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:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1B
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.
™ Version 4.2
