New transitional fossil from late Jurassic of Chile sheds light on the origin of modern crocodiles

[The Barbarian]

Nature Scientific Reports volume 11, Article number: 14960 (2021)

We describe the basal mesoeucrocodylian Burkesuchus mallingrandensis nov. gen. et sp., from the Upper Jurassic (Tithonian) Toqui Formation of southern Chile. The new taxon constitutes one of the few records of non-pelagic Jurassic crocodyliforms for the entire South American continent. Burkesuchus was found on the same levels that yielded titanosauriform and diplodocoid sauropods and the herbivore theropod Chilesaurus diegosuarezi, thus expanding the taxonomic composition of currently poorly known Jurassic reptilian faunas from Patagonia. Burkesuchus was a small-sized crocodyliform (estimated length 70 cm), with a cranium that is dorsoventrally depressed and transversely wide posteriorly and distinguished by a posteroventrally flexed wing-like squamosal. A well-defined longitudinal groove runs along the lateral edge of the postorbital and squamosal, indicative of a anteroposteriorly extensive upper earlid. Phylogenetic analysis supports Burkesuchus as a basal member of Mesoeucrocodylia. This new discovery expands the meagre record of non-pelagic representatives of this clade for the Jurassic Period, and together with Batrachomimus, from Upper Jurassic beds of Brazil, supports the idea that South America represented a cradle for the evolution of derived crocodyliforms during the Late Jurassic.

This find is very welcome, given the relatively few fossils for transitional crocodiles.    And it's worth noting that the find is where such transitionals have been predicted to be.

 

[Sparks]

47 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

This find is very welcome, given the relatively few fossils for transitional crocodiles.    And it's worth noting that the find is where such transitionals have been predicted to be.

Of the millions of fossils we have found, there are no transitional fossils among them. 

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book.  If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly include them.  I will lay it on the line --- there is not one such fossil."  -  Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History in correspondence with Luther Sunderland, quoted in Darwin's Enigma 1998, p. 89

"In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions.  In general, these have not been found --- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." -- Davide M. Raup, "Evolution and the fossil record," Science vol 213 (July 17 1981) page 289.

[teddyv]

The Patterson quote is not well rendered. It's also from 1979. Nothing of course ever changes over time.

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, Sparks said:

Of the millions of fossils we have found, there are no transitional fossils among them. 

Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoidprimates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms   (Creation.com)

As you see, there's a large number of them, even complete series of transitionals.   Which are, according to an informed and honest YE creationist, are "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."   

Edited May 7, 2022 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you...

No they don't.

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

The Patterson quote is not well rendered. It's also from 1979. Nothing of course ever changes over time.

The alleged transitional fossils existed before 1979.   Lucy was 1974.  The London Archaeopteryx was 1861.  Nebraska Man (what an embarrassment to evolution fans) was in 1922.  Piltdown man was 1912 (another huge embarrassment).  

The 'change over time' would be if the transitional fossils were not always being fabricated.

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, Sparks said:

No they don't.

To put a fine point on it, Dr. Wise fully admits there is evidence for numerous transitional fossils. That much is undeniable.

[The Barbarian]

It's not just Dr. Wise.   There are more, if you want to see them.

 

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's not just Dr. Wise.   There are more, if you want to see them.

 

I would expect Dr. Todd Wood to also admit this freely. Probably others I don’t know do so the same.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I would expect Dr. Todd Wood to also admit this freely. Probably others I don’t know do so the same.

At the Arkansas creationism trial, Dr. Harold Coffin testified that if not for his reading of scripture, the evidence would lead him to think that the Earth is very old.

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by The Barbarian