Elephants (Talk.Origins)

Response to Elephants

CreationWiki response:

Note that Minchenella is known only from its lower jaw. So we know nothing about its body shape, or much else for that matter. The reference to it as the "most plausible ancestor" shows that they do not have real evidence here. So this line starts out with a highly questionable proposed ancestor.

Both Phenacolophus and its questionable alleged ancestor Minchenella are both classified as late Paleocene; though some Phenacolophus are classified as early Eocene; so they would be contemporaries, making the already questionable lineage even more suspect. Beyond this there no information available on Phenacolophus, not even a decent description.

With all the talk of teeth, it makes one wonder, do they have any thing besides a jaw?

There is no mention of any post cranial bones. The reference to its being heavy-boned may suggest more but it is too vague. Besides, this so called proto-elephant is classified as early Eocene, as is its alleged ancestor, meaning that at best the order is arbitrary. The result is that the order presented here is based only on the assumption of evolution, a fact that is demonstrated by the use of the term "proto-elephant".

First of all Moeritherium, Numidotherium, and Barytherium would all be contemporaries with the two previous types; thus the order of all five is based largely on the assumption of evolution, though placing these three as the last of the five would be supported by the clasification of some as mid-Eocene.

Moeritherium
 * Not only are there at least two quite different reconstructions of Moeritherium, there seems no evidence of a relationship between Moeritherium and elephant particularly in light of Barytherium.
 * Reference: The Elephant Sanctuary, Hohenwald, Tennessee
 * Reference: Discovery Channel :: Walking With Prehistoric Beasts
 * Reference: ABC - Science - Beasts - Moeritherium Factfile

Numidotherium
 * No information available on this type.

Barytherium Barytherium is clearly just a short-tusked variety of elephant. This means that we have an elephant in the "early-mid Eocene". This also means that Paleomastodon and Phiomia cannot be transitional between elephant and any thing else. It also eliminates Moeritherium and Numidotherium as elephant ancestors.
 * Despite Talk Origins' claim to the contrary Barytherium did have a trunk.

Here it just jumps to the early Oligocene, with no reference to the late Eocene.

Curiously Paleomastodon is depicted with less of a trunk than Barytherium. Given the fact that an elephant's trunk is soft tissue that unusually is not preserved, it is likely that these reconstructions have been influenced more by evolutionary assumptions than reality. The fact is that Barytherium eliminates Paleomastodon as being transitional between elephant and any ancestor. Paleomastodon was simply a variety of elephant.

Phiomia is probably an extinct variety of elephant.

Simply put, they have no elephant fossils that they can label as mid-late Oligocene. This also means that they have to assume that the links exist. However the presence of Barytherium (definitely a true elephant) before this makes claiming a transition erroneous.

Gomphotherium was clearly a variety of elephant and it supports the view that Phiomia was a variety of elephant.

Miomastodon, Pliomastodon and Mastodon are all varieties of elephant.

Stegotetrabelodon, Primelephas and Primelephas gomphotheroides were simply a variety of elephant. What does Talk Origins mean by "first of the "true" elephants"? Barytherium was clearly an elephant, as were Mastodons.


 * Loxodonta is just the genus of African elephant
 * Elephas is the genus of the Asian and Indian Elephants
 * Mammuthus is simply a variety of elephant.

Clearly, in the case of elephants, the original kind would be about equivalent to the family.

This actually depicts at least two distinct kinds of animals: elephant and Moeritherium. Possibly more since there was insufficient information on other non-elephant types.