Amid all the talk about what students don’t know, there was a news item last week that gives me hope: Michigan fifth-grader Kenton Stufflebeam, on a recent trip to the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., noticed a mistake in a display about prehistoric time.
The exhibit identified the Precambrian as an “era,†but Stufflebeam remembered that his teacher had told him that the Precambrian was a dimensionless unit of time.
Did you know that? Of course you did.
Museum officials admitted the error and are correcting the display. At least some students, it seems, are paying attention in class.
38 Comments
Good catch kiddo.
And yeah, I can honestly say that I knew that.
Semantics.
The kid will probably grow up to be a Republican political pundit.
I’m glad that this 5th grader is being taught about the Cambrian Era and the dimensionless period of time preceding it.
Perhaps, his science teacher took the time to explain a key difficulty in the theory of evolution due to the stark differences between fossils in the Cambrian Era and the nearly complete lack of fossils in Pre-Cambrian time period.
Fully developed (non-transitional forms) of living and extinct species are found FIRST in abundance in the Cambrian rock strata.
“Except for forms enigmatic forms, all modern animal phyla with a fossil record, except bryozoa, are represented in the Cambrian.”
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianFossils.htm
Where are the fossils of animals that the Cambrian organisms evolved from?
“I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record”
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/dawkins-why-int.html
-Atheistic theologian Dawkins
Were they planted by space aliens Dawkins?
Actually frl, if you understand the idea of small populations being a critical component of evolutionary change the gaps are much easier to explain. It is actually rather rare for any individual palnt/animal to leave behind a fossil – conditions of burial must be just right. So, with LARGE populations we will have a decent record even though working with a very small percentage. However, with a small population that small percentage makes it less likely that (a) fossils will be left and (b) we will stumble across those fossils.
When we study paleontology we see what is called ‘punctuated equilibrium’ process. When populations are large they tend to remain fairly stable with only incremental change. It is when an upset occurs and a species pushed to near extinction that more significant change occurs – or the line ends. That is why there was such an explosion in the Cambrian (after the mass extinction at the end of the pre-Cambrian); at the beginning of the Triassic (after the P-T mass extinction) and at the beginning ot the Tertiary (after the K-T ‘dinosaur’ mass extinction).
Way to go, Kenton. Can you maybe take a look at the federal budget and find the hidden pork:-)
“It is when an upset occurs and a species pushed to near extinction that more significant change occurs – or the line ends.”
-Ben
If near extinction causes evolutionary change, then proven extinctions since the Cambrian Era would yield evidence of evolutionary pressures to change!
So were are the transitional forms since the Cambrian era?
Do you have an understanding of how many species have been proven to have gone extinct since the Cambrian Era? Many order of magnitudes above the number 1. Which means, many of the organisms doubtless should have undergone evolutionary pressures. Yet, we have no evidence of such.
Ben, you may, like Darwin, have faith that those fossils have existed, but withough evidence how can you be so sure and still claim that your belief is based on evidence?
“But it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are. We do not know all the possible transitional gradations between the simplest and the most perfect organs; it cannot be pretended that we know all the varied means of Distribution during the long lapse of years, or that we know how imperfect the Geological Record is.”
-Darwin
150+ years of paleontology and anthropologic explorations since Darwin, still no missing link despite the obvious proof that numberous species have gone extinct. Such extinctions according to Ben, should have caused evolutionary change. No Evidence.
“No Evidence.”
Here we go again . . . again . . . again.
Pre-Cambrian is another term for “Our carbon dating tests don’t go back that far in time.” :)
rfl, so many distortions, so little time.
1) There are plenty of transitional fossils between the Cambrian and now. This simply a repeated falsehood.
2) Do you even KNOW what sorts of fossils consistute the “Cambrian Explosion”? Do you know that there are no amphibians, no reptiles, mammals or birds. The chordates are represented mostly by animals that would not be recognized as fish, and a type of jawless fish that does not resemble anything we see today or even anything after the Ordovician.
3) Mass extinctions set the stage for massive change. Lots of organisms die out, and those few that survive account for the diversity that is seen in later forms. That is why the Cambrian is so suggestive. There were multiple varieties of bilateral symmetrical body plans, far more than not only we see now (although from what I understand the late Stephen J. Gould may have exaggerated the variety in his book Wonderful Life), but in the fossil record after the Cambrian ended. Now, there was and is considerable diversity in later fossil records and now, but the interesting thing is, there is less variety in “basic” body plans. This is suggestive of a) a mass extinction event at the end of the Cambrian and b) the survivors with the surviving body plans left descendents that account for later diversity.
