Creationists, please provide evidence

[jarofthoughts]

we do have them and yes, they are stopped by evolutionary scientists who not only refuse to acknowledge anything they have to say, but dismiss them simply because they are creationists.

See here for a small list of creationist scientists, past and present.

I see your list of 1050 centuries old and in most cases irrelevant scientists and raise you the list of 1144 currently living scientists of Project Steve: Project Steve | NCSE.

 

[Skwim]

I see your list of 1050 centuries old and in most cases irrelevant scientists and raise you the list of 1144 currently living scientists of Project Steve: Project Steve | NCSE.

Yeah, she really walked into that one.

 

[evolved yet?]

Over One hundred pages of posts.

 

[Pegg]

When the genetic code is produced that is a random process with several mutations here and there. What is non-random is natural selection which drives evolution.

natural selection is supposed to work by favoring life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suited life-forms eventually die off and apparently the results is that new species emerge

but it doesnt really work like that at all. Darwins finches are an example of how natural selection doesnt create new species. It may be helping them to adapt to a changing environment, but it doesnt create new species.

 

[Falvlun]

natural selection is supposed to work by favoring life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suited life-forms eventually die off and apparently the results is that new species emerge

but it doesnt really work like that at all. Darwins finches are an example of how natural selection doesnt create new species. It may be helping them to adapt to a changing environment, but it doesnt create new species.

Why do you think that?

If you have many small changes accumulating, then eventually over long periods of time, you will have something that no longer resembles the original.

Now, that just shows one species being changed into another species over time. It is also possible for a new species to branch off a species that still continues to live at the same time. All you need is isolation of some sort. So, say you have Finch A species living on a white sand beach. Finch A's are predominately white. Some of the Finch A's fly over to a nearby island, which has a black sand beach. The Finch's slowly become predominately black. Meanwhile, the water levels have lowered, increasing the distance between the two islands. It is now to far for the finches to fly back and forth. The black finches are now isolated from the original stock of Finch A. They will continue evolving-- making small tiny changes-- separate from their original stock. Eventually, they will no longer be able to breed with a Finch A and will officially be designated Finch B, a separate species.

 

[Pegg]

Q: Doesn't evolution depend on mutations and aren't most mutations harmful?

A: No. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.
That's the short answer. The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation which may be harmful or helpful, depending upon circumstances.
English peppered moths come in two varieties, light and dark. Before the industrial revolution dark moths were very rare. During the worst years of the industrial revolution when the air was very sooty dark moths became quite common. In recent years, since the major efforts to improve air quality, the light moths are replacing the dark moths. A famous paper by H.B.D. Kettlewell proposed the following explanation for this phenomenon:

Birds eat the kind of moth they can see the best.
In England before the Industrial Revolution trees are often covered with light colored lichens. As a result light moths were favored because they were hard to see on the bark of trees whereas the dark moths were easy to see; birds ate the dark moths. During the worst years of the Industrial Revolution the air was very sooty so tree bark was dark because of soot. Dark moths were hard to see whereas the light moths were easy to see; birds ate the light moths. As a result the dark moths became common and the light moths became rare.
​

Despite creationist criticisms, this explanation has stood the test of time. Before the Industrial Revolution, a mutation which changed light moths into dark moths was an unfavorable (harmful) mutation, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q1

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q1

what is the evidence that the darker moth was actually a mutant to begin with? All organisms have multiple alleles which cause variety to exist. The peppered moth has both light and dark coloration and so answer me why the darker colors are a 'mutation' exactly.

The moths were the same species and still are. I think this example is similar to Darwins finches. They have have smaller or larger beaks and depending on which size beak the finch is born with, it determines how easy it will be for them to get food. Those who get the most food survive the best which is exactly what was happening among the finches...large beaked birds were taking over in population size during times of drought, but then when the drought was over and food was easy to find again, the smaller beaked finches began to dominate...its got nothing to do with mutation because finches produce both types of beaks.... it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.

