question 128 in OG

[kashefian]

the explanation of the question 128 in OG states that:

with cannot be followed by an independent clause

as you can see in the following example:

Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal [b]with[/b] its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

Could anyone give an example of a dependent clause which is correct using "with"?

[Tani]

Australian embryologists have found evidence suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal with a trunk that originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

[allfta]

Australian embryologists have found evidence suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal with a trunk that originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

But, isn't it possible to think evolved as a adj. but not a verb?
Just like "with my arms folded"

thanks