Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
33 online now:
caffeine, jar, JonF, PaulK (4 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,362 Year: 1,110/23,288 Month: 1,110/1,851 Week: 234/320 Day: 6/87 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A response to evolutionists
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 53 (18713)
10-01-2002 9:34 AM


Hey, finally got an openminded reply by Andya and Naldacon.
Andya, I respect your theory as a fellow muslim, that live could have evolved through natural selection.
However there are some differences that should be made clear.
The difference between evolutionists and creationists isn`t just that the evolutionists believes that life adapts through a natural selection, the main difference of course is that they reject Allah.
I believe a muslim should never accept that microbial life was created 500 million years and that was it, evolution did the rest.
On the contrary, Allah guides evolution into what he whants.
That indeed explains why there isnt a smooth graduate transformation seen in the fossile records but gaps followed by another fully formed specie.
Ive read somewere a thing that makes alot of sense.
Lets say that you own a house and that you decide that you wish to have another room.
What would you do, start building another house with that extra room or just rebuild the existing house into what you prefer.
I believe I know your answer, sincerely, Delshad

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-01-2002 10:24 AM Delshad has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 53 (18715)
10-01-2002 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Delshad
10-01-2002 9:34 AM


I won't press you into believing the Godless version of evolution. If your only problem with evolutionists are with those rejecting Allah, then I am at your side, brother. Personally I haven't really decided to believe if Allah guides evolution; my evolution view is close to the Deistic version where Allah created life and let it thrive its own way, but I am still curious about some details in the process.

About the gradual transformation thing, what do you think of the reptile-mammal sequence? Is it not an example of a smooth gradation? The jawbones slowly migrated backwards and inwards while keeping its function. An arrangement made by The All-Knowing and All-Caring, which sustains every creature's life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Delshad, posted 10-01-2002 9:34 AM Delshad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nos482, posted 10-01-2002 4:33 PM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 53 (18746)
10-01-2002 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Andya Primanda
10-01-2002 10:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
An arrangement made by The All-Knowing and All-Caring, which sustains every creature's life.

Even us godless infidels?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-01-2002 10:24 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 53 (18784)
10-02-2002 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Delshad
09-25-2002 8:02 AM


Hello Delshad:
I have read your post and I understand what you are saying and it makes very good sense to me. A cursory review of the replies seem to indicate that no one has answered the question you have asked, namely, can mutations actually account for any major evolutionary transitions?

Of course they wouldn't know of any series of mutations that would actually cause such a transition. It's pure speculation on anyone's part that such a seriesof mutations are possible. Scientifically, they are extremely umlikely.

Your challenge with the reptile to mammal transition is an excellent choice, for that is the evolutionists crown jewel of evolutionary transition from the fossil record. They shifted the argument to the fossil record because this is all they have available to justify such a evolutionary transition.

My only objection to your post is that you posted it under the origin of life category.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Delshad, posted 09-25-2002 8:02 AM Delshad has not yet responded

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 53 (18786)
10-02-2002 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Andya Primanda
09-25-2002 8:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Hi Delshad.

I'll take up your challenge. The shift from reptilian oviparity (laying eggs) to mammalian viviparity (live birth) is not too great once you are able to appreciate that there are intermediates between the two extremes. Most reptiles lay eggs, but some retains it within their bodies (ovoviviparity); and there are some which have true viviparity, although not as elaborate as modern mammals. And the most primitive living mammals, the monotremes (platypus & echidna--both Australian natives). These living models are hints to the stages in the evolution of mammalian viviparity. Finally, mammalian embryos still develop an empty yolk sac, which is a vestigial organ inherited from their egg-laying ancestors


Any series of objects can be arranged in an evolutionary type of arrangement. It is illogical to conclude they share common ancestry based on the evolutionary order an intelligent mind arranged them. There is no established evolutionary relationship among the paraphyletic groups you mention above.