4) Ben was right on about populations and punctuated equilibrium. The modern synthesis, which introduced reproductive isolation and genetic drift, actually predicted this sort of pattern. And the fact is, you still see transitional forms within “punctuated equilibrium”. For example, in the Permian Era you see mammal like reptiles, in the following Triassic you see both mammal like reptiles that look more similar to later mammals and primitive mammals with some characteristics of earlier therapsids (mammal like reptiles). By the late Triassic and the Jurassic, you just see mammals.
“I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: ‘It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.’ Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore ‘gaps’ in the fossil record.”
Do you know what Dawkins is referring to? Quote mining, which is a documented creationist strategy.
Regular was doing it (I suspect for trollish fun) from the snopes website last night. It’s where you take a snippit from what someone wrote to make it look like they were saying something completely different.
“Pre-Cambrian is another term for ‘Our carbon dating tests don’t go back that far in time.’”
Re: Regular
DNFTT
regular – actually, carbon-dating gets limited a lot less far back than the pre-canbrian. That is why we use U/Pb, K/Ar etc etc etc.
“Yet, we have no evidence of such.”
False statement. We see all sorts of those at the various boundaries.
“1)There are plenty of transitional fossils between the Cambrian and now. This simply a repeated falsehood”
1. How many opportunities have you had to list one during the past few days?
“2)Do you even KNOW what sorts of fossils consistute the “Cambrian Explosion”
Yes I do KNOW. Exactly the type of fossils that have gone extinct WITHOUT leaving any transitional forms.
“3)Mass extinctions set the stage for massive change. Lots of organisms die out, and those few that survive account for the diversity that is seen in later forms”
False.
There is a much greater diversity of organisms in the Cambrian fossil collection than the same type of organism that we have found alive today. The trend as clearly revealed in the fossil record is to less diversity due to extinction.
“For example, in the Permian Era you see mammal like reptiles”
ksagnostic makes first attempt at listing a transition form without giving any specifics.
You mean like the Duck Tailed Platypus? A semi aquatic mammal that lays eggs like a reptile? Does this make it a transitional form? If so from which reptile?
Or what about Archeaopteryx? Proven bird that was purported to be a reptile because of webbed claws?
A reptile having mammal like characteristics or a mammal having reptile like characteristics or a bird with reptile like characteristics does NOT make it a transitional form.
“Expelled” comes out April 18th. It documents the fearful and spiteful retaliation against scientists who dare suggest the possibility of a Designer. It’s ironic then to see what Richard Dawkins said as set out below.
It must be on target because it is catching a lot of flack from Darwinists. The movie blog is full of them.
——————-
“Stein resorts to no such tricks. He gives certain interview subjects all the time and all the rope they need to hang themselves, unedited.
One highlight among many is Stein’s one-on-one interview with Richard Dawkins, the dashing Brit who has made a small fortune as the world’s most visible neo-Darwinist.
To his credit, and to the utter discomfort of the public education establishment, Dawkins does not shy from discussing the atheistic implications of Darwinism.
Indeed, Dawkin’s anti-deity call to arms, “The God Delusion,” has sold more than a million copies worldwide. Where Dawkins wanders into a black hole of his own making is in his discussion of the origins of life on earth.
To Stein’s astonishment, Dawkins concedes that life might indeed have a designer but that designer almost assuredly was a more highly evolved being from another planet, not “God.”
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58119
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
Duck Tailed Platypus s/b Duck-billed platypus.
“that designer almost assuredly was a more highly evolved being from another planet, not “God.””
The Space Alien theory is looking better and better every day!
Ben
Posted April 7, 2008 at 9:13 am | Permalink
regular – actually, carbon-dating gets limited a lot less far back than the pre-canbrian. That is why we use U/Pb, K/Ar etc etc etc
——————————————
I know Ben.
Why, just this morning I did an exponential decay study on my breakfast cereal as it failed to float in milk and was leaving sedimentary deposits on my spoon. :)
I’m getting the very irritating “your comment is awaiting moderation” notice.
