Slashdot Mirror
Jurassic Beavers Challenge Current Mammal Theories
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."
You can find some examples of fossil forgeries at http://www.paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm
Can we please have some examples of this fraud? I'm an ignorant American...
Remember, when confronted with a Jurassic Beaver, make sure to stand perfectly still. They can only see movement.
OH NO....ARGHHHHHHH!!!
Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
"Chinese fossils' track record of forgery, fabrication, and fraud"
That applies to all of China's `inventions`...
Damnit Jim, I'm [root@localhost w00t]#, not an AD-Adminstrator(tm) !
I suppose papermaking, the compass, gunpowder and printing never were that noteworthy anyway...
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 miniwoman (Homo sapiens miniorientalis), a Silurian miniduck (Archaeoanus japonica), and other specimens. --see: AIR, vol. 1, no. 4, July/August 1995, pp. 4-9. NOTE: The following US institutions hold copies of the original "Reports of the Okamura Fossil Laboratory. We urge you to visit them: Academy of Natural Sciences (Philadelphia); Colorado School of Mines Cornell University Denver Public Library Field Museum of Natural History Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology Kent State University Pell Marine Science Library (Naragansett RI) Smithsonian Institution US Geological Survey (Reston VA) UC Los Angeles UC San Diego University of Houston University of Texas at Austin University of Wyoming Readers from outside the US are urged to help us compile a complete international list of Okamura sites. (Please e-mail the info to spamer@say.acnatsci.org)
i believe this is a fabulous example of fossil science gone horribly wrong...It's easy to tell if it's a real Chinese beaver or not. Real Chinese beavers are very small and they taste like salted cashews.
This proves that science is wrong! Go ID!
The article's authors must have been less interested in generating Australian interest than Slashdot sometimes seems to be, but save for the shape of its mouth the fossilised critter appears to have had much more in common with Australia's peculiar aquatic monotreme than with the mentioned northern hemisphere placentals.
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.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
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!
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
accusing a whole nation of being forgerers is highly irresponsible at best and very stupid and ignorant.
because all americans are killers, right?
...made in China!
In a seperate article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, they talked with the rep from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History who was part of the team that made the discovery. It was not solely Chinese. It was funded by the Carnegie and I suppose the fossils will be on display in PIttsburgh at some point.
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 :-).
Jurassic Beaver, scientific name: Snatchus Raquelus Welchus
This is kind of OT, but a friend in an archeology program told me once that Chinese interpretations of artifacts are a little unusual sometimes. An American team in China dug up a village from a few thousand years ago that was fairly typical, including a large structure in the middle of the village. The typical interpretation is that the building was where the "big man" of the village lived, i.e. the guy who ran the village. Villages everywhere have these buildings.
The Chinese government's interpretation of it was that it was a communal house where many people lived and worked, thereby proving that Communism existed in China thousands of years before Marx and Mao.
That sounds weird. Fish and milk?
Rumor has it these things ran sideways.
Mammals evolved from reptiles that were fairly large. Over time most wound up the size mice to a modest sized rat. There almost has to be other even larger mammals earlier than the one found. Dropping size seemed to be nessaccary for survival but they always had the potential to be bigger. All indications were Dinosaurs weren't out competed by mammals but their passing openning an opportunity for mammals to take over. Also a it's inaccurate that dinosaurs turned into birds. A group split off and formed birds long before the others went extinct. There's even indications that the group that formed birds split off not long after Dinosaurs and mammals split so it's more a case of parallel development than dinosaurs evolving into birds. Kind of like saying chimpanzees evolved into man. We're genetically similar but our closest ancestor was something like 8 million years ago. People still have a lot of trouble with the idea dinosaurs went extinct so it's comforting to think of them being around in the form of birds but T-Rexs didn't evolve into parakeets they died out. The first birds even predate T-Rex. They were Jurrasic if not even Triassic and they evolved from much smaller animals. There are lots of theories but the truth is no one knows why dinosaurs died out and we may never know. They were hardly a failure as was pushed for many years. They dominated the earth longer than any other higher animal.
Modern beavers have mammal glands, that's kinda the point of the story: "mammal found before mammals existed"
Torrents for Jurassic Beavers 2 & 3 already on line...
Task Mangler
The JURASSIC BEAVERS!
Yeah!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/02/23/jurassi c.beaver.ap/index.html
that iron was in that mixture?
