The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

You said; I thought, "real scientists" use the term, "hydraulic sorting"? But Gould the non-creationist, used the term, "hydrological", so this is an example of a double-standard fallacy I have astutely spotted, so naming it "poor reading comprehension" I imagine even the evolutionists must see is a ridiculous use of epithets. This is like saying that because I can prove I am 6 foot 10 inches tall that I am, "a midget".Obviously there is nothing wrong with my reading and everything wrong with your comment. Why not simply admit you made a mistake for once in your life, and didn't know what you were talking about.You are so easy to refute because you only use bare-assertions. If I don't know what divergence is and what convergence is, you have to explain in debate, what I have specifically misunderstood, otherwise you just want to spread a stereotype that I can't possibly understand the issues of science as a creationist. I understand that according to evolution, wings in birds, and bats would be examples of analogous structures but the pentadactyl limb would be examples of homologous structures. Can you please now explain where I have made an error, rather than spreading your usual propaganda that I don't have an inkling about anything?You're going to have to use genuine intelligence if you want to defeat me in a debate, not bald assertions. Lol. No arrogance here from Dr.A. then. I guess it was Moses I learnt it from, by reading Genesis. The Ichthyosaur though homoplastic to a dolphin, had more of a barrel-like body with a whip-tail, the use of the vertebrae BY DESIGN made it a slow swimmer with the tail being more useful, from what I read. It seems highly reasonable that there would be support for the tail, because fish are not built the same. So you are arguing that evolution should give an ichthyosaur fish features and should not. Heads if it's homoplastic fish-features, evolution wins, tails if it's NOT fish features like the tail bone, evolution wins again, because evolution predicts both.LOL!Thus essentially you are reasoning in a circle. That some features are because of divergence, but the features are the prediction of divergence, which evidence it, but then the evidence becomes the prediction, pointing back to divergence, which points to the features, which points to divergence, which points to the features.I can accept that if evolution were true there may be homologies, but it counts as falsification of evolutionary divergence if there are homologies you re-brand, "homoplasies". After all, a marsupial isn't in the same clade as a placental, so it's a matter of picking and choosing which type of evolution isn't it. If there are homoplasies that break evolution, you re-brand them convergent evolution. Funny how ANY and ALL evidence is expected from evolution.You haven't answered my challenge which is a logical one. If we find ANY new creature, how do we falsify evolution? If we can call some features "unique" such as the pelican spider's head shape, or "homoplastic" or, "homologous", since it seems none of those things can falsify evolution then that covers heads, tails and the side of the coin."Mike, I win 100 dollars if I flip heads, tails or the side of the coin, now please try and win the game by flipping your coin". "Nonsensical" is a question-begging-epithet.JUST STATING I speak "nonsense" STATING, I know not what I say, all counts as the bare-assertion, begging-the-question fallacies.Do the readers notice how I don't need to state things about Dr A but in every single post he posts in response to me he relies on PROPAGANDA "he knows not what he is talking about", and buz-words about mike, "nonsense", "poor reading comprehension".I think by now anyone of reasonable intelligence can see that not only do I not speak nonsense nor not understand what I say, but I very overtly do understand.I would prefer to discuss these things with RAZD because he is a genuine intellect in my opinion, because he does not use propaganda to attack me with.All you have in your arsenal is prejudice against creationists.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Gould wasn't talking about hydraulic sorting though was he, Mike? If you think about it, there is a difference between the word 'hydrological' and the term 'hydrological sorting'. Your first clue should be in the number of words - the first has one, the second has two - in case you were having difficulty with that. Not even remotely astute, and your lack of epistemic humility backfires yet again.

I think it MAY be time for the moderators, such as the very objective Adminemoose, to perhaps look at some of Dr A's posts towards me, he very, very consistently attacks me personally in every single post it seems, implying in every post without any exceptions, that I speak nonsense, cannot read, don't know anything, am a nitwit, and don't qualify to debate any matter.Isn't one of the forum rules to avoid attacking the person constantly?I accept I am repulsive to people because I am a creationist, by I myself have consistently REFRAINED from attacking the character of Dr A. He also posts these attacks as assertions, without providing reasoning or evidence for the charges against me. Fair enough if he actually could show some error I have made, for then I could try and learn from the error and move on, but he doesn't.If RAZD and others I have spoken with such as modulous, and others in the past, can use exemplary manners, to the point where I derive pleasure just from reading their well crafted posts even if I don't fully agree with them, then why can't Dr A at least behave in a civilised way?I am not saying, "ban him", but it would be nice if he could learn to behave in a mature way some time before his his 90th birthday.