 

[Falvlun]

The moths were the same species and still are. I think this example is similar to Darwins finches. They have have smaller or larger beaks and depending on which size beak the finch is born with, it determines how easy it will be for them to get food. Those who get the most food survive the best which is exactly what was happening among the finches...large beaked birds were taking over in population size during times of drought, but then when the drought was over and food was easy to find again, the smaller beaked finches began to dominate...its got nothing to do with mutation because finches produce both types of beaks.... it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.

Ah. You think all the finches are one species, and the babies are born either with large beaks or small beaks. But that's not how it is. There are 15 separate species that are unable to interbreed with each other-- which is our definition of a species.

Moreover, changes in beak also accompanies change in food types and behavioral patterns. Big beaked species eat nuts, small, thin beaks eat insects. There would have to be physiological changes to allow differences of diets-- it's not just about beak shape and size. Think of a carnivore: would a tiger be able to live on a diet of grass? Likewise, if your hypothesis were true, how would a big beaked baby bird born to a little beaked parent bird survive?

 

[Pegg]

Why do you think that?

the research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant in the 1970’s, found that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. At that time they believed that evolution was happening (yes, probably still do) and that a new species of finch could arise in only about 200 years. But in 1991, they saw that the population was oscillating back and forth from big beaks to small beaks as the climate changed. So what they originally thought to be a new species wasnt in fact a new species at all.

just as peppered moths are still peppered moths.

If you have many small changes accumulating, then eventually over long periods of time, you will have something that no longer resembles the original.

that may be true, but the animal will still be the same animal. Dogs have changed dramatically from their original ancestor...but they are still dogs.

Now, that just shows one species being changed into another species over time. It is also possible for a new species to branch off a species that still continues to live at the same time. All you need is isolation of some sort. So, say you have Finch A species living on a white sand beach. Finch A's are predominately white. Some of the Finch A's fly over to a nearby island, which has a black sand beach. The Finch's slowly become predominately black. Meanwhile, the water levels have lowered, increasing the distance between the two islands. It is now to far for the finches to fly back and forth. The black finches are now isolated from the original stock of Finch A. They will continue evolving-- making small tiny changes-- separate from their original stock. Eventually, they will no longer be able to breed with a Finch A and will officially be designated Finch B, a separate species.

and that is merely genetics...the narrowing down of the allele frequency is what causes this phenomenon.

here is an example of Allele frequency genetic drift

 

[Pegg]

Ah. You think all the finches are one species, and the babies are born either with large beaks or small beaks. But that's not how it is. There are 15 separate species that are unable to interbreed with each other-- which is our definition of a species.

well that is not quite true because some of the different species of finches can breed with each other, and do...that is exactly what Peter and Rosemary Grant discovered in their study of the finches and not only that but the offspring were surviving better then the parents.

Moreover, changes in beak also accompanies change in food types and behavioral patterns. Big beaked species eat nuts, small, thin beaks eat insects. There would have to be physiological changes to allow differences of diets-- it's not just about beak shape and size. Think of a carnivore: would a tiger be able to live on a diet of grass? Likewise, if your hypothesis were true, how would a big beaked baby bird born to a little beaked parent bird survive?

in the case of the finches, the birds with larger beaks survived because they could break open a particular seed available during the drought whereas the smaller beaked finches had difficulty doing so.

Lets face it, natural selection may be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it doesnt create anything new. All creatures have the ability to adapt and this is due to genetics rather then the mysterious 'natural selection'

 

[Falvlun]

the research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant in the 1970’s, found that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. At that time they believed that evolution was happening (yes, probably still do) and that a new species of finch could arise in only about 200 years. But in 1991, they saw that the population was oscillating back and forth from big beaks to small beaks as the climate changed. So what they originally thought to be a new species wasnt in fact a new species at all.

just as peppered moths are still peppered moths.

So that's a case where there was no drive towards speciation. Now, if somehow some of those smaller beaked individuals had been isolated from the rest of the pack, you might now have a small beaked species distinct from the original group.

Now, what of the 15 types of Galapagos finches that did speciate? There are in fact 15 distinct, but closely related finch species on the island.

that may be true, but the animal will still be the same animal. Dogs have changed dramatically from their original ancestor...but they are still dogs.