Evolution is a scientific model that explains the diversity of life on earth.
No scientific model is perfect. The big b*ng model of the origin of the universe for example has some unexplained questions too, which is where the idea of “dark matter” is postulated to try to explain the problem of observed gravitation.
Simply pointing out weaknesses in the model in no way refutes it. Refutation would require a competing model, which you evolution deniers aren’t even close to.
Until you have got that, you have got nothing.
Inevitably, when it comes right down to it, the Evolution supporters will admit the truth.
That Evolution is the “best” answer right now. It doesn’t matter if it is true, how many lies it is based on, how many assumptions are made… it is the “best”
Hardly science at all.
“Simply pointing out weaknesses in the model in no way refutes it. Refutation would require a competing model”
Reference Capn’s digression AWAY from the evidence. This is the texbook response by an evolutionist when confronted with irrefutable evidence that highly disproves their theory.
Evolution is based on evidence? Yeah right, stay on the evidence if you want us to believe that.
“‘1)There are plenty of transitional fossils between the Cambrian and now. This simply a repeated falsehood.’”
“1. How many opportunities have you had to list one during the past few days?”
I actually have referenced some. You evidently are so intent on writing your “no huh uh” response that you are not paying attention. Transitionals are a reality.
“”2)Do you even KNOW what sorts of fossils consistute the “Cambrian Explosion?’”
“Yes I do KNOW. Exactly the type of fossils that have gone extinct WITHOUT leaving any transitional forms.”
Actually, the answer is no, you don’t. Not all of the forms went extinct without leaving any transitonal forms (an almost incoherent statement, by the way). Some of the forms DO manifest body plans seen today. Later forms manifest far greater variety within those body plans, which is evidence for evolution (particularly consistent with the modern synthesis).
“‘3)Mass extinctions set the stage for massive change. Lots of organisms die out, and those few that survive account for the diversity that is seen in later forms.’”
“False.”
Uhm nope. And your subsequent comments indicate that you didn’t even understand what I said. Since you don’t even understand what I am saying, you clearly don’t have the knowledge to label what I say “false”.
“There is a much greater diversity of organisms in the Cambrian fossil collection than the same type of organism that we have found alive today. The trend as clearly revealed in the fossil record is to less diversity due to extinction.”
Wrong, evidently you didn’t understand what I wrote just previous to the part of my post you are responding to. You just inserted creationist talking point about diversity without bothering to really pay attention to what I said.
I wrote:
“Do you know that there are no amphibians, no reptiles, mammals or birds. The chordates are represented mostly by animals that would not be recognized as fish, and a type of jawless fish that does not resemble anything we see today or even anything after the Ordovician. ”
Followed by:
“Mass extinctions set the stage for massive change. Lots of organisms die out, and those few that survive account for the diversity that is seen in later forms.”
The vertebrate chordate form in the Cambrian is ONLY represented by the jawless fishes. The later variety of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds are all representatives of the vertebrate chordate form. Other types of basic body plans did not survive the Cambrian, but those that did accounted for a great deal of later diversity that did not exist within the form during the Cambrian.
“‘For example, in the Permian Era you see mammal like reptiles.’”
“ksagnostic makes first attempt at listing a transition form without giving any specifics.”
In this case, I gave the necessary specifics. During the Permian, there are therapsid reptiles that have mammal-like characteristics (such as differentiated teeth) but also reptilian characteristics (such as post dental jaw bones, followed by mammal like reptiles that have more characteristics of mammals plus intriguing characteristics that appear to be hybrids of earlier therapsid forms but also later mammal charactersistics (such as post dental jaw bones that are much smaller and positioned close to or within the animal’s ear canal). There are also mammals that have the single lower jaw bones with no post dental jaw bones.
As for the platypus, there is no reason why some animals might not survive with primitive characteristics if they don’t inhibit the animal’s survival. Genetic and blood protein evidence supports the hypothesis of an early divergence from other mammals (later divergence from marsupials and placentals). As for “which reptile”, hardly necessary for providing evidence of evolution. The fact that there were animals with characteristics of both reptiles and mammals before there were clear mammals is evidence that such a transition occured.
“Or what about Archeaopteryx? Proven bird that was purported to be a reptile because of webbed claws?”
Not even close. Where did you get that one?