Modulous, in this link, the evolutionists respond by use of the term, "hydrological sorting", meaning they permit the term. So even if Gould didn't use the term, the same, logically all I have to do is show that evolutionists DO use the term in the same way, and your point becomes a MOOT point.The fact is, evolutionists have used the same term. It's hair-splitting also, the point is "hydrological" is a perfectly usable term, I see no reason to use it as a lame attempt at a No-True-Scotsman-fallacy.CH561.2: Hydrologic sorting The term, "again", is a question-begging-epithet, because it IMPLIES it happens, "often"And it wasn't a lack of humility. Humility is the low view/value of one's importance, not LIES. It would be LIES and false humility to say, "I am not astute" or to hide a statement of fact. "astute" just means to accurately assess, which I don't think gives me great and unique importance or immense genius but I think it does give me pleasure against outspoken propaganda trolls, if I can respond knowing I have that advantage over them, for it then reveals that their great, swelling boasts against creationists, are unfounded such as the opening message which is riddled with fallacious content.Edited by mike the wiz, : spelling errors again guys, fast typing, I PROMISE I won't use the term, "unpresidented". Edited by mike the wiz, : and you only said, "epistemic" to sound smart, as you have a tendency towards pomp. Is that humble? Yeah - see how I knew that? "SMOKIN!!!" - Jim Carrey - The Mask.
"you're good kid, but as long as I'm around you'll always be second best, see?" - Jim Carrey - The Mask. (mikey mischief complete)

My point was that you were wrong about Gould. Since you more or less admit this, I'd say it wasn't moot, but conceded. It does Mike. We have been doing this on and off for a decade. It was the lack of epistemic humility. Epistemic humility is the idea that when you make pronouncements you indicate that you understand you might be wrong. Pronouncing that 'I have astutely spotted' is epistemic arrogance. This is arrogance, and the lack of humility, should it turn out to be false, can bite you in the behind. Something that seems to regularly happen. Except when you make mistakes, which you often do, and then your preening about your intellectual superiority and advantages looks utterly foolish.

quote:

---

and you only said, "epistemic" to sound smart

---

No, I used 'epistemic' because I meant something specific. Google 'epistemic humility' for fuck's sake. You need to learn it desperately.

quote:

---

you have a tendency towards pomp

---

Ad hominem. Stop being such a dick, Mike. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Well I don't know why I have wound you up so much. You do seem to have spent all your energy on debating mike, rather than showing how I can falsify evolution if it predicts all of the facts.There's one thing you must understand about mike, and some here probably do understand it. "Mischief" is mike's middle name. That means 95% of my boastings are designed to wind people up, or at least, this is my sense-of-humour but a heavy dosage of smilies is meant to indicate playfulness.But when I said I, "astutely" spotted, perhaps that was a moment of slight boasting so as to rub Dr A's nose in it. So I apologise for that one as I apologised to Paul K when I thought he was correct that I had a moment of boast. In that moment perhaps I was guilty.But put yourself in my shoes and read message one.Don't forget I am the minority and from my perspective Dr A in message one is simply being derogatory towards creation scientists with this focus on semantics pertaining the the old hydrologicalism. What difference does it really make? Dr A believes completely, that only evolutionists are scientists, and only evolutionists have a functional brain and only evolutionists have genuine knowledge but my experience of creation scientists is the opposite. Try reading the book by Dr Sarfati; "The Greatest Hoax on earth" if you think creation scientists are all dumb heads that haven't studied. You shouldn't play with sharp objects (mike being the sharp object) - Patrick Swayze - Steel Dawn.Are you cut? You sound it. "I'm gonna be prayin' for ya.." - Eddie Murphy's priest - Coming To America.But when we emote we usually are the cause of our own cut. Why do you feel the need to say all these things to me? My words aren't designed to irritate you, I suggest you have irritated yourself.You have deep issues against super-mike, I suggest you take Patrick Swayze's advice; "I told you not to play with sharp objects!" Swayze - Steel Dawn. (oh come one now. SOMEONE please tell me they can perceive mischief, are you guys dried up totally? Where's your sense of mikey fun?

