You would be quite correct. But you would not be correct, applying such a sentiment about every modern reconstruction you see associated with every new fossil described. Which is exactly what you always do.

Naraoia said:

... but it's eye candy, not data.

Click to expand...

Forgive me if I've asked you this before; but are you an Englishwoman living in Hungary? or were you born and raised in Hungary?

Your English is excellent, including knowledge of idioms and expressions.

Split Rock said:

You would be quite correct.

Click to expand...

Gee, thanks.

For the record, I've already been "quite correct."

QV post 15 please.

AV1611VET said:

Forgive me if I've asked you this before; but are you an Englishwoman living in Hungary? or were you born and raised in Hungary?

Your English is excellent, including knowledge of idioms and expressions.

Click to expand...

I'm Hungarian, living in Scotland for the last seven years. I moved here after circa fifteen years of English classes. Also, I live half my life on the Internet. That helps.

And thanks.