Volume 3, Number 5 September / October 1998
A bimonthly newsletter of the Creation Research Society.

CRS Home Page

This Web version of Creation Matters lacks the "Creation Calendar" as well as photos and special announcements found only in the print version. The latter is automatically sent to members of the CRS along with the peer-reviewed CRS Quarterly.

Contents:
Reappraising the “Crown Jewel”
Book Review — The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved
Creation Quest Niagara Falls Bus Tour

Reappraising the “Crown Jewel”
by Ashby L. Camp, J.D., M.Div.

Summary: The fossil evidence for the claim that reptiles evolved into mammals is weaker than many evolutionists will admit. The evolution story for the origin of mammals is: anapsids ª synapsids ª pelycosaurids ª therapsids ª cynodonts ª early mammals ª modern mammals. In no case do the fossils document the alleged transformation of one group into another. The evolutionist simply assumes descent from the order of appearance, and sometimes even assumes the order of appearance.

Evolutionists claim that the fossil record establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that reptiles evolved into mammals. Indeed, the reptile-to-mammal transition is so frequently cited as proof of megaevolution that one writer labeled it “the crown jewel of the fossil evidence for Darwinism” (Johnson, 1991; p. 75). The purpose of this article is to suggest that the evidence for this alleged transition is much weaker than evolutionists would have one believe. (Conventional dating is assumed arguendo throughout the article.)

Anapsida to Synapsida

The reptile-to-mammal story begins with what are termed “primitive” amniotes, reptiles belonging to the “stem” subclass Anapsida. (Carroll, 1988; pp. 199-200) The distinguishing feature of this group is the absence of openings behind the eye socket in the cheek region. Though the origin of these first reptiles is technically not a part of the reptile-to-mammal transition, it is noteworthy that their alleged descent from amphibians is not documented in the fossil record.

    According to Carroll (p. 193), “The earliest known amniotes [i.e., the first reptiles] are immediately recognizable as members of this assemblage because of similarities of their skeleton to those of primitive living lizards.” He also states (p. 198), “The early amniotes are sufficiently distinct from all Paleozoic amphibians that their specific ancestry has not been established.” Even so fierce an opponent of creation theory as Stephen Gould (1991; p. 25) must admit that “no fossil amphibian seems clearly ancestral to the lineage of fully terrestrial vertebrates (reptiles, birds, and mammals).”

    Evolutionists believe that synapsids (amniotes having a single temporal opening) evolved from within the Protorothyridae, a family in the order Captorhinida in the subclass Anapsida. (Carroll, pp. 199-201). According to the fossil record, however, synapsids and anapsids appear simultaneously. The remains of a synapsid, Protoclepsysdrops (order Pelycosauria), have been found which are as old as the oldest anapsid (lower Pennsylvanian) (Carroll, pp. 361-362, 615, 622). Carroll (p. 361) states, “The ancestors of mammals [which he makes clear on the next page refers to synapsids] are identified from the same horizon and locality as the earliest conventional reptile, Hylonomus, in the early Pennsylvanian of Joggins, Nova Scotia.” [Hylonomus is a protorothyrid (Carroll, pp. 193, 615).]

    Of course, one can always argue that anapsids actually preceded synapsids and that their contemporaneous appearance in the fossil record is due to the vagaries of fossilization, but it should be acknowledged that in doing so one has moved from data to speculation. One could just as easily claim that synapsids preceded anapsids.

Pelycosauria to Therapsida

Regarding the origin of Therapsida, an order in the subclass Synapsida, conventional wisdom among evolutionists is that they arose from the earlier synapsid order, Pelycosauria. More specifically, it is believed they arose from within the pelycosaurid family, Sphenacodontidae.

    After pointing out that the members of the subfamily Sphenacodontinae are too specialized to be ancestors of therapsids, Carroll (p. 369) says, “However, the more primitive genus Haptodus could have filled this role. The lineage leading to therapsids may have diverged from animals that were similar to Haptodus at any time between the late Pennsylvanian and the middle Permian, a period of at least 25 million years” (emphasis mine).

    The reason Carroll is left to speculate regarding the origin of the first therapsids is that there are no fossils from which any plausible lines of descent from pelycosaurids to therapsids can be constructed. This is crucial because the issue is not whether evolutionists can imagine species of one order (Pelycosauria) evolving into species of another order (Therapsida), but whether that is in fact what occurred. The fossils provide no support for the claim. As Carroll (p. 397) frankly acknowledges, “The transition between pelycosaurs and therapsids has not been documented.”