Feel free to get back to somewhere close to the topic rather than talking about Me and You.The Theory of Evolution doesn't necessarily 'predict' all the specific facts. It can explain most of them in a parsimonious fashion. As a piece of advice: If you go around with the attitude you do, be prepared for it to be reflected back at you. I can see your mischief, and Dr A's acerbic wit in his retorts and my dry deadpan variants thereof. Just stop getting distracted by it!Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm not sure that confusion doesn't still exist in Mike's mind about what we're truly saying. First he should understand what we're not saying. While there exists accepted scientific terminology that can be very helpful for clarity, we're not saying that terms of non-scientific origin are off limits to scientists, and certainly not that mere use of a term indicates some form of acceptance of the associated concepts.Dr A's original point way way back was that the idea of "hydrological sorting" as the motive force behind creation of most of the geological layers of Earth originated with creationists. Later this was somehow confused with the term "hydraulic" in the context of efficiency of creatures swimming through water. Mike must understand that these are two very different things.--Percy

Creationists use the term in an attempt to describe an alleged real event. Evolutionists use the term to refer to the creationist's failed attempt to explain the order of the fossil record. We do NOT use the term to describe reality 4,500-odd years ago.Bet you didn't read you link.

That amuses me as an assertion, which is all it is.Is it parsimonious to explain the general stasis of forms by invoking millions on non-existent transitional species?Or is it more parsimonious to explain designer-necessity as a real life problem for intelligently designed things, WITHOUT invoking millions of entities?Are you sure you understand what the term, "parsimonious", means? (google: The principle of parsimony)For example it can be shown that with designs we all agree are designed, such as vehicles, there are certain types of design which form a hierarchy as a cladogram.For example, cars, planes and bicycles, all require braking-mechanisms and wheels. This means we have 100% KNOWLEDGE/PROOF that similar features in very different designs, can AND ARE used by designers, even the same designers. Dyson will use motors in his vacuums but he may also use motors in a different appliance.So if I have a bat with echolocation, and an oil bird with echolocation and a whale with echolocation, is it there by evolution simply by the assertion it was converged upon by evolution, or is the feature there because of design-necessity, which also explains why all of the intermediate forms for oil birds, bats, and whales, are conspicuously absent.(don't confuse conspicuous absence with argumentum ad ignorantiam, or you're falling right into a mikey-trap.)That's all I have to say for now at EvC forum. I precisely PLAN my measure of activity so as it favours my position rather than yours. If I continue to let people indulge themselves in personal attacks on mikey, very soon it will turn into a neurotic agreement about several things about the person, "mike". This can be called, "rankism" (google it). it tends to happen when one minority mikey soldier is pissing against the wind of a thousand evo-soldiers. It would not be very clever to FEED those tactics like I see so many creationists do. Sometimes you have to give the beast enough food for him to live, but not enough for him to devour you, there is a particular area between him eating you alive and having him on a chain to play with at your disposal.Never mind my dear Watson, mikey- Bond shall return in ......Mikey Bond, evo-crusher sequel number 27"Merry Christmas you filthy animal" - Mobster guy - Home Alone.

