https://evolutionnews.org/2023/06/what-do-we-know-about-the-origin-of-rhinos/

"We are delighted to direct readers to a new paper by geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Origin and Evolution of the Rhinos (Family Rhinocerotidae): What Do We Really Know?” What follows is the paper’s Abstract:

"Some rhinoceroses, including the square-lipped Ceratotherium simum of the African savanna, weigh more than three tons and thus represent the largest land mammals after the African elephant. After an extensive revision of the family Rhinocerotidae, presently some 21 genera have been found to be valid. Most of those, however, do not exist anymore. Just four genera are still extant.

"Although they are not the handsomest or most graceful creatures in the animal kingdom, the Rhinocerotoidea (superfamily) are a fascinating group for research due not only to an extraordinarily rich fossil record1 but also to many striking anatomical and physiological characteristics.

"Intriguingly, according to the geological time table, many of the past and present forms have lived contemporaneously for millions of years. Also, all families and genera of the rhinocerotoids appear abruptly in the fossil record. Contrary to Darwinian expectations, none of them is linked to any other by a series of “infinitesimally small changes,” “infinitesimally slight variations,” “insensibly fine steps,” etc. Hence, the fossil record is in full agreement with the statement of the eminent evolutionary biologist Donald R. Prothero, paleontologist and leading rhino researcher, that “the most striking thing about the overall pattern of rhinocerotid evolution is that of stasis.” Even at the species level he notes that “although some limited examples of gradual change can be documented in the rhinocerotids, the overwhelming pattern is one of stable species which show no measurable change over long periods of time, consistent with the predictions of Eldredge and Gould (1972). (my bold)

"So, what do we really know about their origin and evolution? The entire fossil series of the family of the rhinos starts with a rhinoceros (Teletaceras) and ends with rhinoceroses. The viewpoint of natural selection of random or accidental or haphazard DNA mutations can be — except for microevolution — excluded for many scientific reasons, as will be shown below. Intelligent design is definitely the scientifically superior explanation." (my bold)

comment: a seeming abrupt appearance, as in the Cambrian explosion. The broad range of ancient fossils would seem to preclude there is something missing.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fish-fossils-china-jaws-vertebrates

"A newfound treasure trove of ancient fish fossils unearthed in southern China is opening a window into the earliest history of jawed vertebrates — a group that encompasses 99 percent of all living vertebrates on Earth, including humans. The fossil site, dated from 439 million to 436 million years ago, includes a revealing variety of never-before-seen small, toothy, bony fish species.

"The diversity of the fossils at this one site not only fills a glaring gap in the fossil record, but also highlights the strangeness that such a gap exists, researchers report September 29 in Nature.

"Genetic analyses had previously pointed to this time period, known as the early Silurian Period, as an era of rapid diversification of jawed vertebrates. But the toothy fishes seemed to have left few traces in the fossil record. Instead, as far as the fossil record was concerned, jawless fishes appeared to rule the waves at the time. And what jawed fishes have been preserved were rarely bony; most have been chondrichthyans, ancient cartilaginous ancestors of modern sharks and rays.

"The Chongqing Lagerstätte — paleontologists’ word for a rich assemblage of diverse species all preserved together at one site — “fundamentally changes that picture,” write paleontologist You-an Zhu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and colleagues in the study. The site is teeming with toothy, bony fishes, particularly armored placoderms, but bears just one chondrichthyan.

***

"Here’s a closer look at a few of the newly discovered fishy denizens of the Chongqing Lagerstätte.

"About 20 separate specimens of a little fish that the researchers have called Xiushanosteus mirabilis were found at the Chongqing site. Those finds make the animal the most abundant type of fish in that fossil assemblage.

X. mirabilis was only about 30 millimeters long, about the length of a paper clip, but it bears a strong resemblance to larger armored placoderms to come in the future: It had a broad, bony head shield and a body covered in small, diamond-shaped scales.

***

"Two types of jawed fish arose around 450 million years ago — and both make an appearance at the Chongqing site. The new site is remarkable for its diversity of osteichthyans, bony jawed fishes like X. mirabilis. But cartilaginous Shenacanthus vermiformis also spent some time in this environment.

