| The Mammal-like Reptiles, Dr Duane T Gish; Some Observations |
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-102.htm A literal creationist perspective, including Kuehneotherium. Before reading the above essay I wrote, "Unlike myself, Dr Gish is a trained and experienced scientist, who is entitled to be respected as such." However, I have now read it and offer a couple of observations, which you’re free to ignore. a. Both the reptilian and mammalian jaw joints are present in Pachygenelus and nobody calls it a mammal. b. The views of Gould and Eldredge on Archaeopteryx are crassly misrepresented. They saw it not as a smooth, but certainly as a clear transitional form. What is Archaeopteryx doing in this essay anyway? c. Dr Gish argues convincingly that the duck-billed platypus cannot be the ancestor of modern mammals!, and uses an exclamation mark for emphasis. As this is blindingly obvious, this conclusion is utterly pointless. Need I add that I did not father my great-great-etc grandparents, or indeed distant cousin? (Thanks for the suggestion, Truman). d. His 'essential extinction' of the mammal-like reptiles occuring simultaneously with the emergence of the mammals, is simplistic rot. The larger carnivores and herbivores are unknown beyond the Carnian, (early Upper Triassic), and were in no way replaced by the mammals. Smaller representatives persisted until at least the Upper Jurassic, and possibly into the Lower Cretaceous, (see Jurassic Cynodonts). e. Because mammals were able to diversify dramatically during the Tertiary and beyond, it does not reasonably follow that the same would have been inevitable during the Jurassic or Cretaceous. The world is a complex place and conditions, (and the competiton), were very different. There are factors known as change, opportunity and luck. f. With some reptiles, the jaw bones actually work in concert with the ear to enhance the sense of hearing. They also manage to eat.
g. "Whether the dentary bone of these creatures actually made contact with the squamosal
can only be inferred. But if there had been a real contact between the dentary and squamosal,
could it be said that this constituted a mammalian jaw-joint which existed alongside the
reptilian jaw-joint?"
h. As regards Kuehneotherium, Dr Gish informs us that the ear of this creature was
that of a standard reptile. It's ear isn't actually known for sure, but one site where
it occurs in Wales did provide some not terribly well-preserved petrosals. These are
the bony casing around the ear and, as this bone happens to be hard, prospects for
fossilisation are relavtively high. With existing animals, petrosals are only found
with mammals. The casing of the ears of other animals is built by several bones,
not a singleton. They're of the right sort of size for Kuehneotherium. (For an abstract on basal mammal ears see, Luo, Crompton & Lucas, JVP, 1995 ).
i. "All mammals, living or fossil, have a single jawbone, a fully developed mammalian
jaw-joint, and a vastly different auditory apparatus involving three bones in the middle ear
and a totally unique and extremely complex structure, the organ of Corti." If, purely out of the spirit of friendship, I were to accept Dr Gish’s assertions as to the standard reptilian nature of the jaws and the ears of Kuehneotherium and Morganucodon, then we end up with reptiles with mammalian teeth. Might I suggest that it’s not unreasonable to mention the term, transitional? These, and other points, have prompted a revision: Unlike myself, Dr Gish is a qualified scientist.
"That article was interesting. Are there any more on-line?" I'm pleased you asked. Have a look here. Trevor Dykes (not a paleontologist), April 2001 (some additions and amendments, 4.7.2007)
|