Tuesday, September 2, 2008 | Reason : Evolution and Biology | print version

Print | Comments |

'Rare' mammoth skull discovered

by BBC NEWS

Thanks to GP for the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7592317.stm

'Rare' mammoth skull discovered

The "extremely rare" fossilised skull of a steppe mammoth has been unearthed in southern France.

The discovery in the Auvergne region could shed much needed light on the evolution of these mighty beasts.

Many isolated teeth of steppe mammoth have been found, but only a handful of skeletons exist; and in these surviving specimens, the skull is rarely intact.

Palaeontologists Frederic Lacombat and Dick Mol describe this skull specimen as being well preserved.

It belongs to a male steppe mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii) that stood about 3.7m (12ft) tall and lived about 400,000 years ago, during Middle Pleistocene times.

The animal was about 35 years of age when it died, the researchers estimate.

The steppe mammoth is of vital importance for understanding mammoth evolution.

It represents the transitional phase between an ancient species known as the southern mammoth and the more recent woolly mammoth.

But comparatively little is known about this intermediate stage of their evolution.

"This specimen is of extreme importance because we don't know that much about the Middle Pleistocene," Mr Mol, from the Museum of Natural History in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told BBC News.

"Lots of the sediments have been eroded and not so many localities are known where we can find fossils.

He added: "We cannot keep saying that we have the [southern mammoth] at the beginning of the Pleistocene, then we have something which we are not sure about, and finally we have the woolly mammoth [at the end of the Pleistocene].

"We need to find what I call the 'missing link' in mammoth evolution."

The southern mammoth appears to have lived in a savannah environment, and was probably a "browser", feeding on trees and shrubs.

However, the molar teeth of steppe mammoth and woolly mammoth show that these animals were adapted to grazing.

This is thought to represent an adaptation to climate change; as conditions got colder and drier over the Pleistocene period, the savannah disappeared, making way for grassy steppe. Mammoth had to adapt their diets accordingly.

"If they have a complete skull then that would be very valuable," Dr Adrian Lister, a mammoth expert from London's Natural History Museum and University College London, told BBC News.

Evolutionary debate

According to a theory developed by Dr Lister and his colleagues, the southern mammoth was once widespread in Eurasia, but evolved into a cold-adapted form - the steppe mammoth - in eastern Asia, where the climate has been chilly for the last two million years.

However, when Ice Age conditions took hold across the northern hemisphere, the steppe mammoth spread outwards, replacing its predecessor in Europe and Asia.

A similar process may have later led to the emergence of the woolly mammoth. According to Dr Lister, it evolved from the steppe mammoth in north-east Siberia, then expanded its range during an Ice Age, eventually displacing its forerunner the steppe mammoth.

However, Dick Mol takes a different view. He thinks evolutionary changes in the mammoth lineage take place too quickly under this model.

Instead, he favours a model in which Europe is the centre for mammoth evolution.

Two molar teeth belonging to the newly discovered specimen were found in 1986, during the construction of a water pipeline.

Frederic Lacombat was able to trace the site of this discovery and subsequent excavations revealed the skull from which they had come.

The team plans to lift the skull out of the ground and transport it on a truck to Crozatier Museum in nearby Le Puy-en-Velay.

Paul.Rincon-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Posted: Tuesday, September 2, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 38 of 38 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #241175 by Laurie Fraser on September 2, 2008 at 1:10 am

I was thinking while reading this how exciting these discoveries are. Every time I hear of a new dinosaur, sea-creature, mammal and so-on being discovered at hundreds of thousands or hundreds of millions of years old, I get a wonderful sense of discovery, fascination and awe. So much better than the sterile, imagination-less pontifications of the goddidit brigade.They don't know what they're missing, poor chumps.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

2. Comment #241189 by EarthChild on September 2, 2008 at 1:35 am

It belongs to a male steppe mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii) that stood about 3.7m (12ft) tall and lived about 400,000 years ago, during Middle Pleistocene times.

Satan busy planting fossils in the South of France and making it look 400 000 years old. Clever chap that Satan!!!!!!!!!

Other Comments by EarthChild

3. Comment #241191 by Vaal on September 2, 2008 at 1:39 am

Yep, me too Laurie. I am particularly interested in pre-historic man. I was awed when I went over to France and saw the cave paintings at Lascaux. The artwork was incredible and it was amazing to think that it was painted nearly 20,000 years ago, in a completely different world. Must have been before God created the Earth :)

I think it is a tragedy that our ancestors have fought through the harshest conditions of the ice ages and for countless millennium and yet their story is denied by their own descendants, infected by the nonsense of religion. I wonder what tales they could have told us?