I also do not know why you believe the yolk sac is vestigial, it provides blood and stem sex cells and part of it helps forms the embryonic digestive tube.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-25-2002 8:23 AM Andya Primanda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-02-2002 10:26 AM Bart007 has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-02-2002 11:00 AM Bart007 has responded

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 53 (18789)
10-02-2002 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Quetzal
09-25-2002 8:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Andya gave an excellent synopsis. Just to provide a few more details:

A brief synopsis of the development of placental mammals from egg laying reptiles:

Theriodont (mammal-like reptiles; egg layers) -> pantothere (monotreme, or egg-laying mammals; c.f. echidna and platypus) -> metathere (marsupial, or pouched mammal; c.f. kangaroo, opossum) -> euthere (placental mammal; all others)

Going beyond this, we have to get pretty detailed on the differences between oviparity in reptiles/amphibians, oviparity in pantotheres where the egg (containing limited yolk) develops for a period within the uterus nourished by endometrial secretions, then the gradual development of choriovitelline placenta in the metatheres and finally true placentae in modern mammals. In addition, for it to make sense, you need to understand the trade-off in the “maternal dependent growth model” where duration and extent of intrauterine and post-natal care are variations that can be operated on by natural selection. Finally, you need to understand the role that may have been played by differential production of the hormone dehydroepiandrosterone in the gradual replacement of egg by placenta over the course of 175 million years, based on comparisons between modern monotremes, marsupials, and placental mammals.

If you’d like details, let me know.


There is no established evolutionary relationships between these groups. The platypus and echinda are mosaics that evolutionist would have alleged was an ancestor to many modern groups had it been found in the distant past rather than living in Australia at the present moment. A platypus/echinda are highly specialized creatures, with only the most superficial resemblance to anything but a mammal. However, they are not ancestral to anything. The fact that you can collect placentas from paraphyletic groups and arranged them into some kind of preconceived evolutionary pattern proves absolutely nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 09-25-2002 8:58 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 10-02-2002 12:23 PM Bart007 has not yet responded

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 53 (18791)
10-02-2002 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Quetzal
09-25-2002 3:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Uhh, Delshad - what part of my post didn't you understand? I tried to keep it as simple as your apparent lack of knowledge required. If you really desire to know the answer to your question, the gist of the answer is in my post. If you have specific questions about any element in my response, please show you understand what was originally posted before asking for more - and more technical - details.

Oh heck with the science, let's just go with the ridicule, browbeating, and insults. Red herrings anyone.
----------

Adminnemooseus comment - After reviewing Q's message, in the context of what came before and after, I see no significant fault in it. "...your apparent lack of knowledge..." may have been a little indelicate, but it falls far short of "ridicule, browbeating, and insults". - Adminnemooseus (mnmoose@lakenet.com)

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-02-2002]

Okay Adminnemooseus, I'll save that one for a much more appropraiste posting. My apologies to Quetzal for having jumped the gun, so to speak.

[This message has been edited by Bart007, 10-02-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Quetzal, posted 09-25-2002 3:24 PM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Quetzal, posted 10-02-2002 12:26 PM Bart007 has not yet responded

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 53 (18800)
10-02-2002 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Naldacon
09-25-2002 4:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Naldacon:
Delshad wrote:
quote:
Evolutionists claim however that the single reptilian earbone evolved into three, this theory has been disproved because no such fossils have been found(not even one that implies that that transitional bones are on theyre making),

This is a misrepresentation of what evolutionists claim as the origin of the three ear bones in mammals. Hopefully, the misrepresentation was not intentional.

Based upon a whole series of fossils as evidence, two of the bones in the mammalian ear are clearly modified reptilian jaw bones. Some of the fossils demonstrating the reptile to mammal transition show both reptilian jaw joint and mammalian jaw joint features simultaneously. Here is a summary of the evidence that addresses the origin of ear bones and many of the other features that distinguish mammals from reptiles:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm


The therapsids are, by far, the closest evolutionist come to finding a transitional series in the fossil record. As one commentator has said, the reptile to mammal series is the crown jewel of the fossil evidence for Darwinism. There is no doubt that the large order of Therapsida have skulls with many mammalian features. However, there are real problems associated with concluding that a transitional series has been found linking the therapsid Dimetrodon to any mammalian creature.

To begin with, there is a major gap between the Therapsid alleged ancestors Pelycosaurs, and the therapsids.

Second, the order of the alleged transitions given above is not necessarily the correct order they appear in time in the geologic record. The arrangement of the order is based on evolutionary relationships and different evolutionary taxonomists have provided different arrangements based on their personal evolutionary biases. This problem holds true for most of the transitional series proposed by evolutionists.

Third, as can be seen from the above referenced Talk Origin alleged transitional list, The arrangement is that of groups of Therapsida species arranged in an evolutionary order, yet, evolution can take place only at the species level.

Evolutionist Douglas Futuyma confidently asserts that this transition
"is so abundantly documented by scores of species in every stage of transition that it is impossible to tell which therapsid species were actual ancestors of modern mammals."

Unfortunately for evolutionists, no one has managed to find, among the scores of therapsid species, a single line of descent leading to a mammal. Evolutionist Roger Lewin stated that the "Transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one, or at most, two lineages, is still an enigma."

