|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,880 Year: 4,137/9,624 Month: 1,008/974 Week: 335/286 Day: 56/40 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mammalian Middle Ear Evolution | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hello AlphaOmegakid,
I disagree. Certainly the time frame is determined by the fossil record, but ToE makes predictions about the transitionals in the fossil record. The theory is only as good as its predictions, Right? What the theory of evolution says is that mechanisms of evolution we see in the world today are sufficient to explain patterns of life in the past, and thus it predicts that we will find patterns consistent with evolutionary processes in the fossil record (and in the genetic record). This prediction is what is tested by the fossil and genetic record. The theory predicts that populations will change over time, that there will be a succession of hereditary traits in the populations from generation to generation, as new mutations are added to the existing mix, and old ones are eliminated (natural selection or genetic drift). The theory predicts that isolated populations will necessarily have different successions of hereditary traits because (a) they will have different sets of new mutations in each population and (b) they will be living in different ecologies, so natural selection will favor traits matched to the different ecologies rather than for conformity. Thus the theory of evolution predicts that in any hereditary lineage there will be a transition from a set of hereditary traits at point {A}, to a different, though related, set of hereditary traits at point {C}, and that at any point {B} intermediate in time between {A} and {C} the organisms will have intermediate sets of traits: some will be shared with {A} and not {C} and some will be shared with {C} and not {A}, and that there will still be many (if not most) traits that are shared by {A}, {B} and {C}. Thus fossil {B} is a transitional fossil because it is an intermediate form along the hereditary path from {A} to {C}. There is only a relative relationship to time (from generation to generation), there is no strict number of fixed mutations and selected new traits per year, decade, century. There is no metric for how much change has to happen either.
According to the wiki article, and the Nature article the fossil record would be consistent with ToE. Right? That means the fossil record is in accordance with the theory. Well yes, but that is because the fossil record is the record of what actually occurred, and because, so far, the theory of evolution is capable of explaining it by everyday evolutionary processes. This demonstrates the validity of the theory: each fossil is a test of the theory, and no fossil in the billions found, has yet invalidated the theory.
That also means that there is a potential falsification about the prediction of ToE (not the whole theory)within the DDME development. Yes. Finding a development that is not in earlier organisms and which does not have any possible morphological development from homologous features with ancestors.
For instance what if the DDME was found in the earliest mammals. This would be in conflict with the ToE, Right? Therefore, I am trying to find out what the ToE predicts about the reptile mammalian fossil record regarding the DMME. Does ToE predict that the earliest mammal didn't have the DMME? No. It is found in the earliest mammals because it is a feature that is used to define when the first mammals evolved (hair an mammary glands not fossilizing that well), one of the diagnostic features. The hereditary lineage of the transition from reptile jaw and ear to mammal jaw and ear goes through many intermediate stages, several including a double jointed jaw as part of the transition. http://www.geocities.com/...naveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htmPalaeos: Page not found Even if you found a similar development in an earlier synapsid, that would not invalidate the branch of evolution leading through therapsid to mammaliforms to mammals: it would just be another branch, likely starting from a common ancestor with similar start along the lineage of transition from reptile to mammal.
We know modern mammals are defined somewhat after the dinosaur extinction roughly 70mya. We know Yanoconodon did not have DDME at 125mya. Base on what we know from the fossil record, what does ToE predict regarding the DDME? Or does ToE predict anything about the DDME. Actually the last in the synapsid - therapsid - cynodont lineage of transition from reptile ear to mammal ear was roughly 240 Million to 200 Million years ago, to mammaliforms (note you can move up and down, and in and out in detail, on this cladogram by clicking on it):
quote: Those are the "diagnostic traits" of mammals, and it includes the ear. After that we find fossils of small shrew-like mammals that take us up to 70kyrs ago and the great meteor catastrophe\opportunity (its a matter of POV eh?).
In other words, predictions are made before the fossils are found. That fossils found would be intermediate in form between ancestors and descendants.
The question is what if fossils are found out of sequence showing the DMME much earlier in the fossil record. Think of your sister getting her wisdom teeth in much sooner than you do, even though you are older -- does this out of sequence formation invalidate your existence or heredity from your parents? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : million not thousand, added map by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
LOL - posting late and tired. 240Myr.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Wounded King,
... the connection to the mandible is entirely lost when Meckel's cartilage is absorbed. It is this specific change that AOK seems to be focusing on and for which Yanoconodont is presented as an intermediate form. So we are looking for something between this guy ... (1) 75 million year old shrewlike mammal
Bad News for Dinos Was Good News for Mammals quote: That talks about another diagnostic characteristic of modern mammals, but not about the ears. The skull however looks like mammal ear structure from what I can see with the jaw and the arch. ... and this guy? (2) 195 million year old shrew-like mammal(iform?)
Oldest mammal is found: Origin of mammals is pushed back to 195 million years quote: I note that they don't mention your cartilage, and this picture is even harder to see any detail on. On the other hand, AlphaOmegaKid's Yanoconodon seems a little younger but not necessarily more advanced than H. wui above.
quote: One begins to wonder how many (very?) different organisms can be described as "shrew-like" ... Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024