Nice to see an article like this, instead of the usual depressing religious drivel posted on here.

Other Comments by Vaal

4. Comment #241192 by Quetzalcoatl on September 2, 2008 at 1:40 am

EarthChild-

Satan doesn't get enough credit for the work he puts in. If you think burying a mammoth is hard, imagine the trouble he has with tyrannosaurs.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

5. Comment #241195 by rod-the-farmer on September 2, 2008 at 1:42 am

Oh no ! Another transitional fossil ! How many is this now ? Three thousand and fourteen ? We need a web site to keep track of this, as I am not sure I am keeping current with my own spreadsheet. Maybe I missed some. You turn around, and up pops another one. And France ! Who would have expected a mammoth fossil in France. Hah. Just goes to show you these things are all over the place, just waiting to be discovered. I don't suppose anyone has seen a note from Satan as to where he buried them all ? Anyone ? Anyone ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

6. Comment #241197 by Vaal on September 2, 2008 at 1:46 am

Quetz

Not to mention Satan turning the heads of all us evil atheists.

Other Comments by Vaal

7. Comment #241203 by Laurie Fraser on September 2, 2008 at 1:54 am

Quick, Rod - call David Robertson immediately! Only he will be able to put things right!

Vaal - look closely; see these horns?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

8. Comment #241228 by GBile on September 2, 2008 at 2:45 am

Guys and Girls,

I am officially 'retired' as of yesterday and this article surely accentuates my intention to spend time on saving our children from religion dominated education.

Vaals point is very true. The 'young earth' nonsense is extremely insulting for those ancestors who saw this mammoth walk by. We have to thank them for their stamina, their resolve to do their utmost for their offspring.

Our resolve should be to honor them and tell our children their story as it really is.

Other Comments by GBile

9. Comment #241246 by Laurie Fraser on September 2, 2008 at 3:33 am

Good point, GBile - I'm doing my best to introduce my little grand-daughter to the wonder and beauty of Nature; that's what we should all do - give our descendants the best possible chance to be fulfilled. Enjoy your retirement - it's the busiest time of your life!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

10. Comment #241247 by Vaal on September 2, 2008 at 3:41 am

Congratulations GBile, I count the days to my retirement :) Unfortunately, a long time yet.

My father says he wonders what he used to do before retirement, as he is so busy now.

Laurie, how can you put horns on your cute little grand-daughter. I am looking, but can't see them. :-)

EDIT: I wonder if they will ever be able to bring these magnificent animals back to life. I don't have any ethical problem with that, as we were responsible for their extinction.

http://www.discoverychannel.ca/reports/article.aspx?aid=8206

Other Comments by Vaal

11. Comment #241258 by PJG on September 2, 2008 at 4:00 am

Well folks, that's two gaps now where there was one before.

Creationists will want to see a "Southern Steppe Mammoth" and a "Woolly Steppe Mammoth" now.

Other Comments by PJG

12. Comment #241261 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 4:08 am

More evidence for the Flood, that will once and for all silence the critics who claim that the ark couldn't possibly hold all the kinds on Earth.
Of course it couldn't!
That's why Noah had to leave out some of the largest animals, like the mammoth.

Other Comments by decius

13. Comment #241341 by Stafford Gordon on September 2, 2008 at 6:05 am

I think it's in chapter six of The Origin of Species that Darwin says that the earth is a huge natural history museum; a statement based on scientific analysis which he made before evidence was available; he also said that if fossilized evidence of transitional species don't exist his theory would fall.

I bet he'd be chuffed now!

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

14. Comment #241380 by Ishruul on September 2, 2008 at 7:01 am

It represents the transitional phase between an ancient species known as the southern mammoth and the more recent woolly mammoth.

Another transitional form? That can't be true, why else Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort would still argue? Surely it's a hoax.

Other Comments by Ishruul

15. Comment #241419 by noamzur on September 2, 2008 at 8:05 am

Cue the IDiots: Now there are two gaps to fill instead of just the one... How could it have evolved to this one, and then again FROM this one to the next one. Rinse, lather, repeat ad infinitum.
I'm really getting sick of them, and the new GOP VP choice makes me feel happy not to live in that nick of the world. Thank goodness for Europe (the continent, not the moon - at least for now)

Other Comments by noamzur

16. Comment #241424 by PJG on September 2, 2008 at 8:13 am

Isn't it a shame that Darwin can't know that he was right?

There are certain people that I would love to bring back, like Galileo and Darwin plus a few others, just to say, "You did get it right and look what a fantastic contribution you made to man's knowledge and understanding".

