Convergent evolution without common causation is coincidence too. It's an easy cop-out scientists have been using for decades when things don't fit. And we bought it!
All of Darwin's theories were sound, but today's model is way off. Some are beginning to realize part of it, which is why the world of dinosaurs is in such an uproar right now. Long story short, the consensus model of vertebrate evolution and dispersal is still based on the pre-1960s view that the Continents have always been where they are now. That model has placental mammals arising right after impact event that ended the dinosaurs. But for that they'd need to swim thousands of miles across open ocean to leave the fossils that begin appearing around 50 million years ago on four widely separated continents.
And genetics tells us placental mammals arose and divided into clades 50 million years before the impact event that ended the dinosaurs! At exactly the time the continents began to rapidly drift away from one another!
Marsupials and monotremes split off from placentals long before the dinosaur extinction, leaving fossils by 150 million years ago. But no fossils at all for placental mammals. Not for 100 million years. Every other lineage but placental mammals is well represented in the fossil record during the Cretaceous, complete with transitional forms. So why didn't placental mammals leave any fossils?
Well maybe they did, and we have mislabeled them.
This mislabeling stems from a mistake made in the early 20th century.
In the early 20th century, they based "reptile" and "mammal" on number of temporal fenestra, because all living mammals have one pair and all living reptiles and birds have two. But now they've proven this is a false designation, because many dinosaurs were losing a pair right before the KTg event. In fact, we now know that number of temporal fenestrae depends on how the animal has to chew in its niche. They are places where muscles attach, and open when the muscle must grow very large. In the crocodile lineage they open and close all the time from ancestor to descendant.
The "mother species" of these dinosaurs who were "turning into mammals" happen to look just like armadillos, and armadillos have been proven genetically to be the most basal of all mammals. In other words, when shit hits the fan, the omnivorous generalists with the armor who can swim, climb, and run survives. Those who shirked the armor to adapt into a niche have a good chance of perishing when the asteroids come. Why do kids ask if Glyptodont armadillos and Ankylosaurs are the same thing? because they are. The "coincidence" of a fully formed mammal springing up with no immediate ancestors in the exact same place an identicle dinosaur died out is no coincidence. There are no transitional fossils between them for that 10 million years, but there are no transitional fossils between a shrew and the glyptodont either. In fact, that 10 million year period of time between dinosaur extinction and placental mammal fossils is a time period of scant fossils everywhere. Because it was right after a mass extinction and the sea levels were so high whales were in the Himalayas!
I know this sounds far out, but I have tons of data to show it's more probable than the current model. The theory is as well supported within the bounds of Darwin's laws as the current working consensus model, and it gets rid of TONS of coincidences, or cases of unexplained "convergent evolution."
And remember Lumuria? Debunked because of Continental Drift, but they never gave us a good explanation of how the Lemurs got there. Now they have rediscovered the landmass, and are calling it Mauritius as scientific fact. But the primatologists have not caught up to the geologists, and the silly rafting hypothesis is still in the textbooks.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The only two major clades of herding, ruminating hooved animals with pairs of display horns both evolved on the same continent at the same time 100 million years ago, just as the continent began to drift away (Laurasia). These are Artiodactyl placental mammals and Ornithischian dinosaurs. The rest of the continents didn't get them until the continents began recombining 20 million years ago.
Two moles growing on a forehead in perfect symmetry and then being sexually selected into horns is so rare in the fossil record it's only happened once in 350 million years. And it happened to a reptile and a mammal at the same time, on the same continent, according to dinosaur fossils and mammals genetics. But no mammal fossil on that continent until right after the dinosaurs died out.
What, did Laurasia have a fairy that waved a wand and sprouted horns on animals? Or could they be the same animal, since they have the same skulls, the same number of fenestra, the same niche, the same number of vertebrae, the same phallangal pattern, the same everything but size.....
The Mother of All Placental Mammals Discovered: Identification of the first fossil Placental Mammal from the Cretaceous Period
https://prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-mother-of-all-placental-mammals.html
No Bipedal Ancestor For Dinosaurs
https://prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com/2017/12/no-bipedal-ancestor-for-dinosaurs.html
Convergent Evolution between Aetosaurs, Ankylosaurs, and Armadillos Explained at Last!
https://prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com/2017/11/convergent-evolution-between-aetosaurs.html
Establishing Aetosaurs, Ornithischians, and Tritylodontidae as Sister Species
https://prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com/2017/11/establishing-aetosaurs-ornithischians.html
Here are some really old videos I made on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk0763jxMr4&t=7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr820VvJDuQ
All of Darwin's theories were sound, but today's model is way off. Some are beginning to realize part of it, which is why the world of dinosaurs is in such an uproar right now. Long story short, the consensus model of vertebrate evolution and dispersal is still based on the pre-1960s view that the Continents have always been where they are now. That model has placental mammals arising right after impact event that ended the dinosaurs. But for that they'd need to swim thousands of miles across open ocean to leave the fossils that begin appearing around 50 million years ago on four widely separated continents.