There is no clear lineage between the two. The most convincing transitions presented in textbooks are lineages that combine more than one order of therapsida, with several species in the lineage which were contemporaries of each other and therefore cannot and do not form a progressive ancestry. In addition, one of the critical links is commonly shown out of order, as it is older than the link that ought to be it's ancestor. However, evolutionists can at least argue that this suggest a lineage.

However, all therapsida fossils clearly point to the fact that they are truly not mammals, not only by their jaw structure, but by their craniums, which are clearly not mammalian, but reptilian in nature.

A bigger problem in ever determining whether or not the therapsids can ever even be a true transition between reptile and mammals is the very nature of what reptiles and mammals are. Reptiles are cold blooded, they lay eggs with hard shells, they have scales on their skin, multiple bones in the jaw, and a single bone in the ear.

Mammals are warm blooded, they give birth to their young, have mammary glands, hair, and other significant soft body differences, besides a single lower jaw hinged with a single joint on each side, and three ear bones. The fossils do not tell us if these all important changes ever occurred even though the fossil record could have since many soft bodied fossils are recorded in the fossil record. There are no known living species of therapsida, so we are not at all certain as to their nature. Some evolutionary scientists have speculated that they may have been neither reptile nor mammalian, but perhaps entitled to a grouping of their own.

It should be pointed out that the so-called movement of the therapsid's two jaw bones, migrating toward the ear to become the other two ear bones in mammals, is highly speculative and improbable, and is one of those 'just-so' stories of evolution. There are no fossil transitions which actually show these bones becoming the ear of the mammal. There is no convincing scenario on how these bones would cross the Jaw joint, much less, how this creature will eat and hear while this happens.

Evolutionist Gerald Fleischer wrote a book entitled 'Evolutionary Principles of the Mammalian Ear" (1978, Berlin, Springer Velag), an authoritative treatment on the transition of the reptile to mammal transition of these bones to the ear. This book was reviewed by the magazine 'Evolution' (Vol. 33, #4, 1980) of which was written: "These general statements about evolution of the mammalian middle ear that appear are in the nature of proclamations. No methods are described which allows the reader to arrive with Fleischer at his "ancestral" middle ear, nor is the basis for the transformation series illustrated for the middle ear bones explained. ... Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed."

The story of how we arrive at the mammalian ear from reptile jaw bones is the best of the `just so' stories (plausibility arguments) that evolutionists tell to convince others, and perhaps themselves, that (macro-) evolution did indeed occur. And no one tells it better than Stephen J. Gould, as he does in his book; `The Eight Little Piggies.'

Nevertheless, it is still just a story filled with speculation and far from falling under the category of science, much less surviving the rigors of `hard science' for the following reasons:

1. A clear species to species lineage linking therapsids to mammals has not been established. Rather, the paraphyletic groups we call therapsids is very diverse in all of their characteristics, and some paleontologists pick and choose fossils from these paraphyletic groups to fit in with their Darwinian scenario of reptile to mammal evolution (While ignoring the fossil data that does not fit into this Darwinian scheme). However, Darwinian evolution can only take place at the species level!

This appeal to the mammal-like characteristics found in paraphyletic groups gives the illusion of an established lineage, but it should not be mistaken for one. Gould takes it one step further and appeals not only to the characteristics of the extinct paraphyletic groups of Therapsids, but to the characteristics of the modern paraphyletic group: reptiles (e.g the hearing of modern snakes). This is Ok to do when painting a scenario of `how it might have happened', as Gould does, but such scenarios should never be mistaken for `what did happen'.

2. This alleged transition involves creatures which are extinct and and have left little indication that they traversed from cold blooded, scaled reptiles to warm blooded hairy soft skinned mammals.

3. This alleged transition creates another problem for evolutionists. Since the fossil record is so rich for this ancient transition, why does it seem so sparse for all the others, even those much more recent.

4. How the jaw bone to ear bone transition occurred remains uncertain, contrary to Gould's assertion. That each part of this transition served some useful function is wild speculation. The demonstration of `how' must include the step by step change that must take place in the DNA code. Gould also alleges that the therapsid jaw bones keep moving steadily back toward the ear. One need merely visit a Natural History museum to observe that very specific therapsids were picked to create this illusion, that each therapsid in the series were highly varied from the others, that there jaw bones that allegedly became ear bones were themselves highly varied in size and shape. The very last therapsid in the series was the largest, several feet long and a few feet high with very large jawbones, and this is supposedly the nearest therapsid ancestor to the tiny alleged mouse size mammals like the Kuenotherium.