Chinese fossils' track record of forgery, fabrication, and fraud.
Everyone knows chinese fossils lie and cannot be trusted. Remember that fossil that claimed to be a dragon?
Chinese fossils, like anyone else's fossils, get peer reviewed and can withstand a little critical scrutiny from sources whose motives are largely unknown. That said, the palaeontological record from China is pretty amazing, as anyone with enough linguistic competence to access the world's most spoken modern language might realize. Also, on the face of it, the likelihood of a fossil like this being found eventually is pretty high. Fur and feathers are complex, well-adapted structures rather far removed in time from their origins as reptilian scales -- which bespeaks an immensity of time. Finding mammalian features like this in the Jurassic is wonderful, but not shocking.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
This was published in Science . For the non-academics reading this, you need to know that Science has the most rigorous peer-review process of all the scientific journals. Unless someone here has material evidence that these are forgeries, I would advise all to accept these findings and restrict their critique to the scientific conclusions (that is if you have actually read the paper and have the necessary background to review the conclusions).
Anyone else think that this was about mating habits of old people?
just so you know, the reason why noone is replying is not cause everyone agrees with you or is unsure of whether or not you're right. No. The reason is because it's kind of sad that you see some fake fossils and then suddenly, in your mind, all of this science business is a hoax. All of the fossils that have been presented throughout your life are fake also. HALLA FREAK LUUJAH!!! No, noone is replying because they're kind of finding it hard to believe someone actually feels this way. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
"ever notice how creationists look totally unevolved?"
What kind of crack are you on? What does this have to do with Darwin? It may show that mammalian species evolved earlier than previously believed. It is more likely that the dating on these fossils isn't correct. If it is, then it will alter the timeline we have for that development. It's not going to throw any wrenches in the theory of evolution if that's your particular wet dream. See, the way scientests work, is they make theories and build up bodies of evidence to support those theories and if good evidence comes along to refute those theories, then they discard them if completely unworkable and develop a new theory. If true, this would be a major discovery, but it's not going to blow apart the field of paleantology or anything like that.
Wooooosh! That was the sound of... never mind.
Clever signature text goes here.
You aren't fooling anyone with your false posturing. Now go play with your crystal shrines or meditation mats or whatever it is you anti-science types do.
Nice beaver!
Thanks! I just haed it stuffed.
The bit about a challenge to current theories is mostly journalistic sensationalism. The Science article makes no such claim; only that it's an interesting new fossil of a (semi-)aquatic mammal from around 164 million years ago.
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 record shows that something has never existed. Never fossilized, perhaps, though usually the claim would be even weaker: not found.
Jumping from "has now been found" to "a challenge to current theories" is rather irresponsible reporting, IMHO. In this case, such a fossil has been found, and adds something to the store of knowledge: There was a mammal similar (but probably not ancestral) to the modern beaver and platypus 164 million years ago. This adds to the known mammalian divergence at that time, but really has no impact on any scientific theories.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Didn't someone call into Howard Stern a couple years ago (2002) to name a newly discovered beaver after Gary? I can't remember the names they came up with, but I do recall it being an extinct creature.
Ta Ta Toothicus? I can't find any links, but I thought someone else might remember.
Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
Not really, but I thought people might like a link to the Carnegie Museum's press release, which in turn links to a set of pictures of the beast. (Nice big pictures, too.)
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
No wonder www.bonkandfossil.com is down!
The Chinese were not a race of people.
if this is a fraud, let's hear the evidence.
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!
Everyone knows that asian's have sideways beavers...
788652 = 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 19 x 1153
beware the Jubjub bird and shun
the frumious creationist mod
jurassic beavers... like the one my grandmother has!
Your statement:
;-)
"The seconds law of thermodimechanics prooves evilution is impossible anyway."
I beg to differ!
"evilution" (the theory that everything turns Evil), is, if anything is TRIVIALLY PROVED by "thermodimechanics" (the Law of Hot Money).
I mean, heck, if Money gets Hot, people get Evil, right?
Erich Boleyn
I usually get Jurassic Beavers with me home from the pub.
I wouldn't worry about it, the beavers are just jealous.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Jurassic Beavers Challenge Current Mammal Theories
So I guess Bea Arthur having an internal struggle of, uh, mammoth proportions.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I bet those things smell horrible.
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...
Libertas in infinitum