So, are you saying that Eohippus is the same thing as Equus?

Remember, that evolution merely means change over time. Change over time has occurred. The mechanism for evolution is natural selection. This is random mutation being non-randomly selected based on environmental aptitude.

and that is merely genetics...the narrowing down of the allele frequency is what causes this phenomenon.

here is an example of Allele frequency genetic drift

Merely genetics? It seems like you are fine with the idea of speciation, and the creation of new species over time, but for some reason, simply don't like to use the word "evolution".

So, you are saying that you cannot conceive of some mutation being introduced into the Finch B's (from the previous example) that would further separate them from the original Finch A group? That is also "merely genetics". Mutations do occur. And some of them will not be harmful, if not beneficial.

 

[Autodidact]

natural selection is supposed to work by favoring life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suited life-forms eventually die off and apparently the results is that new species emerge

but it doesnt really work like that at all. Darwins finches are an example of how natural selection doesnt create new species. It may be helping them to adapt to a changing environment, but it doesnt create new species.

1. You're still arguing against evolution. That's not the subject of this thread. This thread is about YOUR hypothesis and YOUR evidence.

2. Yeah, biologists are retarded. Some of the world's best scientists did their best to knock holes in this theory for 50 years and failed, which is why it became accepted. But you, who know almost nothing about it, are sure to show them how stupid they are. Does that sound plausible to you, or just incredibly arrogant?

3. Please pay careful attention. Natural selection does not create new species. Mutations do not create new species. The result of mutations PLUS natural selection is, eventually, new species.

4. Your description of what ToE says happens is not quite accurate.

5. You are the person asserting that new species emerge at an astonishing rate. Now you're saying they don't emerge at all. Do you see any problem there? Any at all?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

that may be true, but the animal will still be the same animal. Dogs have changed dramatically from their original ancestor...but they are still dogs.

We've already explained that variations occur within their given taxonomic rank, the question is what evidence can you present that all species did not at once diverge from a singular (or similar) point of origin? We already have a mountain of evidence that clearly shows this, what can you demonstrate to refute it?

 

[Autodidact]

[/url]

what is the evidence that the darker moth was actually a mutant to begin with? All organisms have multiple alleles which cause variety to exist. The peppered moth has both light and dark coloration and so answer me why the darker colors are a 'mutation' exactly.

The moths were the same species and still are. I think this example is similar to Darwins finches. They have have smaller or larger beaks and depending on which size beak the finch is born with, it determines how easy it will be for them to get food. Those who get the most food survive the best which is exactly what was happening among the finches...large beaked birds were taking over in population size during times of drought, but then when the drought was over and food was easy to find again, the smaller beaked finches began to dominate...its got nothing to do with mutation because finches produce both types of beaks.... it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.

I don't know how to break this to you. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. First, you're arguing against yourself. Second, we know that mutations happen and at what rate. We can actually observe them. You're just plain wrong. As you would have to be, since you're arguing the exact opposite of your position--one of your two positions has to be wrong.

 

[Falvlun]

well that is not quite true because some of the different species of finches can breed with each other, and do...that is exactly what Peter and Rosemary Grant discovered in their study of the finches and not only that but the offspring were surviving better then the parents.

I found a link explaining the study: Here Interestingly enough, all of the sites presenting their research hailed it as displaying "evolution in action."

Usually separate species cannot interbreed successfully (the most common definition), but some separate species can interbreed, but will generally not interbreed, thus keeping the two lines separate. An unusual rainy season caused a drastic drop of females in one species, which drove some males to mate with females of the other species-- something that normally would not occur.

in the case of the finches, the birds with larger beaks survived because they could break open a particular seed available during the drought whereas the smaller beaked finches had difficulty doing so.

Lets face it, natural selection may be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it doesnt create anything new. All creatures have the ability to adapt and this is due to genetics rather then the mysterious 'natural selection'

How can you say that with such assurance? Again, I ask you, do you not believe that mutations occur? Would not a mutation be adding "something new"? If the genes for Equus were always available in Eohippus, then why do we not see any Equus fossils- or fossils with Equus-like characteristics-- in the same strata as Eohippus?