5. Further highlighting that there is no clear transition from Therapsids to Mammals is the fact that the Therapsids as whole have mixed fixtures of Mammal-like and non mammal-like features. There is no evidence of lineage from reptilian to mammal-like features over time. Fossil expert Edwin H Colbert states:
"It is not easy to determine the precise line of Mammalian ancestors among theriodont reptiles. Some theriodonts were far advanced toward mammals in some characters, but relatively primitive in others, and among all theriodonts the mixture of advance and conservative characters are so varied that it is not possible to point to any one group and define it as progressing most positively in the direction of mammals." (Colbert, "Evolution of Vertebrates", p 246 1980)

The NYS Board of Regents sent Luther Sunderland to inquire about evolution from leading Museum officials to aid in establishing criteria for the teaching of evolution. Mr. Sutherland inquired of The Natural History Museums Officials Dr. David Raup, Dr. Colin Patterson, and Dr. Niles Eldredge, concerning fossil evidence for the reptile-mammal transition, they each in turn admitted that they were not aware of evidence for this transition. (Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, 1987).

Evolutionist Dr. Tom Kemp, curator of Zoological collections at Oxford University Museum, England, in his report on 'The Reptiles that Became Mammals' (New Scientist, Vol. 92, March 4, 1982) writes:
"Each species of Mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by any species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later equally abruptly, without a directly descending species."

Finally, there are serious questions concerning the dating of mammal like reptiles. They are found in diverse locations in the world and if one reads Colbert, Romer, and others on the chronological dating of the therapsids, one would see the dating of the fossils is mostly based on evolutionists preconceptions of how the specimen fits into their evolutionary model of Therapsid to Mammalian evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Naldacon, posted 09-25-2002 4:48 PM Naldacon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by wehappyfew, posted 10-02-2002 2:21 AM Bart007 has responded
 Message 30 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-02-2002 10:44 AM Bart007 has not yet responded

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 53 (18803)
10-02-2002 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nos482
09-26-2002 8:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by Delshad:

Please Quetzal, dont misunderstand me, I understood very clearly what you were trying to express in your previous post and I`m sorry if you thought otherwise.
Its just that, and I hope you agree with me here, NO scientific evidence really proofs your theory to be correct, and ill try to explain why:

The same can be said of gravity as well.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-26-2002]


Your analogy is inadequate. Gravitational effects can be replicated repeatedly and observed and measured. It is operational science. The alleged Evolution (i.e. Common ancestry) effects are unobservable singularities, it is akin to forensic science (e.g. who shot Kennedy). The smaller the the possibility of replicating an experiment, the lesser is its scientific value. Gravity can be measured and examined over and over. Evolution (i.e. common ancestry of all creatures extant and extinct) has never been observed.

Newton's Theory of Gravity explained Kepler's laws, Galileo's and Copernicus's observation of planetary motions. Furthermore, Newtons Theory of Gravity is not exactly a Theory, it is a mathematical relationship between masses. In fact Leibnitz took Newton to task on this point, that Newton did not define what Gravity is. Just to say its a force does not cut it. What is the nature of this force?

Einstein's work on relativity refined Newton's mathematical relationship between masses to cover high velocity situations.

Einstein also rejected Newtons idea that Gravity was a force and instead called it a condition in space time created by masses.

Thus Einsteins mathematical formulation of Gravity has replaced Newtons', though we still use Newtons mathematical relationship between masses because it holds for low velocity masses, which covers most day to day situations.

However, we still don't know what "gravity" actually is.

[This message has been edited by Bart007, 10-02-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nos482, posted 09-26-2002 8:55 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 8:20 AM Bart007 has not yet responded

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 53 (18804)
10-02-2002 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Bart007
10-02-2002 1:53 AM


^Paraphrased/summarized/nearly plagiarized from Reappraising the "Crown Jewel" on the True.Origin Archive

It's considered good manners to at least reference something you copy in whole or in part. On this board, I believe there are additional rules about cutnpasting big chunks of text (bandwidth and copyright paranoia, I believe). Ask the admins if you are not sure what's kosher.

Be sure to write again when you have something unique or original to contribute.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Bart007, posted 10-02-2002 1:53 AM Bart007 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Bart007, posted 10-02-2002 2:36 AM wehappyfew has not yet responded

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 53 (18806)
10-02-2002 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by wehappyfew
10-02-2002 2:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wehappyfew:
^Paraphrased/summarized/nearly plagiarized from Reappraising the "Crown Jewel" on the True.Origin Archive

It's considered good manners to at least reference something you copy in whole or in part. On this board, I believe there are additional rules about cutnpasting big chunks of text (bandwidth and copyright paranoia, I believe). Ask the admins if you are not sure what's kosher.