Strawman fallacy Percy. I have never argued that I don't understand the difference between X and P. Thus you are trying to DIVERT the attention to what "mike does or does not understand" which is a fallacy-of-diversion. I have not even discussed what hydro-sorting is or is not, nor do I believe creationists make the claim that it is responsible for the majority of sorting in the fossils, of which I have read the sorting diminishes as we find more species out-of-place.My specific complaint was that Dr A said "hydrological sorting" was referred to by real scientists as, "hydraulic" but Gould and other evolutionists online, seem to also use the term, "hydrological", meaning if your argument is that this means creationists aren't real scientists then your argument is predicated on that term being a solely creationist term.What "we are truly saying" is not up for debate, what a particular member said, specifically, IS.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Hi Mike,I'm a participant not a moderator in this thread so I can't offer you any kind of relief, but I will try to make a few helpful comments.First, you do have a tendency towards self-congratulation while in the midst of significant gaffes. Moderators cannot tell people, "Please ignore significant gaffes expressed with conceit." It would be equivalent to asking people to ignore the elephant in the middle of the room. I know Dr A's responses are full of sarcasm and mockery, and I know this must seem like it's against the forum guidelines, and it would be if the gaffes were occasional and then corrected, but they're persistent and frequent and often beyond belief. Dr A shouldn't be treating you this way, but you shouldn't be relentlessly irrational and illogical. When several attempts at explanation all fall victim to misunderstanding and misinterpretation, what is one's next course? Another patient explanation?Second, I know you can't agree you're being irrational and illogical. After all, how could it be thus after all the effort you've put into understanding logical fallacies and reasoning through the evidence logically? I can't answer that question, but your way of looking at evidence has taken you to some pretty strange and logically inconsistent places.Lastly I'd suggest just making sure your arguments are always consistent with reality. That won't make all your arguments right, but it will greatly reduce the number and severity of the errors.--Percy

Correct. But then, all I've seen from you is assertions too. No; but then I don't do that. I explain the general stasis of 'forms' using the heritability of traits. This requires few entities, all of which are uncontroversial and I certainly don't need the theory of evolution to explain it. You've invoked a new entity here Mike. An intelligent designer. This is not parsimonious. Yes I do.For instance, although explaining fire in terms of energy release caused by chemical interactions requires billions and billions of atoms to explain. This is not unparsimonious compared to say inventing 'phlogiston' specifically for this problem because those billions of atoms also explain all other chemical interactions at the same time.I think you've confused what the entities in question mean. It's not that there are many atoms that means there are many entities. The entities are1) Energy
2) Atoms {and their associated electrons}Indeed when we realize that atoms are just a form of energy the only entity to explain fire is 'energy' which also explains every physical interaction we know about. So it's a parsimonious explanation even though the universe has say 10⁸⁰ atoms.Otherwise the most parsimonious explanation for life is that it was all created NOW, your parents are fictions of your mind, as are all other animals, bacteria etc etc. Which is clearly silly. The hierarchy you make, however, is subjective. I can make a hierarchy of animals using physical traits and make a hierarchy of animals using DNA and find the same hierarchies forming. They are nested like a family tree.I suppose the fact that I have my mother's lips and eyes, but my father's intellect could be because some designer decided to take the ideas of my mother and father and combine them to create me. But that seems a little absurd doesn't it? Especially given what we know about inheritance. Well feel free to explain how they got there through design-necessity. I await your theory. Remember it needs to also explain why marsupial mice and placental mice may look similar but have very different genomes. Good luck. No, they aren't. Yes, I've noticed you drop a bunch of assertions and leave when they are challenged. Get over yourself Mike. I'm here to talk about evolution vs creationism. Tell me how I got my mother's eyes through the action of a designer. Tell me how my fingers came to be through the action of a designer...let us count the entities you need to do this.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Obviously. Is that really what you meant to say? I didn't express it that way, but some people calling themselves creationists claim it was a significant factor, like This Article at Answers in Genesis. Reality, Mike.Other creationists make different claims, we understand that. Yes, you've repeated this many times, but why are you including your incorrect argument about Gould? That makes no sense.In any case, you continue to miss the important point. It isn't the term that's important, it's the concept. There *is* such a thing as hydraulic sorting (for the creationist slant see Experiments in Stratification over at ICR). I think "hydrological sorting" is probably same thing, but who knows. But whatever you call it, this sorting as an explanation for the order of geological layers and the placement of fossils within them is a creationist idea that lacks real world support. When scientists use one of these terms to refer to this idea they are not likely offering support for it. In all likelihood they are arguing against.--Percy

Hi Mike,A couple of notes in addition to what Mod said. Length is mostly a function of laying out the lineages rather than my normal verbosity . It is more accurate to talk about a common ancestor population, because populations evolve rather than individuals, and populations can split to form daughter populations that can become reproductively isolated and then evolve differently in different ecologies. There was a wonderful website called Paleos that linked the evolutionary natural history and you could surf up and down through the intermediate fossils and derived fossils. It has been undergoing reconstruction and I have not spent time on it recently, but I looked up "therapsid" (as the ancestor population to all mammals, as discussed above in my post Message 1114) and I was able to find these links:

quote:

---

Paleos: Therapsida

​

Abbreviated Dendrogram
...

