One of the more creative stories in Darwinism is the speedy pace of “morphological” evolution which supposedly happened 60 million years ago. The fossil is called; Eritherium azzouzorum which is known to be the oldest elephant, doesn’t really look like one. The animals measures are 1.6 to two feet (50 to 60 cm) long and weighed nine to eleven pounds. Compare that to a modern elephant standing at eleven feet tall and weighing five tons!
Live Science and New Scientist agree on this point…“You wouldn’t have recognised Eritherium as an elephant when it was roaming Morocco 60 million years ago.” Indeed, not only were the measurements much different, it didn’t have a tusk like modern elephants have. To try and solve this problem Emmanuel Gheerbrant of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, France proposed the tooth of the animal enlarged by millimeters represented a primitive tusk.
It’s hard to believe this tooth was able to pull down branches or trees for that matter. The picture of the fossil pieces shows no postcranial anatomy. Their assumption was based on nothing more than one skull and a jaw and five teeth. Looking at the five teeth, it looks nothing like a primitive tusk!
Here is an example how they reach conclusions with contradictory data, and gaps in empirical data contained in PNAS…
“The TNT unweighted parsimony analysis including Eritherium yields a very poorly resolved consensus tree mainly resulting from the unstable position of Khamsaconus. Analysis without Khamsaconus shows that, besides the robust proboscidean relationships of Eritherium, basal relationships among paenungulates remain unstable, as illustrated by the basal polytomy in the consensus (Fig. 3A).”
“This polytomy is basically related to our poor fossil knowledge of the ancestral morphotype of several orders such as Embrithopoda, Desmostylia, and Anthracobunia. Our analysis supports a Sirenia-Desmostylia clade sister group of Proboscidea within Tethytheria. The standard TNT “implied weighting” analysis yields a topology (Fig. 3B), which is nearly identical to that of Gheerbrant et al.”
With such little evidence to go on, what they call the “ancestral morphotype” exists only in the evolutionist’s imagination. It’s not possible with all the empirical problems that exist with this particular animal that one could arrive to any evolutionary conclusion. Therefore, what they are trying to create is not scientific, rather it’s just story telling using a lot of jargon with naturalistic conclusions, but no foundation for the basis for it.
It is important for Christians and skeptics of Darwinism to learn about the methods, omissions, assumptions and philosophy used by various scientists today and in the future.