The beak size in the finches fluctuated according to fluctuations between rainy and drought enviornments. What if a group of those finches flew to a different, isolated island where the environmental was consistently drought-like? You would eventually see the eradication of the smaller beak. Add a couple of mutations and a couple thousand years, and you'd likely see a species separate and new.

 

[painted wolf]

Multiple alleles are the results of mutations... usually due to genetic recombination, crossing over and other errors in chromosome copying.

here is an example of a new feature evolving in an isolated lizard population.
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Multiple alleles are the results of mutations... usually due to genetic recombination, crossing over and other errors in chromosome copying.

here is an example of a new feature evolving in an isolated lizard population.
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

wa:do

I wonder what the new research suggesting some dinosaurs may have evolved from birds means to the phylogenic tree.

Here's an excert from Wiki re lizards.

Linnaean and phylogenetic classification
Around the end of the 19th century, the class Reptilia had come to include all the amniotes except birds and mammals. Thus reptiles were defined as the set of animals that includes the extant crocodiles, alligators, tuatara, lizards, snakes, amphisbaenians, and turtles, as well as fossil groups like dinosaurs, synapsids and the primitive pareiasaurs. This is still the usual definition of the term. However, in recent years, many taxonomists[who?] have begun to insist that taxa should be monophyletic, that is, groups should include all descendants of a particular form. The reptiles as defined above would be paraphyletic, since they exclude both birds and mammals, although these also evolved from the original reptile. Colin Tudge writes:

Mammals are a clade, and therefore the cladists are happy to acknowledge the traditional taxon Mammalia; and birds, too, are a clade, universally ascribed to the formal taxon Aves. Mammalia and Aves are, in fact, subclades within the grand clade of the Amniota. But the traditional class Reptilia is not a clade. It is just a section of the clade Amniota: the section that is left after the Mammalia and Aves have been hived off. It cannot be defined by synapomorphies, as is the proper way. It is instead defined by a combination of the features it has and the features it lacks: reptiles are the amniotes that lack fur or feathers. At best, the cladists suggest, we could say that the traditional Reptilia are 'non-avian, non-mammalian amniotes'.[6]
​

The terms "Sauropsida" ("lizard faces") and "Theropsida" ("beast faces") were taken up again in 1916 by E.S. Goodrich to distinguish between lizards, birds, and their relatives on the one hand (Sauropsida) and mammals and their extinct relatives (Theropsida) on the other. Goodrich supported this division by the nature of the hearts and blood vessels in each group, and other features such as the structure of the forebrain. According to Goodrich, both lineages evolved from an earlier stem group, the Protosauria ("first lizards") which included some Paleozoic amphibians as well as early reptiles.[7]

 

[tumbleweed41]

I wonder what the new research suggesting some dinosaurs may have evolved from birds means to the phylogenic tree.

Here's an excert from Wiki re lizards.

Linnaean and phylogenetic classification
Around the end of the 19th century,.....

Hey, I got a crazy idea! Lets look at the most recent classifications in taxonomy....

Taxonomy

Classification to order level, after Benton, 2004.[11]

• Series Amniota
  • Class Synapsida
    • Order Pelycosauria*
    • Order Therapsida
      • Class Mammalia
  • Class Sauropsida
    • Subclass Anapsida
      • Order Testudines (turtles)
      • A series of unassigned anapsid families, coresponding to Captorhinida, Mesosauria and Procolophonomorpha
    • Subclass Diapsida
      • Order Araeoscelidia
      • Order Younginiformes
      • Infraclass Ichthyosauria
      • Infraclass Lepidosauromorpha
        • Superorder Sauropterygia
          • Order Placodontia
          • Order Nothosauroidea
          • Order Plesiosauria
        • Superorder Lepidosauria
          • Order Sphenodontia (tuatara)
          • Order Squamata (lizards & snakes)
      • Infraclass Archosauromorpha
        • Order Prolacertiformes
        • Division Archosauria
          • Subdivision Crurotarsi
            • Superorder Crocodylomorpha
              • Order Crocodilia
              • Order Phytosauria
              • Order Rauisuchia
              • Order Rhynchosauria
          • Subdivision Avemetatarsalia
            • Infradivision Ornithodira
              • Order Pterosauria
              • Superorder Dinosauria
                • Order Saurischia
                  • Class Aves
                • Order Ornithischia

