Oh boy!! MORE heads!
Mammal-Like Reptiles
As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).
|
|
Comparisons
M. Eyes = ?
Nose = ?
Teeth incisors = ?
K. Eyes = ?
Nose = pointy
Teeth incisors = smaller fangs
J. Eyes = Medium
Nose = stubby
Teeth incisors = BIGGER fangs
I. Eyes = Medium
Nose = more pointy
Teeth incisors = big fangs
H. Eyes = Bigger
Nose = more blunt
Teeth incisors = Even more
G. Eyes = real SMALL
Nose = Real pointy
Teeth incisors = More
F. Eyes = Smaller
Nose = Blunt
Teeth incisors = Thin, less
E. Eyes = HUGE!
Nose = pointy, again
Teeth incisors = Smaller
D. Eyes = Smaller
Nose = Holes bigger
Teeth incisors = Bigger
C. Eyes = Huge, again!
Nose = broader
Teeth incisors = very small
B. Eyes = less huge
Nose = narrower
Teeth incisors = ??
A. Eyes = big
Nose = rounded
Teeth incisors = small
|
Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .
Are you convinced yet?
Oscillating eye sizes,
head shapes that shift back and forth,
teeth that are large, then small, then large again.
Yeah; I believe this stuff!
(The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here. )
There are some Evo's who think... "It effectively demolishes the entire creationist argument. Excellent reading!" After seeing these pix; do you?
The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here. In the interest of full-disclosure, the source of the chart in Elsie's post is the New Orleans Geological Society. They published two articles written by Clifford Cuffey, and copies of these articles are hosted with permission on the website of the Gulf Coast Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. They're a small professional organization under the The Society for Sedimentary Geology.
Here is their introduction to the article:
The American educational system has been under attack for some time as doing a poor job of educating students; many of the criticisms are very justified. However, parts of the cure are worse than disease. One of the cures that religous Christian fundamentalists propose is the teaching of creationism as a viable alternative to evolution. Creationists generally state that they do not deny the tenets of science, just that evolution did not occur. Unfortunately, this comment is generally not true: if you are a true Creationist, you also deny some fundamental principles of physics. Once this is accepted, science becomes witchcraft.
Many creationists wrap themselves in the robe of rightousness claiming their belief in the name of God. Several years ago, the Pope declared that the Catholic Church accepts the fact that religion must agree with science. I can not think of any single fact which shows more clearly that one has nothing to do with the other.
Evolution is Not Anti-Religous. The hostility of creationists toward the sciences that deal with human and cosmic origins stems from fundamentalist conviction that evolution threatens religion. This is not true.
The sciences concerned with the past can discover much of what happened long agol how, where, and when events occurred. But they can not discover the purpose or destiny of human existence. Such ideas lie within the mind of each individual and are the domain of religion, mortality, and philosophy. Science can not, and does not, pretend that it will ever be able to answer all the questions of life.
The great philosopheers and scientists who illuminated the 17th and 18th centuries- so called Age of Reason- taught that science was a way of learning about God by studying His creation, and this view is still held by many religous Americans today. To attack science in the name of religious orthodoxy is detrimental to both science and religion.
Because of the seriousness of the situation, the New Orleans Geological Society has published two articles on the subject written by Clifford Cuffey. We salute their foresight and courage. We are pleased to reproduce the articles here with their permission.