Be sure to write again when you have something unique or original to contribute.


You are wrong on both counts.

The similarities between what I wrote and the article you reference is that we share the same known science on this subject. I never read that True Origin article before and I assure you that I arrived at my own version on my own.

The question is not whether what I write is new original information, but whether it is relevant information to the discussion at hand. I may post this same information 10 different times on different threads because it clarifies the issues at hand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by wehappyfew, posted 10-02-2002 2:21 AM wehappyfew has not yet responded

  
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 53 (18823)
10-02-2002 7:52 AM


Thank you for the support Bart, and helping me to express the things demanding an accurate knowledge in paleontology to explain.
May Allahs (Gods) peace and blessings be upon you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-03-2002 5:47 AM Delshad has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 53 (18828)
10-02-2002 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Bart007
10-02-2002 2:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Bart007:
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by Delshad:

Please Quetzal, dont misunderstand me, I understood very clearly what you were trying to express in your previous post and I`m sorry if you thought otherwise.
Its just that, and I hope you agree with me here, NO scientific evidence really proofs your theory to be correct, and ill try to explain why:

The same can be said of gravity as well.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-26-2002]


Your analogy is inadequate. Gravitational effects can be replicated repeatedly and observed and measured. It is operational science. The alleged Evolution (i.e. Common ancestry) effects are unobservable singularities, it is akin to forensic science (e.g. who shot Kennedy). The smaller the the possibility of replicating an experiment, the lesser is its scientific value. Gravity can be measured and examined over and over. Evolution (i.e. common ancestry of all creatures extant and extinct) has never been observed.

Newton's Theory of Gravity explained Kepler's laws, Galileo's and Copernicus's observation of planetary motions. Furthermore, Newtons Theory of Gravity is not exactly a Theory, it is a mathematical relationship between masses. In fact Leibnitz took Newton to task on this point, that Newton did not define what Gravity is. Just to say its a force does not cut it. What is the nature of this force?

Einstein's work on relativity refined Newton's mathematical relationship between masses to cover high velocity situations.

Einstein also rejected Newtons idea that Gravity was a force and instead called it a condition in space time created by masses.

Thus Einsteins mathematical formulation of Gravity has replaced Newtons', though we still use Newtons mathematical relationship between masses because it holds for low velocity masses, which covers most day to day situations.

However, we still don't know what "gravity" actually is.


They are still both theories in that we know that they can be observed (Even if some choose to ignore this) yet we still don't know exactly why. The evolutionary process can be accurrately modeled now with artificial life programs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Bart007, posted 10-02-2002 2:17 AM Bart007 has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 53 (18837)
10-02-2002 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Bart007
10-02-2002 12:25 AM


Yea, you're half right. Apart from the functions of the yolk sac you mention, it's still an ex-yolk sac. [OK, it wasn't vestigial. I call it 'redundant' now] Tell me, what caused The Designer to put a structure dangerously resembling a yolk sac in a creature which lays no eggs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Bart007, posted 10-02-2002 12:25 AM Bart007 has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 53 (18839)
10-02-2002 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Bart007
10-02-2002 1:53 AM


You post heavily. I'll try dissecting some parts.

quote:
However, all therapsida fossils clearly point to the fact that they are truly not mammals, not only by their jaw structure, but by their craniums, which are clearly not mammalian, but reptilian in nature.

A bigger problem in ever determining whether or not the therapsids can ever even be a true transition between reptile and mammals is the very nature of what reptiles and mammals are. Reptiles are cold blooded, they lay eggs with hard shells, they have scales on their skin, multiple bones in the jaw, and a single bone in the ear.

Mammals are warm blooded, they give birth to their young, have mammary glands, hair, and other significant soft body differences, besides a single lower jaw hinged with a single joint on each side, and three ear bones.


Teeth: Therapsids have differentiated teeth (Canines)
Eggs: Platypus lays eggs. Mammals retain a yolk sac.
Viviparity: Some reptiles bear live young.
Skull: Mammals and therapsids have synapsid-type skull, with a temporal fenestra (opening) behind the eye.
Jaw: One therapsid have a double jaw joint.

Why do you say that therapsids are paraphyletic? Got sources/citations?

[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 10-02-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Bart007, posted 10-02-2002 1:53 AM Bart007 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020