“A reptile having mammal like characteristics or a mammal having reptile like characteristics or a bird with reptile like characteristics does NOT make it a transitional form.”
And so, rfl defines “transitional form” out of existence. Neat trick. It’s the equivalent of squeezing your eyes shut and holding your fingers over your ears and saying over and over, “there are no transitional forms”.
As for outlander’s linking to Worldnut Daily and the advertising site for Stein’s propoganda…
well, that’s what it is. Propoganda. If you want to challenge a dominant scientific theory, you have to do it with science. The ID movement is not scientific, it is an assault on the very methodological naturalistic basis of science, and is clearly designed to support theistic creationism. Dawkin’s atheism is, contrary to what Dawkins himself may say, beside the point. Dawkins recently debated Francis Collins, a geneticist and avowed Christian. Neither is a creationist. And when it comes to explaining diversity, even though Collins sees an intelligent author to the universe, he still accepts evolution as the explanation to life’s diversity. Thus, atheism is NOT a necessary underpinning of belief in evolution. Methodological naturalism does not presuppose metaphysical naturalism.
I really need to get to work. So, I will have to concede the last word on this topic. But, I do not concede the argument. Reality is plain. There is a reason why creationists and ID supporters spend so much time attacking the “evidence of evolutionists” (BTW, “evolutionists” a suspect term). It’s because evolution is evidence based, and they have the evidence.
There is no coherent ID theory. ID arose only after “scientific creationism” was identified in the courts as an attempt to attack evolution and support biblical creationism in science class. ID replaced god with an unidentified “creator”, but there is no question as to where this creator comes from. The Wedge Document dissiminated by the Discovery Institute clearly identifies their purpose and strategy. Curious, it doesn’t look like they wanted to plead thheir case within the scientific establishment from the very beginning.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
radiocarbon is a canard. Many other isotopes are used when time span is too long for radiocarbon.
techniques have developed where single-cell karyotic fossils and even larger prokaryotic fossils have been found in precambrian rock layers.
If you’re so interested in ‘missing links’ you could look at the triceratops family. They were an abundant genus and starting with protoceratops (may be some earlier now that I’m not aware of) to the triceratops correlated to age, you can see that they’ve changed over time. And it isn’t just slight changes in sizes. They actually study different bones and how they alter, appear, disappear over time.
Was that stated simply enough for y’all?
ksagnostic appears to be an expert on “jawless fish.”
:D
Once again, reg, thanks for proving her point!
Sensitive to context are we Fishie?
“ksagnostic appears to be an expert on ‘jawless fish.’”
Re: Regular
DNFTT
Buy ‘em books, send ‘em to school, and they just eat the paste.
“Not all of the forms went extinct without leaving any transitonal forms….Some of the forms DO manifest body plans seen today. Later forms manifest far greater variety within those body plans, which is evidence for evolution”
I never said that ALL the forms went extinct. But you give me the grand opportunity to bring up yet another dead end for your theory The fact that some of the Cambrian Era body plans (dated by scientists at ~500 million years ago) appear today exhibiting a shocking amount of stasis (ie stagnation in regards to change). In fact they are identical.
How can it be assumed that evolution is the reason for changes of all organisms with the numerous cases of living organisms today that can be found in million year old fossils unchanged?
One such example of a living fossil is the coelacanth. A fish found in fossil form in the Devonian period (400 million years ago) was thought extinct until it’s discovery last century. The coelacanth was discovered to be identical to the one found in the fossil dated at over 400 million years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
How does the Coelacanth survive unchanged for millions of years while other fishes living in the same ocean, eating the same food, experiencing the same environmental influences, are assumed to have been forced to morph into mammals, reptiles and birds in order to survive?
“In this case, I gave the necessary specifics. During the Permian, there are therapsid reptiles that have mammal-like characteristics (such as differentiated teeth) but also reptilian characteristics (such as post dental jaw bones, followed by mammal like reptiles that have more characteristics of mammals plus intriguing characteristics that appear to be hybrids of earlier therapsid forms but also later mammal charactersistics (such as post dental jaw bones that are much smaller and positioned close to or within the animal’s ear canal). There are also mammals that have the single lower jaw bones with no post dental jaw bones.”