    The lack of fossil evidence for this alleged transition cannot be excused by trivializing the differences between pelycosaurs and therapsids. According to Carroll (p. 369), “The therapsids are clearly advanced over the pelycosaurs when they appear in the Upper Permian, particularly in the specializations of the postcranial skeleton” (emphasis mine). The two orders have some similarities in cranial structure, but there are also many differences (all the more if one limits the comparison to Haptodus; see Carroll, pp. 366, 370). And as Romer and Price (1940; pp. 193-194) acknowledge, much of the resemblance in cranial structure might be discounted as due to convergent evolution rather than common descent (though they doubt this can account for all of it).

    Regarding the postcranial skeleton, Carroll (p. 370) states that “[t]he structure of the girdle and limbs [in the early therapsids] indicates a posture much advanced above the level of the pelycosaurs” (emphasis mine). The most Romer and Price (p. 193) can say is that the girdles and limbs (appendicular skeleton) of sphenacodontids “in at least a few details show the beginning of therapsid features.” As for the axial skeleton, it “presents no strong argument for a particularly close genetic connection between the two groups but on the other hand offers no obstacles” (p. 193).

    The bottom line is that when therapsids first appear they differ significantly from pelycosaurs, and there are no intermediates plausibly connecting any known species from the two orders. The claim that therapsids descended from pelycosaurs is based on the assumption of evolution and the belief that, among creatures known to precede therapsids in the fossil record, pelycosauria is the most likely (or least objectionable) source of the ancestral species. That is a far cry from having established descent from pelycosaurids.

Origin of Cynodontia

Cynodontia is the particular suborder of the order Therapsida from which evolutionists believe mammals evolved. They are the only therapsids to “show a significant approach to the mammalian condition in their general morphology” (Carroll, p. 378). There is, however, no fossil record of the ancestry of the cynodonts. As Carroll (p. 377) freely admits:

“Two much more advanced groups of carnivorous therapsids, the therocephalians and cynodonts, appear in the Upper Permian of Russia and southern Africa. We have not established the specific origin and interrelationships of these groups. They may have evolved separately from primitive carnivorous therapsids.”

    The fact of the matter is that all six suborders of Therapsida appear virtually simultaneously in the fossil record (in the Upper Permian), already bearing the distinctive features of at least ten infraorders, 42 families, and scores of genera (Carroll, pp. 362, 397, 623-24). Thus, there is no known earlier therapsid stock from which cynodonts could have arisen. They are among the earliest therapsids and, according to Kemp (1982; p. 180), when they appear they are already “unmistakably at the cynodont level of evolution.” Kemp (p. 327) is driven by such evidence to suggest a “very rapid evolution”:

“The sudden appearance of new higher taxa, families and even orders, immediately after a mass extinction, with all the features more or less developed, implies a very rapid evolution. . . . It is possible that this is an artifact, and that the new taxa had long histories before they appeared in the fossil record, during which they gradually acquired their characteristic features. However, in no case is such a long history known by even a single specimen, and therefore it is much more reasonable to accept that very high rates of morphological evolution characteristically occur following a mass extinction.” (emphasis mine)

    Several genera of the family Galesauridae (infraorder Procynosuchia, suborder Cynodontia) are among the cynodonts appearing in the Upper Permian (Carroll, p. 624). However, the best known example of the galesaurids, Thrinaxodon, dates from the Lower Triassic (slightly later). Though galesaurids are sometimes contrasted to more “primitive” therapsids (e.g., Carroll, pp. 381- 386; but see p. 396, Fig. 17-47 where Thrinaxodon is called a primitive cynodont), “primitive” in that case refers to morphology rather than to age and is defined in terms of the assumed evolutionary development.

Cynodontia to Mammalia

Evolutionists acknowledge that they “cannot yet recognize the specific [cynodont] lineage that led to mammals” (Carroll, p. 398). That is why Roger Lewin (1981), summarizing a scientific conference on the matter, wrote: “The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.”

    The best Carroll (p. 410) can say is that “[i]t is reasonable to believe that the ancestors of mammals can be found among cynodonts such as the chiniquodontids or galesaurids that reduced their body size, probably in relationship to an insectivorous diet” (emphasis mine). However, as Carroll (p. 392) points out, the chiniquodontids and galesaurids of the Lower to Middle Triassic reveal only “the initial stages in the origin of most of the features that characterize the mammalian skeleton.”

    This inability to trace the transition from cynodont to mammal is usually blamed on the paucity of fossils. Carroll (p. 392) writes, “Unfortunately, the record of the immediate ancestors of mammals becomes less complete in the Upper Triassic.” There are, however, fossils of at least two superfamilies, three families, and seven genera of “advanced” cynodonts from the Upper Triassic (Carroll, p. 624). It just so happens that none of them are suitable as transitions to mammals.