Mind you, I'd quite like to bring "Lucy" back too - assuming some sort of communication could be possible - and let her know that she was famous 3.5 million years after her death!

Other Comments by PJG

17. Comment #241453 by Dhamma on September 2, 2008 at 9:17 am

PJG: As far as I know Darwin did know he was right.

He didn't ever question his theory in later years, right?

I wish he would know what impact his theory has had. And I wish he'd see what biology has discovered since, such as DNA.

Other Comments by Dhamma

18. Comment #241462 by Serdan on September 2, 2008 at 9:53 am

PJG,

Imagine how much a mind like Darwin's could contribute today. That is one of the reasons I'm a 300. It is such a waste to let our brightest die of preventable diseases.

http://methuselahfoundation.org/

Other Comments by Serdan

19. Comment #241465 by PJG on September 2, 2008 at 10:05 am

Dhamma

You may be right about Darwin not doubting his findings, but I meant showing him all that has been achieved because of him... and the subsequent support for his theory like, as you say, genetics.

Other Comments by PJG

20. Comment #241471 by RichardofYork on September 2, 2008 at 10:35 am

Everything is a transitional form technically speaking , I dont think a mammoth has any more claim on being transitional than anything else

Other Comments by RichardofYork

21. Comment #241474 by ggab7768 on September 2, 2008 at 11:06 am

Yeah, Darwin was always confident, but was also good about leaving the possibility open that he could be proven wrong later.
He knew that more evidence would present itself down the road.
First, I love that attitude, second, wouldn't it be wonderful for him to have seen how right he was now that the evidence is in.

Other Comments by ggab7768

22. Comment #241479 by PJG on September 2, 2008 at 11:19 am

Everything is a transitional form technically speaking , I dont think a mammoth has any more claim on being transitional than anything else

Yes, everything is a "transitional form" but when the (time) gaps are big enough, it is possible to see the changes - whereas it is impossible to see the generation to generation "transitional forms". Why is this any less of a "transitional form" than some of the hominid finds between our common ancestor with chimps and us?

Creationists, of course, will cry "it's still a mammoth" but this sort of find will go over their heads anyway. Let's just enjoy it ourselves.

Other Comments by PJG

23. Comment #241508 by SomeDanGuy on September 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm

However, Dick Mol takes a different view.

Uh oh, there's a debate. Therefore, evolution is 'just a theory' still being debated and not real.

Other Comments by SomeDanGuy

24. Comment #241529 by D'Arcy on September 2, 2008 at 12:56 pm

A similar process may have later led to the emergence of the woolly mammoth.

Forgive me oh Lord! But an image of the Archbishop of Canterbury did cross my mind.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

25. Comment #241541 by RichardofYork on September 2, 2008 at 1:16 pm

This is the problem with creationists if the gaps are big they want the steps between the changes that are observable , otherwise they say theyre different so not related , will we ever get through?

Other Comments by RichardofYork

26. Comment #241565 by Duff on September 2, 2008 at 2:08 pm

I am currently re-reading Origin of Species and I assure you, Darwin was quite convinced he was right. He was so convinced that a good portion of the book is devoted to the criticisms of his theory and a constant recounting of how he could be proven wrong. Of course, no one did and no one ever has.

He was dead certain of his data.

Other Comments by Duff

27. Comment #241598 by Beachbum on September 2, 2008 at 6:37 pm

14. Comment #241380 by Ishruul

Another transitional form? That can't be true, why else Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort would still argue? Surely it's a hoax.

After the debate with "The Rational Response Squad", I'm convinced the religious relegates of righteous reasoning, chime in the likes of Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort along with their "crock-o-duck", have absolutely no intention of letting something as basic to the concept of truth like overwhelming 'evidence' deter their death grip on the wish of an omnicrap skydady.

Fear, a very powerful motivator, especially fear based in ignorance, is very difficult to trump with evidence.
"I don't want to understand evolution, because that would leave me with my fear and no security blanket."
Or.
"I can't let my children learn science, because that would leave me alone with my fear and ignorance."
Thoughts not to difficult to imagine running across the pious mind.

My point, one does not convince a child that its fear of the monster in the closet is irrational, a child's fear is only subdued by proving that there isn't anything to fear. Likewise, one does not subdue religiously bolstered ignorance, by pulling some bones out of the ground and proclaiming that their holy books are wrong, the salvageable religious moderates know that, but what they don't know is how they will wake up in the morning and look truth square in the face, and not be afraid.

A brave human overcomes fear, the rest join a church.