Reptile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[newhope101]

Tumbleweed44...Trying to be soooo clever. I almost hate to disappoint you...you aren't. We all already know what the biology books and Wiki says. Some of us also know about recent research. You should try looking some recent research up one day.

I'm speaking to more recent research that disputes the current theory...what a surprise that you obviously do not know what I am referring to. My point stands, the tree around dino to bird may need a revamp....again.

I'll help..with a little info to bring you up to speed because I, unlike some, am a nice person. Enjoy!

Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?

ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2010) — A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.

• A new analysis was done of an unusual fossil specimen discovered in 2003 called "microraptor," in which three-dimensional models were used to study its possible flight potential, and it concluded this small, feathered species must have been a "glider" that came down from trees. The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.

The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.
"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."
Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.
"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
Another study last year from Florida State University raised similar doubts, Ruben said.
In the newest PNAS study, scientists examined a remarkable fossil specimen that had feathers on all four limbs, somewhat resembling a bi-plane. Glide tests based on its structure concluded it would not have been practical for it to have flown from the ground up, but it could have glided from the trees down, somewhat like a modern-day flying squirrel. Many researchers have long believed that gliders such as this were the ancestors of modern birds.
"This model was not consistent with successful flight from the ground up, and that makes it pretty difficult to make a case for a ground-dwelling theropod dinosaur to have developed wings and flown away," Ruben said. "On the other hand, it would have been quite possible for birds to have evolved and then, at some point, have various species lose their flight capabilities and become ground-dwelling, flightless animals -- the raptors. This may be hugely upsetting to a lot of people, but it makes perfect sense."
In their own research, including one study just last year in the Journal of Morphology, OSU scientists found that the position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their ability to have adequate lung capacity for sustained long-distance flight, a fundamental aspect of bird biology. Theropod dinosaurs did not share this feature. Other morphological features have also been identified that are inconsistent with a bird-from-dinosaur theory. And perhaps most significant, birds were already found in the fossil record before the elaboration of the dinosaurs they supposedly descended from. That would be consistent with raptors descending from birds, Ruben said, but not the reverse.
OSU research on avian biology and physiology has been raising questions on this issue since the 1990s, often in isolation. More scientists and other studies are now challenging the same premise, Ruben said. The old theories were popular, had public appeal and "many people saw what they wanted to see" instead of carefully interpreting the data, he said.
"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up," Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. "Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution."

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Understand, Newhope, that even if Ruben's ideas turn out to be correct, the theory of evolution itself wouldn't be threatened. Ruben isn't challenging the fact that birds and dinosaurs evolved. He's simply challenging the notion that birds are descended from earlier therapod dinos. Ruben himself holds the idea that birds and dinosaurs both evolved from earlier basal reptiles, with the ancestor of the dinosaurs being a bit closer to bird than lizard. Whether or not he's right remains to be seen, though I do confess to having my doubts.

What would such a discovery would do to the phylogenetic tree? Very little really. It would simply push the split of one branch back a few million years. The rest of the tree would remain relatively the same.

 

[newhope101]

I found a link explaining the study: Here Interestingly enough, all of the sites presenting their research hailed it as displaying "evolution in action."

Usually separate species cannot interbreed successfully (the most common definition), but some separate species can interbreed, but will generally not interbreed, thus keeping the two lines separate. An unusual rainy season caused a drastic drop of females in one species, which drove some males to mate with females of the other species-- something that normally would not occur.
Here you illustrate just how researchers DO NOT have a decent nor robust definition of 'species'.

How can you say that with such assurance? Again, I ask you, do you not believe that mutations occur? Would not a mutation be adding "something new"? If the genes for Equus were always available in Eohippus, then why do we not see any Equus fossils- or fossils with Equus-like characteristics-- in the same strata as Eohippus?