Early Mammals to Modern Mammals

Morganucodontids, kuehneotheriids, and haramiyids are considered by evolutionists to be the oldest fossil mammals. They appear simultaneously in the Upper Triassic and range into the lower Jurassic (with the possible exception of some teeth from the Middle Jurassic). Each of these families is from a distinct subclass (Prototheria, Allotheria, and Theria) of the class Mammalia (Carroll, pp. 414-415, 627). Morganucodontids are by far the best known, but they are not believed to be related to any living mammals (Carroll, p. 415).

    Morganucodontids (about four inches long to tail base) do indeed have a number of mammalian skeletal features, but they also have a fully-functional reptilian jaw joint (quadrate-articular) and a single rod-like bone in the inner ear, which distinguishes them from all living mammals. Evolutionists believe that over time the quadrate bones of such creatures as morganucodontids, which served as part of their reptilian jaw joint, worked their way into the middle ear to become the mammalian incus and malleus. There is, however, no fossil record of this transition. According to Carroll (p. 395), “It is not yet certain when the malleus and incus became incorporated into the middle ear, but the grooves on the medial surface of the dentary that indicate their position of attachment in early Jurassic mammals are missing in Upper Jurassic genera.”

    The fossil record does not document the origin of any living orders of mammals: monotremes (Subclass Prototheria; Order Monotremata), marsupials (Subclass Theria; Infraclass Metatheria; Order Marsupialia), or orders of the placentals (Subclass Theria; Infraclass Eutheria; 20 or so orders). Regarding monotremes, Carroll (p. 420) says, “The skull of the platypus and echidnas are highly specialized in a manner divergent from those of all other groups of mammals, fossil or living.” The phylogeny at p. 415 of Carroll shows the Order Monotremata ending in question marks in the Lower Cretaceous. (The Lower Cretaceous find is a lower jaw that is described only as a possible monotreme. The next fossil evidence, some molar teeth and a partial lower jaw, is dated to about 100 million years later! See Carroll, pp. 414, 421, 627.) It is no wonder Carroll (p. 421) says, “The fossil record of monotremes provides little help in establishing their specific affinities.”

    Marsupials and placentals (eutherians) are both known from the Upper Cretaceous, though isolated teeth dating to the Lower Cretaceous have been assigned to each group (Carroll, pp. 415, 431, 440, 445). Carroll (p. 430) states, “We assume that marsupials and placentals diverged essentially simultaneously from a common ancestry that is represented by the early [Early Cretaceous] therians of metatherian-eutherian grade” (emphasis mine). This assumed common ancestor is represented in the fossil record by only jaw parts and teeth (Carroll, p. 429-430). (Deltatherium is represented by a partial skull, but it dates from the Upper Cretaceous.) Regarding these teeth, Carroll (p. 429) says they “may belong to an ancestral stock that existed before the divergence of the modern infraorders” (emphasis mine). Yet, other tribosphenic molars that cannot be classified as marsupialian or eutherian (“in between” teeth) appear contemporaneously with marsupials and placentals and are not considered to have belonged to ancestral creatures (Carroll, p. 429).

    Carroll notes (p. 430), “A gap of approximately 20 million years separates these rare, early therians of metatherian-eutherian grade [the assumed common ancestor] from the comparatively rich fossil record of the Upper Cretaceous” (when marsupials and placentals unquestionably appear). The family Peramuridae, which is the assumed ancestor of the early therians of metatherian-eutherian grade, is itself known only from jaw fragments and teeth. The only certain representative of Peramuridae (Peramus) appears about 25 million years before the appearance of the early therians of metatherian-eutherian grade (Late Jurassic vs. Aptian age of Early Cretaceous; Carroll, pp. 415, 428-429). The presumed ancestor of the peramurids, Kuehneotherium, is again known from only jaw fragments and teeth, which date from about 50 million years before the first peramurids (Sinemurian age of Early Jurassic vs. Late Jurassic) (Carroll, pp. 414-415, 426).

    So according to Carroll, the origin of marsupial and placental mammals looks like that illustrated in Figure 1. Nearly all the living orders of eutherian mammals first appear in the fossil record between the Middle Paleocene and the Lower Eocene, a window of about 10 million years (Carroll, p. 449). (A tooth from the Upper Cretaceous has been classified as belonging to a primate.) At least 30 distinct families are recognized by the Middle Paleocene (Carroll, p. 449). Edwin Colbert (1980; p. 280) describes the appearance of these diverse mammals as an “evolutionary explosion.”