THERAPSIDA
|-Raranimus
`+-Biarmosuchia
`-+--Dinocephalia
|  |--Anteosauria
|  `--Tapinocephalia
`--+--Anomodontia
|  |--Venyukovioidea
|  `--Dicynodontia
`--Theriodontia
|--Gorgonopsia
`--+--Therocephalia
`--CYNODONTIA

​

... Their evolutionary success was unfortunately cut short by the end Permian extinction event, and although a number of lineages made it through to the Triassic, their protomammalian metabolism put them at a disadvantage in a hot dry Triassic world far more suited to sauropsid reptiles, and increasingly dominated by thecodontian archosaurs. They survived by becoming progressively smaller and more mammal-like, except for the dicynodonts which if anything became larger. By the time the dinosaurs had appeared, the therapsids had given rise to the first mammals, although one lineage of rodent-like, non-mammalian therapsids, the tritylodonts, would continue to the Middle Cretaceous. MAK120127

---

It appears this site is still being reconstructed, but some parts are working. This site should certainly give Mindspawn pause in his claims regarding a lack of intermediates.Note that the "abbreviated dendrogram" is all hyperlinked so you can click on {`--CYNODONTIA} and move to

quote:

---

Abbreviated Dendrogram
...

CYNODONTIA
|--Procynosuchidae
`--+--Galesauridae
`--Eucynodontia
|--Cynognathia
|  |--Cynognathidae
|  `--Tritylodontidae
`--Probainognathia
|--Tritheledontidae
`--MAMMALIAFORMES

---

Clicking on {`--MAMMALIAFORMES} takes me to an "under construction" page, but reentering the site with "mammaliformes" takes me to:

quote:

---

Mammaliformes: Overview

​

Mammaliformes Cladogram
...

Mammaliformes
|--Allotheria
|  |--Haramiyida
|  `--Multituberculata
|     |--Paulchoffatiidae
|     `--+--Gondwanatheria
|        `--Cimolodonta
`--+--Morganucodontidae
`--+--Docodonta
|  |--Megazostrodontidae
|  `--Docodontidae
`--+--Hadrocodium
`--Symmetrodonta
|--Kuehneotheriidae
|
            
MAMMALIA

---

Note that this is a newer page, as it uses the term "Cladogram" rather than "Dendrogram", and we are back to the lineage in question.You can also see "Hadrocodium" here (Mods common ancestor in his response).Clicking on {MAMMALIA} takes you to

quote:

---

Abbreviated Dendrogram
...

MAMMALIA
|--Australosphenida
|  |--Ausktribosphenidae
|  `--Monotremata
`--+--Triconodonta
`--+--Spalacotheroidea
`--Cladotheria
|--Dryolestoidea
`--Theria
|
|--METATHERIA
`--EUTHERIA

---

Metatheria are the marsupials branch, and Eutheria are the placental mammals branch. Note also the branch to Monotremata under Mammalia, and these are the monotremes (like the platypus and echidna) ancestors.Clicking on {`--Theria} takes me to another "under construction" page, and reentering the site with "Theria" takes me to:

quote:

---

Theria

​

Theria: Deltatherium, Kielantherium. LCA wallabies and Wallace.

​

Range: Fr mK.

​

Phylogeny: Cladotheria: Dryolestoidea + *: Metatheria + Eutheria.