***

"Thanks to these close relatives, the researchers pieced together how paired fins in the jawless fish evolved in stages to become separate pectoral and pelvic fins in their jawed cousins. Such fins are the precursors of arms and legs in later tetrapods. "
'
Comment: irritating gaps get filled, but the general big picture is clear.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2303662-what-dolphins-reveal-about-the-evolution-o...

"We know that dolphins have sex all the time. They have sex for social reasons, not just for reproduction. It makes sense that the clitoris would be functional [and give pleasure when stimulated].

"Are dolphins really having sex all the time? Are they more sexually active than other animals?

"We don’t really know if they are having more sex than other marine mammals. It’s really hard to study sexual behaviour in cetaceans because they’re out there [in the ocean]. But bottlenose dolphins live close to the shore, where scientists can go out on their boats and study them. They see them having sex year-round, even when the females are not receptive, so not ready to get pregnant and have babies.

"And not only do they have sex all the time, they have a lot of homosexual sex as well. The females will rub each other’s clitorises with their snouts and their flippers really often. It’s not like every once in a blue moon you’ll see females stimulating each other, it’s actually pretty common. Females also masturbate.

"If they’re out there seeking all these sexual experiences, it’s likely that it’s probably feeling good.

"The males, for sure, have lots of homosexual sex. The males will have anal sex, they’ll insert their penises into each other’s blowholes. Bottlenose dolphins are really hypersexual animals.

***

"There is this hypothesis out there that, because penises and clitorises share the same developmental pathway, the clitoris is just a mini penis. It’s not really designed for anything and it doesn’t necessarily have a function. It’s just there because males have a penis.

"There is debate whether even human female orgasms are functional or just a byproduct. It’s one of those things that just refuses to die.

***

"We can show that this is more than a mini penis; this is actually a fully functional organ that’s serving some kind of purpose. It’s probably evolutionarily a good idea because it makes you seek out sex more often."

Comment: Research has shown that chimps and bonobos are similar. It is logical that pleasure is present to encourage sex. Visual pornography arouses only humans which means our consciousness plays a different sex role in us.

dhw: Anyway, clearly the latest research proposes environmental change first and adaptation second, in contrast to your fish adaptation first, exploration of dry land second.

DAVID: Land and sea are always different, no environmental change at the shoreline. What is your fish point? The green grass on land attracted the fish?

dhw: The environment is always changing. We don’t know why fish first came onto the land, but whatever may have been their reason, you insisted that your God had already prepared them beforehand, whereas I suggested they began the process of adaptation once they had emerged from the water. We needn’t go through all the details again. My point is that environmental changes require adaptation and also offer opportunities for new forms of life. I do not believe organisms adapt or innovate BEFORE the environmental change and then go looking for ways to use their adaptations/innovations, and your article appears to confirm this view.

The article does confirm this view. I still think fish tried out land and changed adaptably though God's guidance.

BBella: In what detailed way do you think God guided them?

I think speciation is God's action. He changes DNA and all the other layers of control.
The gaps between types is too large for chance to ever work.

dhw: Anyway, clearly the latest research proposes environmental change first and adaptation second, in contrast to your fish adaptation first, exploration of dry land second.

DAVID: Land and sea are always different, no environmental change at the shoreline. What is your fish point? The green grass on land attracted the fish?

dhw: The environment is always changing. We don’t know why fish first came onto the land, but whatever may have been their reason, you insisted that your God had already prepared them beforehand, whereas I suggested they began the process of adaptation once they had emerged from the water. We needn’t go through all the details again. My point is that environmental changes require adaptation and also offer opportunities for new forms of life. I do not believe organisms adapt or innovate BEFORE the environmental change and then go looking for ways to use their adaptations/innovations, and your article appears to confirm this view.

The article does confirm this view. I still think fish tried out land and changed adaptably though God's guidance.

In what detailed way do you think God guided them?

dhw: Anyway, clearly the latest research proposes environmental change first and adaptation second, in contrast to your fish adaptation first, exploration of dry land second.

DAVID: Land and sea are always different, no environmental change at the shoreline. What is your fish point? The green grass on land attracted the fish?

dhw: The environment is always changing. We don’t know why fish first came onto the land, but whatever may have been their reason, you insisted that your God had already prepared them beforehand, whereas I suggested they began the process of adaptation once they had emerged from the water. We needn’t go through all the details again. My point is that environmental changes require adaptation and also offer opportunities for new forms of life. I do not believe organisms adapt or innovate BEFORE the environmental change and then go looking for ways to use their adaptations/innovations, and your article appears to confirm this view.