    Carroll (p. 447) believes that “[a]nimals with an anatomy like Kennalestes and Asioryctes [two Upper Cretaceous eutherian genera] could have given rise to nearly all subsequent placentals” (emphasis mine). In other words, he sees nothing in these genera that eliminates them as possible ancestors. There is, however, no fossil evidence linking these genera to the multitude of families and orders that suddenly appear. As Carroll (p. 449) explains it, “The incomplete fossil record in the latest Cretaceous and early Cenozoic makes it very difficult to establish the nature of the interrelationships among the many groups of eutherians found in the later Tertiary.” (Tertiary is the first sub-era of the Cenozoic Era and comprises five epochs — paleocene through pliocene.)

    George Gaylord Simpson (quoted in Kerwin et. al, 1972; p. 42) casts the matter in a somewhat different light:

“The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in preceding acts.” (emphasis mine)

Elsewhere Simpson (1944; p. 106) notes:

“The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximate continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases, the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.”

    Given that mammals are considered the best-documented case of megaevolution, one wonders how Carroll (p. 393) can declare, “modern amniotes are linked to their Paleozoic ancestors by a relatively complete sequence of intermediate forms” (emphasis mine). Creationists and evolutionists really do see the world through different eyes.

References

Carroll, Robert L. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. New York.

Colbert, Edwin. 1980. Evolution of the Vertebrates. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York.

Gould, Stephen Jay. 1991. Eight (or Fewer) Little Piggies. Natural History 100 (no. 1, Jan.): 22-29.

Johnson, Phillip E. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Regnery Gateway, Inc. Washington, DC.

Kemp, T. S. 1982. Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals. Academic Press. New York.

Kerwin, Carlotta and others (editors). 1972. Life Before Man. Time-Life Books. New York.

Lewin, Roger. 1981. Bones of Mammals' Ancestors Fleshed Out. Science 212 (no. 6): 1492.

Romer, A. S. and L. W. Price. 1940. Review of the Pelycosauria. Geological Society of America Special Papers 28: 1-538.

Simpson, G. 1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. Columbia University Press. New York.

Ashby L. Camp has a J.D. degree from Duke University School of Law and a M.Div. degree from Harding University Graduate School of Religion. He has studied the issue of origins for many years and is the author of The Myth of Natural Origins: How Science Points to Divine Creation (Tempe, AZ: Ktisis Publishing, 1994). Information about his book is available at : http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ashby/
Email Ashby@compuserve.com

Book Review

The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved
(Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1998) by Ken Ham. 155 pages, $14.95 (hardcover)
Reviewed by David Oberpriller

In the last few years, the dinosaur craze has swept America — due in large part to the popular series of "Jurassic Park" movies. Dinosaurs have been one of the major evidences presented by evolutionists that the earth is very old and that evolution has occurred. Many of the world's major museums display the fossilized skeletons of dinosaurs together with the story of how they "ruled the world" several hundred million years ago. Much sensationalized misinformation has appeared in the media during this time. Ken Ham, founder and executive director of the Answers in Genesis ministry, has provided a fact-filled book to help counter the lies being told in support of evolution. Ken has called the dinosaurs "missionary lizards" because of the ability of the truth about them to point the way to the Creator revealed by the Bible.

    The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved is a new book that is published in an unusual square format of about 7 inches by 7 inches. It is written by Ken Ham, who gives credit to R. L. David Jolly for much of the research, Dan Lietha for the illustrations, and Pastor Robert Ham for writing a portion.

    This book is obviously a well-researched volume that presents a lot of facts in a simple way. The writing is suitable for junior high school through adults and is sufficiently interesting and dynamic to hold the attention of both. Much of the text is presented in an informal “question and answer” format that enhances the readability. Many full-color illustrations (including photos of several of Buddy Davis' life-size dinosaur sculptures, and drawings by Dan Lietha) depict the dinosaurs and the fossils from which we know them and there are numerous CREATIONWISE cartoon strips (which should be familiar to readers of Ken Ham's AiG monthly newsletter).

    After the highly visible illustrations, the most noticeable feature is the depth of research that has gone into this little volume. Of the total 155 pages, 55 of them (over a third) comprise the endnotes that contain detailed references and quotations to support the text and the references for further reading. This allows the main body of the book to be dynamic and flowing without burdening it with “dry” facts and references. Much information can be mined from the endnotes section.

    The book is interspersed with eight gray-boxed “Featured Dinosaurs” sidebars, each of which takes up two to four pages and provides detailed information on one particular type of dinosaur. It is in this area that the extensive research is most apparent. Facts are presented on the size and appearance and what is known about the dinosaur as well as interesting facts about the discovery of the fossils. Many of these sidebars contain extensive lists of the museums of the world that display skeletons of the featured dinosaur.