Other Comments by Beachbum

28. Comment #241600 by Border Collie on September 2, 2008 at 6:45 pm

When I was a little kid, I found mammoths, mastadons, etc., fascinating ... five decades later, I still do.

Other Comments by Border Collie

29. Comment #241602 by AfraidToDie on September 2, 2008 at 6:55 pm

However, Dick Mol takes a different view

In science it is healthy to have an alternate view, and let everyone try a hand at proving or disproving them. Perhaps with the two scientific views we should be required to entertain others, such as intelligent design? For those of you who have had problems perceiving sarcasm in other posts, please note this is sarcasm.

Every time I hear there is another transitional fossil discovered, I keep envisioning a simple series of 1,000 numbers like 1,5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, . . . , 3993, 3997. And if those thousand numbers represented all the fossils needed to cover an entire evolutionary branch, just how many have we found so far? If it was like 5, 13, 17, 25, 29, 197, 205, etc., how many more would it take for ID'ers to actually accept the obvious fact that this series can easily be defined as 4n minus 3? Although the trail continues to get colder with time, we have sufficient numbers of fossils already to prove the theorem. As long as there is one missing number, ID'ers will claim our formula to be wrong.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

30. Comment #241604 by Andrew Stich on September 2, 2008 at 8:17 pm

AfraidToDie,

With reference to your second paragraph:

What?

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

31. Comment #241614 by Broshiesq on September 2, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Um, yeah Andrew, I'm glad you said that, cause I was beginning to think it was just me, and that maybe I shouldn't have had that last hit.

Other Comments by Broshiesq

32. Comment #242148 by fizhburn on September 3, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Comment #241602 by AfraidToDie

If it was like 5, 13, 17, 25, 29, 197, 205, etc., how many more would it take for ID'ers to actually accept the obvious fact that this series can easily be defined as 4n minus 3?

They don't see this as a search for underlying principle, is the thing, nor as confirmation that the principle (thought to hold of the relevant series for antecedent reasons) holds of the facts. They are looking for a whole 'nother animal, something much more like a continuum of transition (which, given finite generations, is strange by itself).

Other Comments by fizhburn

33. Comment #242165 by epeeist on September 3, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Can I post on this thread - I am getting heartily sick of Sarah Palin hysteria elsewhere.

The IDers have a slight point. However many fossils or other pieces of evidence that you add you can still be wrong. Of course the probability of you being wrong becomes smaller and smaller.

Of course they blow it all with the assumption that they have the truth and don't need to do all this troublesome testing.

Other Comments by epeeist

34. Comment #242442 by AfraidToDie on September 3, 2008 at 5:30 pm

31. Comment #241614 by Broshiesq on September 2, 2008 at 9:58 pm Um, yeah Andrew, I'm glad you said that, cause I was beginning to think it was just me, and that maybe I shouldn't have had that last hit.

Sorry I made you think you took one too many "hits". Maybe it looks more like me taking too many? Anyway, just trying to equate IDers saying there are not enough transitional fossils to a simple series of numbers that have a few missing. I should have used a much simpler series like 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 16. The missing transitional fossils in this analogy are 8 and 14. My analogy is that we don't have to actually have the missing numbers to be able to accurately deduce the series. We don't have to have all the missing fossils (we have enough) to know that evolution is a fact. However, the more we find just continues to verify what we already know to be fact.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

35. Comment #242969 by Andrew Stich on September 4, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Oh, OK, that's much better, and a good point, too, AfraidToDie.

And that's right too, epeeist, although it depends on exactly what you are trying to establish. If you're trying to say "Evolution affected this branch in this particular way by making its members look like this", when you don't have all the fossils, then you could be wrong. However, not a lot of FOSSIL evidence is required to establish evolution as a concept in general. It's an observable fact that mutations happen, and what logically directly follows from that is that some mutations fare better than others in given circumstances. Also, species evolving through natural selection before our very eyes has changed the playing field (or at least it ought to have).

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

36. Comment #242975 by mordacious1 on September 4, 2008 at 10:36 pm

...and let me tell you some more about why Sarah Palin is a horrible candidate for VP...(runs for door but is skewered by a rapier)

Other Comments by mordacious1

37. Comment #242978 by 8teist on September 4, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Mord ,skewered by a rapist ????

oh...sorry rapier

ps Sarah`s gonna be your next president...ha ha ha ha ha

Other Comments by 8teist

38. Comment #242982 by Laurie Fraser on September 4, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Naughty, Mord. Back on topic - I think this article constitutes proof that Alaskan Republicans are the result of eskimos screwing mammoths.

*gets coat, runs for door, skewered by rampant epeeist*

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

Reload Comments | Back to Top