The article does confirm this view. I still think fish tried out land and changed adaptably though God's guidance.

DAVID: Land and sea are always different, no environmental change at the shoreline. What is your fish point? The green grass on land attracted the fish?

The environment is always changing. We don’t know why fish first came onto the land, but whatever may have been their reason, you insisted that your God had already prepared them beforehand, whereas I suggested they began the process of adaptation once they had emerged from the water. We needn’t go through all the details again. My point is that environmental changes require adaptation and also offer opportunities for new forms of life. I do not believe organisms adapt or innovate BEFORE the environmental change and then go looking for ways to use their adaptations/innovations, and your article appears to confirm this view.

dhw:Anyway, clearly the latest research proposes environmental change first and adaptation second, in contrast to your fish adaptation first, exploration of dry land second.

Land and sea are always different, no environmental change at the shoreline. What is your fish point? The green grass on land attracted the fish?

According to Wikipedia: “In evolutionary biology, adaptive radiation is a process in which organisms diversify rapidly from an ancestral species into a multitude of new forms, particularly when a change in the environment makes new resources available, creates new challenges, or opens new environmental niches.[1

I can’t see how this means that organisms change first and then find a suitable environment. They diversify when they are confronted by change. However, in certain environments birds with longer beaks may survive better than birds with shorter beaks, so by natural selection the longer beaked version will finish up as the surviving “species” (narrow sense). That’s Darwinian. Nothing to do with a brand new organ preceding a search for a suitable environment in which to use it. Anyway, clearly the latest research proposes environmental change first and adaptation second, in contrast to your fish adaptation first, exploration of dry land second.

DAVID: We are pretty much in agreement. The 'controversy' is that Darwinists propose theories with no research proof. Now science is cleaning out the rubbish.

dhw: Which Darwinists propose that organisms adapt to a different environment before they find themselves in it? As I mentioned, that was your own theory regarding the fish that left the water.

You did not read the article carefully:

"In other words, new traits and new species evolved because environmental changes allowed greater genetic diversification. This contradicts the idea of “adaptive radiation”, which holds that the evolution of new traits allowed species to move into previously unoccupied environments."

'Adaptive radiation' has been a standard part of Neo-Darwinism for years.

DAVID’s comment: This finding seems logical to me. Move to a new area with better food and then adapt to the other environmental issues. Epigenetics play a role. However the varieties are all still horses and can interbreed. see below:

dhw: Your comment is right on the button. This is not speciation in the broad sense at all, but adaptation, and I must confess, I never knew there was any controversy! Since the whole point of adaptation is to cope with change, I find the reverse procedure totally illogical. Innovation is required for speciation in the broad sense, and as my own hypothesis relies on the same mechanism (the innovative as well as adaptive intelligence of cell communities), again I see it as only logical that the trigger will be environmental change offering opportunity (as opposed to threat). I think you disagree on this, though, as you have suggested that your God prepared the fish before it stepped out onto the land.

DAVID: We are pretty much in agreement. The 'controversy' is that Darwinists propose theories with no research proof. Now science is cleaning out the rubbish.

Which Darwinists propose that organisms adapt to a different environment before they find themselves in it? As I mentioned, that was your own theory regarding the fish that left the water.

DAVID: Which came first, speciation or environmental changes requiring adaptation? Environmental changes!

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/horse-study-reins-in-evolutionary-orthodoxy?utm_sour... .

DAVID’s comment: This finding seems logical to me. Move to a new area with better food and then adapt to the other environmental issues. Epigenetics play a role. However the varieties are all still horses and can interbreed. see below:

dhw: Your comment is right on the button. This is not speciation in the broad sense at all, but adaptation, and I must confess, I never knew there was any controversy! Since the whole point of adaptation is to cope with change, I find the reverse procedure totally illogical. Innovation is required for speciation in the broad sense, and as my own hypothesis relies on the same mechanism (the innovative as well as adaptive intelligence of cell communities), again I see it as only logical that the trigger will be environmental change offering opportunity (as opposed to threat). I think you disagree on this, though, as you have suggested that your God prepared the fish before it stepped out onto the land.