Probably because they were misclassified as different species. I'd suggest it is because researchers are unclear and keep moving the goalpost. See my Equus info below.


The beak size in the finches fluctuated according to fluctuations between rainy and drought enviornments. What if a group of those finches flew to a different, isolated island where the environmental was consistently drought-like? You would eventually see the eradication of the smaller beak. Add a couple of mutations and a couple thousand years, and you'd likely see a species separate and new.

Creationists commonly argue that evolutionists class every variation of a creature as a new species. Re birds, the size of beaks should be irrelevant or too trivial to desribe a new species. Rather it is variation of the same species that has adapted. The fact that researchers desperately call every varaition a 'new species' is not a creationist concern. Nor, do some creationists, think that whether or not it can or cannot ,will or will not, mate is irrelevant to the concept of the creation of the first kinds. A kind is not a species a s such so these arguments are irrelevant as far as I am concerned.


Take the Horse, Equus, that you use as an example. A zebra has been a zebra for a heck of a long time, regardless of being heavier or taller. The genetic research supports this FACT. If science proves that zebras, horses, quagga, donkeys came from a common ancestor, that is fine by me. That supports that perhaps this common ancestor, by what ever name or genus you want to name it, couls have been the kind God created. If there is no common ancestor then perhaps God made them separately. So far research supports a common ancestor so I'd say the first of this kind whatever this ancestor was. This creature spread differsified and all arguments re what can mate with what are no longer relevant because that does not matter to the argument of God creating the first kinds.

Here is some recent research re the classification of the erronous classification of the Cape Zebra as distinct from the modern Plains Zebra. This research likely has ramifications for the entire Equus taxa. The sooner researchers sort this mess out, the sooner creationists will be able to clarify 'kind' according to scientific research!


DNA Sheds New Light on Horse Evolution

ScienceDaily (Dec. 10, 2009) — Ancient DNA retrieved from extinct horse species from around the world has challenged one of the textbook examples of evolution -- the fossil record of the horse family Equidae over the past 55 million years.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, involved an international team of researchers and the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA (ACAD) based at the University of Adelaide.
Only the modern horse, zebras, wildasses and donkey survive today, but many other lineages have become extinct over the last 50,000 years.
ACAD Director Professor Alan Cooper says despite an excellent fossil record of the Equidae, there are still many gaps in our evolutionary knowledge. "Our results change both the basic picture of recent equid evolution, and ideas about the number and nature of extinct species."
The study used bones from caves to identify new horse species in Eurasia and South America, and reveal that the Cape zebra, an extinct giant species from South Africa, were simply large variants of the modern Plains zebra. The Cape zebra weighed up to 400 kilograms and stood up to 150 centimetres at the shoulder blades.
"The Plains zebra group once included the famous extinct quagga, so our results confirm that this group was highly variable in both coat colour and size."
Lead author of the paper, Dr Ludovic Orlando from the University of Lyon, says the group discovered a new species of the distinct, small hippidion horse in South America.
"Previous fossil records suggested this group was part of an ancient lineage from North America but the DNA showed these unusual forms were part of the modern radiation of equid species," Dr Orlando says.
A new species ofass was also detected on the Russian Plains and appears to be related to European fossils dating back more than 1.5 million years. Carbon dates on the bones reveal that this species was alive as recently as 50,000 years ago.
"Overall, the new genetic results suggest that we have under-estimated how much a single species can vary over time and space, and mistakenly assumed more diversity among extinct species of megafauna," Professor Cooper says.
"This has important implications for our understanding of human evolution, where a large number of species are currently recognised from a relatively fragmentary fossil record.
"It also implies that the loss of species diversity that occurred during the megafaunal extinctions at the end of the last Ice Age may not have been as extensive as previously thought.
In contrast, ancient DNA studies have revealed that the loss of genetic diversity in many surviving species appears to have been extremely severe," Professor Cooper says. "This has serious implications for biodiversity and the future impacts of climate change."