And genetics tells us placental mammals arose and divided into clades 50 million years before the impact event that ended the dinosaurs! At exactly the time the continents began to rapidly drift away from one another!
Marsupials and monotremes split off from placentals long before the dinosaur extinction, leaving fossils by 150 million years ago. But no fossils at all for placental mammals. Not for 100 million years. Every other lineage but placental mammals is well represented in the fossil record during the Cretaceous, complete with transitional forms. So why didn't placental mammals leave any fossils?
Well maybe they did, and we have mislabeled them.
This mislabeling stems from a mistake made in the early 20th century.
In the early 20th century, they based "reptile" and "mammal" on number of temporal fenestra, because all living mammals have one pair and all living reptiles and birds have two. But now they've proven this is a false designation, because many dinosaurs were losing a pair right before the KTg event. In fact, we now know that number of temporal fenestrae depends on how the animal has to chew in its niche. They are places where muscles attach, and open when the muscle must grow very large. In the crocodile lineage they open and close all the time from ancestor to descendant.
The "mother species" of these dinosaurs who were "turning into mammals" happen to look just like armadillos, and armadillos have been proven genetically to be the most basal of all mammals. In other words, when shit hits the fan, the omnivorous generalists with the armor who can swim, climb, and run survives. Those who shirked the armor to adapt into a niche have a good chance of perishing when the asteroids come. Why do kids ask if Glyptodont armadillos and Ankylosaurs are the same thing? because they are. The "coincidence" of a fully formed mammal springing up with no immediate ancestors in the exact same place an identicle dinosaur died out is no coincidence. There are no transitional fossils between them for that 10 million years, but there are no transitional fossils between a shrew and the glyptodont either. In fact, that 10 million year period of time between dinosaur extinction and placental mammal fossils is a time period of scant fossils everywhere. Because it was right after a mass extinction and the sea levels were so high whales were in the Himalayas!
I know this sounds far out, but I have tons of data to show it's more probable than the current model. The theory is as well supported within the bounds of Darwin's laws as the current working consensus model, and it gets rid of TONS of coincidences, or cases of unexplained "convergent evolution."
And remember Lumuria? Debunked because of Continental Drift, but they never gave us a good explanation of how the Lemurs got there. Now they have rediscovered the landmass, and are calling it Mauritius as scientific fact. But the primatologists have not caught up to the geologists, and the silly rafting hypothesis is still in the textbooks.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The only two major clades of herding, ruminating hooved animals with pairs of display horns both evolved on the same continent at the same time 100 million years ago, just as the continent began to drift away (Laurasia). These are Artiodactyl placental mammals and Ornithischian dinosaurs. The rest of the continents didn't get them until the continents began recombining 20 million years ago.
Two moles growing on a forehead in perfect symmetry and then being sexually selected into horns is so rare in the fossil record it's only happened once in 350 million years. And it happened to a reptile and a mammal at the same time, on the same continent, according to dinosaur fossils and mammals genetics. But no mammal fossil on that continent until right after the dinosaurs died out.
What, did Laurasia have a fairy that waved a wand and sprouted horns on animals? Or could they be the same animal, since they have the same skulls, the same number of fenestra, the same niche, the same number of vertebrae, the same phallangal pattern, the same everything but size.....
The Mother of All Placental Mammals Discovered: Identification of the first fossil Placental Mammal from the Cretaceous Period
https://prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-mother-of-all-placental-mammals.html
No Bipedal Ancestor For Dinosaurs
https://prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com/2017/12/no-bipedal-ancestor-for-dinosaurs.html
Convergent Evolution between Aetosaurs, Ankylosaurs, and Armadillos Explained at Last!
https://prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com/2017/11/convergent-evolution-between-aetosaurs.html
Establishing Aetosaurs, Ornithischians, and Tritylodontidae as Sister Species
https://prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com/2017/11/establishing-aetosaurs-ornithischians.html
Here are some really old videos I made on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk0763jxMr4&t=7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr820VvJDuQ
No comments:
Post a Comment