Nowhere in the “specifics” listed above are is listed a descrption of a form that is transitioning from one distinct form to another. Therefore, you have contributed no examples of a trasitional forms. Do you honestly believe that reptiles with mammal-like characteristics are transitional forms?
“The fact that there were animals with characteristics of both reptiles and mammals before there were clear mammals is evidence that such a transition occured”
Obviously, the answer to my question above is “Yes”.
Therefore, you will need to confront the following logic:
If reptiles with mammal like characteristics are evidentiary of evolution from reptiles to mammals, then modern day living mammals with reptile like characteristics MUST be considered to be transitioning as well.
Back to the enigmatic platypus, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE which type of reptile is it turning from? If it is transitioning from a mammal to one less reptile like, which type of mammal is it transitioning from?
Wait, there is nothing even closely similar to the Duck-billed platypus on either the reptile or the mammal side. It is a unique animal but nevertheless, still a mammal (with the reptilian characteristic of being able to lay eggs). The same is true for the unique creatures that ksagnostic is referring to.
Therefore, ksagnostic’s “specifics” are not transitional forms and definately not evidentiary proof of evolution.
The coelacanth was discovered to be identical to the one found in the fossil dated at over 400 million years old
However, some of the extinct species, particularly those of the last known fossil coelacanth, the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species.[citation needed]
Fudge much? shoots the unchanged portion of your argument. And you’re still back to the ‘let a shrew reproduce long enough and it’ll turn into a homo sapien’. Coelecanth and mammals and reptiles and amphibians were all living concurrently, especially at the end of the late Cretaceous. Modern Coelecanth are a deep sea creature, and the deep ocean doesn’t readily yield fossils as it’s subducted (why it’s deep sea) and melted before becoming volcanos.
The platypus isn’t that unique. try the echidna. there may be one other monotreme, but I’m not real sure.
You really need to do a bit of reading and a bit of thought.
Ok, I can’t resist, but I have to make it quick.
Two basic problems with rfl’s latest post (which indicates drastic misunderstanding of what he thinks he is arguing against).
Transitional forms in the fossil record are forms that have both features of earlier forms and later forms. More specifically, the transitional form has features that the earlier form has but the later form does not, and features that the later form has but the earlier form does not. That’s it. Evolution as a concept or the several theories that have current support do NOT in any way infer that there is an active transition going on. “Living fossils” are creatures that continue to exist with “primitive” (in this case simply meaning older) features because they have been able to successfully survive and leave offspring when other creatures with similar mix of features did not. The platypus is not some animal that failed in its transition from reptile to mammal, or is incomplete. It is a creature that has more in common with reptiles (egg laying and a cloaca instead of seperate urinary and fecal tracts) than most other fur bearing endotherms except for monotremes. Bully for the platypus.
As for the “stasis” argument involving body plans, let me take a moment to simply laugh. It’s not stasis, it is the fact that body plans like those found in chordates and arthopods persisted while others did not. However, those basic body plans have hardly been “static”. We have whole classes of animals that don’t appear until later in the fossil record (after the Cambrian) such as the afore mentioned amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds, not to mention at least two whole new classes of fish and remarkably successful class of arthopods known we call insects.
You still don’t know what you are doing or saying rfl. Give it up.
I meant echidnas rather than monotrmes, both the platypus and echindnas are monotremes.
Defining transitional forms:
“Transitional forms in the fossil record are forms that have both features of earlier forms and later forms. More specifically, the transitional form has features that the earlier form has but the later form does not, and features that the later form has but the earlier form does not”
Wrong.
tran·si·tion
passage from one state, stage, subject, or place to another : change.
The definition of transition does NOT say exhibiting features of one form while being clearly identified as another.
Transitional forms are forms that show a progression between succesive distinct identifiable forms. Simply exhibiting features that are similiar to “earlier” forms does not mean the forms are transitioning.
If you disagree:
What distinct forms are the “transitional” forms you listed half way or part way between? How can you say dogmatically that a mammal with reptile like characteristics are transitioning to/from a reptile/mammal when you can not identify the distinct form that it is transitioning to/from?
A half bird/half lizard would be a transitional form. A bird with webbed claws like a reptile does not mean the bird is evolving from reptiles. Simply having features of one form while being identified as clearly another, does not a transitional form make.
==============================================
Diversity changes through time:
“It’s not stasis, it is the fact that body plans like those found in chordates and arthopods persisted while others did not.”