​

Characters: No quadrate-articular jaw articulation; all post-dentary bones incorporated into middle ear; tribosphenic molar; jaw opened by digastric muscle (ennervated by Vth & VIIth nerves); $ facial muscles (derived from neck constrictor colli, VIIth nerve); $ spiral cochlea; auditory pinna (external ear); $ able to seal pharynx with tongue and/or epiglottis (for suckling, swallowing by mouthfuls); scapula with supraspinous fossa; loss or fusion of coracoid elements; scapulae move independently around its dorsal border, held in place only by muscles and soft tissues of "scapular sling"; $ supracoracoideus (humeral protractor) reorganized as infraspinatus and supraspinatus which stabilize humerus; $ crurotarsal ankle joint with flexion between tibia and astragalus, astragalus proximal to calcaneum, and gastrocnemius inserting on calcaneal heel; $ mammary glands with nipples (derived from apocrine or sebaceous glands); $ viviparity, with no egg shell; separate anal & urogenital openings; skin with free nerve endings (pain receptor?), Pacinian corpuscles, growing hair, sebaceous, apocrine (and eccrine glands in some specialized forms), and numerous neuroreceptors for touch, temperature, stretch, etc.

---

These are the descriptive traits for the common ancestor population to marsupial and placental mammals.Now we can also work from the other end, starting with "flying squirrel" on wikipedia:

quote:

---

Flying Squirrel

​

Flying squirrels (scientifically known as Pteromyini or Petauristini) are a tribe of 44 species of squirrels in the family Sciuridae. They are not capable of flight in the same way as birds or bats but are able to glide from one tree to another with the aid of a patagium, a furry, parachute-like membrane that stretches from wrist to ankle. Their long tail provides stability in flight. Anatomically they are very similar to other squirrels but have a number of adaptations to suit their life style; their limb bones are longer and their hand, foot bones and distal vertebrae are shorter. While flying they are able to steer and exert control over their glide path with their limbs and tail.

​

Molecular studies have shown that flying squirrels are monophyletic and originated some 18—20 million years ago ...

​

Scientific classification:
Kingdom:   Animalia
Phylum:    Chordata
Clade:     Synapsida
Class:     Mammalia
Family:    Sciuridae
Subfamily: Sciurinae
Tribe:     Pteromyini

---

and a quick return to Paleos gives this (excerpted):

quote:

---

Eutheria
|--Erinaceomorpha
`--+--Muridae
`--+--+--+--Thryonomyidae
|  |  `--Caviidae
|  `--+--Sciuridae

---

Linking us back to Eutheria. Likewise, we can also work from the other end, starting with "sugar glider" on wikipedia:

quote:

---

Sugar glider

​

The sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps) is a small, omnivorous, arboreal, and nocturnal gliding possum belonging to the marsupial infraclass. The common name refers to its preference for sugary nectarous foods and ability to glide through the air, much like a flying squirrel.[5] They have very similar appearance and habits to the flying squirrel despite not being closely related, an example of convergent evolution.[6] The scientific name, Petaurus breviceps, translates from Latin as "short-headed rope-dancer", a reference to their canopy acrobatics.[7]

​

Scientific classification:
Kingdom:     Animalia
Phylum:      Chordata
Class:       Mammalia
Infraclass:  Marsupialia
Order:       Diprotodontia
Family:      Petauridae
Genus:       Petaurus

---

Going back to Paleos again we don't find {Petauridae} but we do find {Diprotodontia}

quote:

---

Abbreviated Dendrogram
​
MAMMALIA
|--EUTHERIA

Metatheria
|--Ameridelphia
|  |--Didelphimorphia
|  `--Paucituberculata
`--Australidelphia
|--Microbiotheria
`--+--+--Dasyuromorphia
|  `--Notoryctemorphia
`--+--Peramelina
`--Diprotodontia

​

Diprotodontia: kangaroos, potoos, wombats, koalas, etc.

​

Range: fr upOc of Aus.

​

Phylogeny: Australidelphia::: Peramelina + *.

​

Characters: Herbivorous & omniverous forms plus Thylacoleo. Jaw shortened; diprotodont (not surprisingly) = large pair of procumbent incisors on lower jaw; 3 pairs of upper incisors; no lower canines; heavy tail common; elongated hind limbs; frequent syndactyly (second and third digits on the feet fused up to the base of the claws, with the claws not being fused); hallux absent; males do not show evidence of mammary glands; jumping locomotion very common; mostly herbivorous, with some insectivores (plus Thylacoleo).