We are pretty much in agreement. The 'controversy' is that Darwinists propose theories with no research proof. Now science is cleaning out the rubbish.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/horse-study-reins-in-evolutionary-orthodoxy?utm_sour... .

DAVID’s comment: This finding seems logical to me. Move to a new area with better food and then adapt to the other environmental issues. Epigenetics play a role. However the varieties are all still horses and can interbreed. see below:

Your comment is right on the button. This is not speciation in the broad sense at all, but adaptation, and I must confess, I never knew there was any controversy! Since the whole point of adaptation is to cope with change, I find the reverse procedure totally illogical. Innovation is required for speciation in the broad sense, and as my own hypothesis relies on the same mechanism (the innovative as well as adaptive intelligence of cell communities), again I see it as only logical that the trigger will be environmental change offering opportunity (as opposed to threat). I think you disagree on this, though, as you have suggested that your God prepared the fish before it stepped out onto the land.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/horse-study-reins-in-evolutionary-orthodoxy?utm_sour...

"The history of the horse family may hold the key to one of evolution’s classic conundrums: what comes first, new traits or a new environment?

"In the journal Science, Juan Cantalapiedra from the Humboldt Museum in Germany and colleagues in Spain and Argentina present evidence for the latter.

"They studied the body size and tooth morphology of 138 species of horses, all but six of them extinct, with the oldest dating from 18 million years ago, along with the rate at which the horse lineages diverged into separate species.

"They found that migration patterns and changes in environment drove the development of new traits. This is the opposite of the prevailing theory of evolution, which holds that new traits – such as bigger teeth or a thicker pelt – develop first, allowing species to then move into new environmental niches.

"Using fossils to gauge the body and teeth size of the specimens gave the researchers clues to the kinds of food the horses ate. Longer teeth and bigger body size, for instance, hinted that new grub was on the menu.

***

"They found that speciation bursts – comparatively rapid branch-splitting, resulting in multiple new species – did not correlate with the physical changes that were taking place in the animals at the time.

"This suggests strongly that evolution was driven by “extrinsic factors – such as geographical dispersals, increased productivity, or habitat heterogeneity – that release diversity limits and promote speciation”, they write.

"In other words, new traits and new species evolved because environmental changes allowed greater genetic diversification. This contradicts the idea of “adaptive radiation”, which holds that the evolution of new traits allowed species to move into previously unoccupied environments.

***

"None of the early stage speciation spikes were associated with a burst in body size or change of tooth structure. In fact, branches of the horse family that underwent fast speciation actually showed slower rates of tooth evolution.

"So how was speciation occurring without notable physical changes in these horses? A possible explanation is what the horses ate changed before physiological adaptions caught up.

“'We’d always thought you can only really become species-rich by adapting to new environments, but here it seems that the new species comes first, and then the anatomy changes later,” comments evolutionary biologist Alistair Evans from Monash University in Australia, who was not involved in the research.

"But, Evans adds, “there is much more to a species than just how big it is [and] how big its teeth are”.

"The complex evolutionary history of horses is far from being a closed case, with research in the area continuing to grow."

Comment: This finding seems logical to me. Move to a new area with better food and then adapt to the other environmental issues. Epigenetics play a role. However the varieties are all still horses and can interbreed. see below:

Another view: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/10/claim-climate-change-made-the-
modern-horse-of-course/

"Changing environments and ecosystems were driving the evolution of horses over the past 20 million years. This is the main conclusion of a new study published in Science by a team of palaeontologists from Spain and Argentina. The team analysed 140 species of horses, most of them extinct, synthesising decades of research on the fossil history of this popular group of mammals.

"According to the new results, these evolutionary changes could have been much slower than previously assumed. In fact, Cantalapiedra and colleagues were able to show that all these newly evolved species of horses were ecologically very similar. Thus, rather than a multiplication of ecological roles, the new results point to external factors, such as increasing environmental heterogeneity, as the main evolutionary force."

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-african-lake-clues-ancient-marine.html

"New research shows there may have been more nitrogen in the ocean between one and two billion years ago than previously thought, allowing marine organisms to proliferate at a time when multi-cellularity and eukaryotic life first emerged.

