Elephant evolution

[Mallon]

More interesting research on the evolution of elephants demonstrates both the multifaceted approach to determining common ancestry and the ability to empirically test evolutionary theory.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416221459.htm

While carbon isotopes can give clues as to an animal’s diet, oxygen isotopes found in teeth come from local water sources - and variations in the ratios of these isotopes can indicate the type of environment the animal lived in. They compared the ratios of these isotopes to definitely terrestrial animals from the same period and these results – when combined with results from studies of embryology, molecular data, and sedimentology – lead them to believe that Moeritherium was semi-aquatic.

 

[Jimlarmore]

More interesting research on the evolution of elephants demonstrates both the multifaceted approach to determining common ancestry and the ability to empirically test evolutionary theory.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416221459.htm

It's not testable on an emperical level because of the reproduction barriers that exist. Cladistics fail on that level so does macro-evolution.

God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

I'am going to be gone until monday so don't think I am ignoring any responses.

God bless you all and have a great Sabbath/weekend.

God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

It's not testable on an emperical level because of the reproduction barriers that exist. Cladistics fail on that level so does macro-evolution.

Psychobabble!
If you had read the article, you would have noticed that cladistics is what allowed scientists to postulate the semi-aquatic affinities of early elephants to begin with. They tested this hypothesis using isotopic analysis on some teeth they attributed to an Eocene elephant ancestor. It's just plain dishonest (if not hubris) to imply that study above was not testing an evolutionary hypothesis.

 

[gluadys]

It's not testable on an emperical level because of the reproduction barriers that exist. Cladistics fail on that level so does macro-evolution.

God bless
Jim Larmore

I don't understand the thought process here. Can you elucidate the concept in more detail?

 

[Ave Maria]

Isn't it amazing just how strong the theory of evolution is?

 

[vossler]

Isn't it amazing just how strong the theory of evolution is?

Rather overwhelming, you'd have to be ignorant or just plain foolish not to believe.

 

[theFijian]

It's not testable on an emperical level because of the reproduction barriers that exist.

Which 'reproduction barriers', pray tell?

 

[Mallon]

Which 'reproduction barriers', pray tell?

Jim doesn't seem to be around much lately, but if I understand his position correctly, he seems to think that genera are objectively-defined biological entities that cannot interbreed as (he thinks) evolutionary theory demands.