Thanks for bringing up another problem with evolution. The fact that there is more diversity in the fossil record then there is alive today is counterintuitive to the theory of evolution.
Is evolution in the process of eliminating diversity? Because chordates and arthopods are alive today and an enormous collection of body plans different from these do not, predicts that evolution is not doing its job. In fact it indicates that extinction pressures win before evolution has a chance to change an organism to a plan that is conducive to it’s survival.
============================================
Is Evolution happen suddenly or gradually?
What does the evidence say?
“Evolution as a concept or the several theories that have current support do NOT in any way infer that there is an active transition going on”
Hmmm, so evolution is not actively happening right now?
Going back to yours and Ben’s punctuated equlibrium theory, you are going as far as to say, the evolution happened nearly instantaneously at certain mass extinction events.
How can you believe that evolution happened quasi-instantaneously for pre-historic creatures (explaining why there are few fossils in comparison to the explosion of the Cambrian Era) yet we are unable to duplicate such evolution during the modern age for animals as test experiments?
How many experiments have been done to induce an animal to evolve, yet we have nothing? No evolution from one life form to another has ever been witnessed despite millions of dollars of research effort to achieve such a feat. If quasi-instantaneous evolution were possible as is implied by the “punctuated equilibrium” theory, then greater evidence of evolution could be witnessed in the laboratory if not in nature.
=========================================
“You still don’t know what you are doing or saying rfl. Give it up”
ksagnostic, I want to thank you for taking the time to discuss your scientific knowledge with me and with the “blog audience”. You are a poster that all those who agree with you should emulate for the sake of keeping intellectual discourse on this topic alive. There is a wealth of material on both sides that will continue to be vetted. May the truth win.
How many experiments have been done to induce an animal to evolve, yet we have nothing?
How many? Animal husbandry doesn’t count. Link me ONE.
Gene splicing doesn’t count. turning on a pre-existing retrovirus in the host’s DNA doesn’t count, either.
“Wrong.
tran·si·tion
passage from one state, stage, subject, or place to another : change.”
“The definition of transition does NOT say exhibiting features of one form while being clearly identified as another.”
Dictionary definitions relate to popular word use. They are not to be confused with the scientific use of the terminology. I am correct in my use of the term “transitional fossils”. Let me put it this way: What would be looked for in a hypothetical “missing link”? The answer, and let’s be honest here, would be a find that exhibits a mixture of features in the earlier form and features in the later or modern form. But, with skeletal material that is only recoverable because in a specific location in a specific time, conditions were favorable to fossilization, one can not look at a fossil and say with certainty, “This is the fossil of an ancestral species (i.e., a ‘link’”). The reason for this is that the actual ancestral species may have lived in another region of the continent where conditions weren’t good for fossilization. Like the analogy I used earlier, it’s like finding a partially burned family album from 100 years ago with unlabled pictures, you might be able to tell who looks related to you, but you don’t know which pictures are of great, great grandma. Transitional fossils are still what would be predicted if evolution (common descent) was what occurred. One does not find fossil mammals in Permian deposits, one finds therapsids with some mammal-like characteristics. One does find mammmals in later deposits, starting in the later part of the Triassic. Whether any of the therapsids found were the direct ancestor of later mammals can not be known, but we can be confident that the Permian fossil of a creature that WAS ancestral to later mammals would almost certainly be identified as a therapsid.
Here is a nice explanation of “transitional fossils”:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/transitional_def.html
web.mac.com/theedonfamily/Site/The_Guide_To_Thinking_Straight.html
And now, I really am done. Finito. Out of here.
Oh, and rfl, thank you for the compliment.
Reminds that during the first several years of Exploration Place, most of the signage on displays contained misspelled words, poorly structured sentences, lack of punctuation. Might still be that way, I don’t go there much anymore.
5 Trackbacks
Jack…
Hi. Thanks for write this article…
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAdSense Money Maker… Do you know how to make money from AdSense automatically? You don’t!? I’ll teach you how!… [...]
[...] Tran Tinh wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptunknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’sa quick excerptAdSense Money Maker… Do you know how to make money from AdSense automatically? You don’t!? I’ll teach you how!… […] [...]
Jessie…
If you truly want to learn more see this article…
Payday Loan Faxless…
…