"UBC researchers travelled to Lake Kivu in the Democratic Republic of Congo, because of its similar chemistry to the oceans of the Proterozoic eon, some 2.3 to 0.5 billion years ago. The deep waters of part of the lake have no oxygen and are one of the few places on Earth where dissolved iron is present at high concentrations.

"'This is the first time that we have observed microbes recycling nitrogen by reacting it with iron in such a body of water," said Céline Michiels, lead author of the study and PhD student at UBC. "While these reactions have been observed in the lab, their activity in Lake Kivu gives us confidence that they can play an important role in natural ecosystems and allows us to build math models that can describe these reactions in oceans of the past."

"Michiels and her colleagues found that when microorganisms from Lake Kivu react iron with nitrogen in the form of nitrate, some of this nitrogen is converted to gas, which is lost to the atmosphere, but the rest of the nitrogen is recycled from nitrate to ammonium, which remains dissolved and available for diverse microorganisms to use as a nutrient.

"'It's really exciting that we can use information recovered from modern environments like Lake Kivu to create and calibrate math models that reconstruct chemistry and biology from almost two billion years ago," said Sean Crowe, senior author of the study and Assistant Professor and Canada Research Chair in Geomicrobiology at UBC. "With these models and clues from rocks, we're learning more and more about how evolving life in the ancient oceans shaped Earth's surface chemistry over long stretches of early history.'"

Comment: These organisms are like the extremophiles using alternative mechanisms of metabolism without oxygen. Original life had to have this type of metabolism.

http://www.nature.com/news/fish-fossil-upends-scientists-view-of-jaw-evolution-1.20848

"A fossil fish found in Yunnan, China, has filled in a gaping hole in how researchers thought the vertebrate jaw evolved.

"The 423-million-year-old specimen, dubbed Qilinyu rostrata, is part of an ancient group of armoured fish called placoderms. The fossil is the oldest ever found with a modern three-part jaw, which includes two bones in the upper jaw and one in the lower jaw.

***

"Qilinyu has bones halfway between an ancient placoderm jaw and a modern jaw. “They contribute to the face, but the bits inside the mouth look suspiciously like” placoderm jaw bones, says Ahlberg. This rewrites the previous understanding that placoderm jaws and modern jaws evolved completely independently

***

"This view of jaw evolution was first suggested, although not entirely confirmed, by the 2013 report2 of Entelognathus primordialis. That specimen is a 419-million-year-old placoderm with bony-fish-like jaws, which was found at the Xiaoxiang fossil site in Yunnan. Qilinyu was discovered at the same site, by the same team — led by palaeontologist Min Zhu at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing. The fossil is older than Entelognathus, and its jaw is more clearly intermediate between ancient placoderms and modern bony fish.

"Qilinyu was about 20 centimetres long and looked like a catfish, with a flat pointy bit sticking out of its snout. “It reminded me of a platypus, having this big snout with a flat bill,” says John Long, a palaeontologist at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia.

"Zhu and his colleagues found several specimens of Qilinyu. The most complete fossil, which was used to describe the new species, was uncovered from Xiaoxiang’s muddy limestone in 2012, but was missing its lower jaw. Early in 2016, Zhu’s group found a lower jaw from another specimen, then four more, providing a complete picture of the animal’s jawbones.

***

“'It confirms what the scientific consensus has been leaning toward” since Zhu’s group found Entelognathus, says Sam Giles, a palaeobiologist at the University of Oxford, UK. The find also shows how early placoderms filled very different ecological niches, she says. Qilinyu’s mouth is on its underside, indicating that it was probably a bottom-feeder, whereas Entelognathus’s forward-facing mouth suggests a different style of feeding.

"Xiaoxiang is “a spectacular site”, says Giles. “Before this locality, everyone thought there wasn’t much going on in this period.” But it has turned out to be incredibly diverse, she notes."

Comment: The three-bone jaw had to start at some point. Once again intermediate forms are present, but represent large changes in form or the typical gap or jump in the fossil record, more consistent with saltation than a series of tiny modifications that chance Darwinism would suggest.

dhw:Innovation as such has not been observed during the modern age, and remains unexplained, and although I am a firm believer that evolution happened, it is another common kind of misrepresentation (often inadvertent, I'm sure), as if one can take the part as representative of the whole.-Until we understand speciation, the underlying method of evolution remains unknown.