Talk:Elephant

The article states that the population of elephants tripled from January to June in 2006. As the gestation period of an elephant is 22 months, it would be impossible for the statement to be true.

Just revert anything that remotely sounds like "the population of elephants have tripled in the last 6 months", it's clear-cut vandalism. See Stephen Colbert's suggestion for the background. --Interiot 14:44, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This page does not reference any of its statements, and contains several that are patently untrue--a surprisingly large number for such a short article. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the evolution of elephants, not from sea cows as stated in the article but from a common ancestor.

This should probably be merged with the page on Elephants (pl.) and forward to there, since that article is already longer and cited.

Debate

Cut from article:

Molecular and morphological evidence point to hyraxes and sirenians (sea cows and manatees) as the closest living relatives of elephants these groups are hypothesized to have shared a common ancestor approximately 50 million years ago. The three extant species of elephant are sole survivors of a much more diverse Proboscidian fauna with some 170 described fossil species and including species of mammoth from North America and the massive Deinotherium, the second largest land mammal that ever lived, which sported two downward facing tusks.

According to the young earth creationist view Elephants were created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the earth (Genesis 1:24-25) and survived the Great Flood on Noah's Ark (Genesis 7:7-8). Some creationists are incredulous to how species as apparently different as hyraxes and sirenians could be related to elephants. This objection fails to take into account the vast periods of independent evolution taken by each lineage since they last shared a common ancestor - some 50 million years. Additionally evolutionary theory predicts that intermediate forms between related groups are unlikely to be found contemporaneously as more advanced forms will out compete and replace such intermediates (this is an argument first put forward by Darwin himself.) . Some evolutionary biologists suggest elephants may have evolved from water living mammals much like modern hyraxes which developed trunks to use as snorkels (as modern elephants, do when swimming).

In the past, there were many different types of elephants like mammoths and mastodons, but most young earth creation scientists say that these species never made it onto the Ark and that these species. Scientists and scholars agree that Noah could not have trekked all the way to the arctic to collect a pair of mastodons before the earth was flooded, and they all drowned. Polar bear and penguins survived because both are excellent swimmers and could have swam to floating glaciers and ridden them through the Great Flood. This fact presumably means aquatic animals such as Polar bear, penguins and fish were not destroyed in the great flood and as such are still evil.

This poorly written debate section mars the article. I suspect the motivation for including it was to make the project 'look stupid'.

Having a debate is good, though. Let's just state the positions intelligently. Fish are evil? Be serious.

I think the fact that it remained unchallenged for about two weeks is what makes the project look foolish. In any case, you've removed a cited peer reviewed journal. Please elaborate as to why 'Molecular Biology and Evolution is not acceptable. Nematocyte 07:31, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Antiochus was a Greek king, a descendant of Seleucus, not a Persian king.

"similar species"

The term "similar species" previously used in a heading of this article is misleading. The reference cited is a phylogenetic studies and the methods employed in these studies are not about similarity. I know people have trouble with the E-word but claiming these studies are about similarity is just outright wrong. Hence my edit --Igor nz 22:32, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

The effect is to make out that evolution is true (it's not the word that is the problem, but claiming the concept as true). On what basis are they considered to be related if not on similarity? Philip J. Rayment 22:54, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Related and simlar are just different things. You might say that whales are similar to fish in a lot of ways but they aren't particularly closely related. Phylogentic methods (with a few exceptions) are about modelling the way things have changed within lineages to work backwards to recreate the most likely pattern of branching in a particular group in the light of the characters being studied. That's not the same thing as similarity. --Igor nz 00:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

You haven't actually answered the question: On what basis are they considered to be related? To put it more simply, why to they think they are related? Philip J. Rayment 01:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Because of the peer reviewed journal article that is cited in the text? Or the 20 others that could take that place?--Igor nz 17:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)