---

Going back to wikipedia and following the link for {Petauridae}:

quote:

---

Petauridae

​

The family Petauridae includes 11 medium-sized possum species: four striped possums, six species of wrist-winged gliders in the genus Petaurus and Leadbeater's possum, which has only vestigial gliding membranes. Most of the wrist-winged gliders are native to Australia, most of the striped possums (genus Dactylopsila) to New Guinea, but some members of each are found on both sides of the Torres Strait.

​

All petaurids have obvious facial markings, a well-defined dorsal stripe, very large lower front incisors, and four-cusped molars. Despite their distinctive appearance, petaurids are closely related to the ringtail possums (family Pseudocheiridae) and are grouped together with them to form the superfamily Petauroidea.

​

Genus Petaurus

​

• Northern glider, Petaurus abidi
• Yellow-bellied glider, Petaurus australis
• Biak glider, Petaurus biacensis
• Sugar glider, Petaurus breviceps
• Mahogany glider, Petaurus gracilis
• Squirrel glider, Petaurus norfolcensis

---

So the sugar glider is one of 7 gliding possums. Continuing with wikipedia to Diprotodontia to link then back to the Paleos data:

quote:

---

Diprotodontia

​

Order DIPROTODONTIA

​

• Genus Brachalletes
• Genus Koalemas
• Genus Sthenomerus
• Genus Nimbadon
• Family Maradidae
• Suborder Vombatiformes
  • Family Phascolarctidae: koala (one species)
  • Family Vombatidae: wombats (three species)
  • Family Ilariidae
  • Family Diprotodontidae
  • Family Palorchestidae
  • Family Thylacoleonidae (marsupial lions)[5]
    
  • Family Wynyardiidae
• Suborder Phalangeriformes
  • Superfamily Phalangeroidea
    • Family Phalangeridae: brushtail possums and cuscuses
    • Family Burramyidae: pygmy possums
  • Superfamily Petauroidea
    • Family Tarsipedidae: honey possum
    • Family Petauridae (striped possum, Leadbeater's possum, yellow-bellied glider, sugar glider, mahogany glider, squirrel glider)
    • Family Pseudocheiridae: ringtailed possums and allies
    • Family Acrobatidae: (feathertail glider and feather-tailed possum)
• Suborder Macropodiformes
  • Family Balbaridae : basal quadrupedal kangaroos
  • Family Macropodidae: kangaroos, wallabies and allies
  • Family Potoroidae: bettongs, potaroos, and rat-kangaroos
  • Family Hypsiprymnodontidae: musky rat-kangaroo

​

means extinct family, genus or species.

---

And there we are with the lineage of descent of the flying squirrel and the sugar glider, back to their common ancestor {Theria} (and also all the way back to the first mammals at {Therapsida}).A similar lineage can be shown for Pelycodus discussed in Message 1114, with the added note that we can go up from Pelycodus to Adapiformes and their modern day descendants via the Paleos site:

quote:

---

Abbreviated Dendrogram
...
`--+--Adapiformes
`--+--Darwinius
`--Haplorhini
|--Tarsiiformes
`--Anthropoidea
|--Platyrrhini
`--Hominoidea

---

and clicking on Hominoidea gives us:

quote:

---

Abbreviated Dendrogram
...
`--Hominoidea
|--Hylobatidae
`--Hominidae
|--Ponginae
`--Homininae

---

and clicking on Homininae gives us:

quote:

---

Abbreviated Dendrogram
...
`--Homininae
|--Samburupithecus
|--Nakalipithecus
`--+--Gorillini
|   |--Chororapithecus
|   `--Gorilla
`--+--Sahelanthropus
`--+--Pan
`--Hominini

---

And clicking on Hominini gives us:

quote:

---

Abbreviated Dendrogram
...
`--Hominini
|--Ardipithecus
`--+--Australopithecus afarensis
|?--Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis)
`--+--Australopithecus africanus
`--+--Paranthropus
|  |?--Paranthropus aethiopicus
|  `--+--Paranthropus robustus
|     `--Paranthropus boisei
`--+--Kenyanthropus
`--Homo

---

eg ... Us. Linked to apadiforms by descent from common ancestor populations ...As Dr A says, we have the fossils, we win.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : bold, linkages