    There are two aspects of this book that are negative. The first concerns the layout of the book. The “Featured Dinosaurs” sidebars, which are so well-written, are “dropped into the middle of chapter 4 in an apparently indiscriminate fashion — in some cases interrupting the main text flow in mid-sentence. This makes an otherwise well-written text very choppy and hard to follow because of the necessity of flipping several pages to find where it continues. If this chapter is read in page order (reading the sidebars as the reader comes to them — not recommended), the impact of chapter 4, titled “Dinosaur History,” is mostly lost. The recommended method of reading this chapter is to flip past the intrusive sidebars, complete the reading of the main text of the chapter, and then return to the earlier pages to read the sidebars.

    The second negative aspect is the lack of an index. Although it would not be easy to appropriately and thoroughly index this volume because of the extensive nature of the research and facts presented, referring back to find things in the volume is very difficult without it. All of the excellent information provided just invites using this book as a reference tool and not just for casual reading. A good index for this book would take up quite a few pages and thus add to the compact size.

    The main text ends with a clear presentation of the Gospel starting with Genesis 1 — man's accountability to the Creator (this section was written by Ken Ham’s brother, Robert). The talents of all these men have combined to make this book a showpiece of cooperation and a wonderful tool for reaching the world with the truth about dinosaurs and the Gospel. Overall, this book is an excellent addition to any creationist's library (and should be in quite a few public and school libraries).  It may be ordered from Answers in Genesis by calling 800-778-3390.

This review first appeared in the August 1998 issue (Vol. 4, No.8) of the AOSA Newsletter published by the Arizona Origin Science Association, and is reproduced here by permission. David is the newsletter’s editor. The AOSA may be contacted at P.O. Box 6952, Mesa, AZ 85216-6952. Email davido@amug.org

Creation Quest Niagara Falls Bus Tour
by Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D.

Following the recent ICC, the Creation Research Society sponsored a tour to Niagara Falls on August 9-11, 1998. The tour departed from Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA, and after a brief devotional, John Meyer delivered a lecture on the general glacial geology of the northeastern United States. A discussion on the diversion of Pine Creek in central Pennsylvania (See Williams, Chaffin, Goette and Meyer, 1994) in relation to possible regional glaciation ensued. This was followed by a talk on the age and rate of recession of the Falls of the Niagara River, both from uniformitarian and creationist perspectives. After checking into a motel on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, all tour participants enjoyed a banquet meal followed by an orientation talk by John Meyer. Afterwards Tom Trussler discussed estate planning.

    The next day we were joined by a local guide. We boarded the Maid of the Mist for a boat ride into the heavy (!) mist of the Canadian Niagara Falls. Next we attended a film on the Falls at the IMAX Theater which included some magnificent photography. The film also presented legend, history, and simulations of some daredevil exploits and of a dramatic rescue that occurred at the Falls in the 1960's. We had yet another opportunity to view the Falls from the Canadian side during lunch. As we drove to the outlet of St. David's Gorge and the Whirlpool of Niagara River, our Canadian guide regaled us with the history of the conflicts between Britain and the United States that affected the region.

    At the Whirlpool, about three river miles below the Falls, we noted that St. David's Gorge was likely a former drainage channel. Niagara River makes a turn greater than 90 degrees just before the Whirlpool which is similar to the turn that Pine Creek makes at Ansonia, PA.

    We spent some time in a butterfly conservatory observing these flying wonders of God's handiwork. After stopping at one of the locks on the Welland Canal, we watched a ship being raised to a higher level. Much water has been diverted from the Niagara River to preserve the Falls for future tourism. The diverted water is used for power generation and for a canal between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. During the day, we traveled to the beautiful town of Niagara on the Lake. The surrounding countryside is dotted with many orchards (even peaches) and farmland. That evening we again fellowshipped together at another delicious meal.

    On the final day we visited the Schoellkopf Geological Museum on the American side and had our final views of the Falls and Niagara Gorge from this vista. We visited Fort Niagara and enjoyed a fascinating tour and lecture on the rich history of the restored facility. As we proceeded back to Beaver Falls, PA, we discussed the similarities between the possible drainage diversion of Niagara River and Pine Creek and the salient points of a postulated single warm ice age after the Flood. Dr. Henrik Ullrid, a tour member from Germany, talked about his conversion to Christianity as well as some of the activities of creationists in his country.

    Our tour was educational and enjoyable with the added advantage of fellowship with other creationists.

Reference

Williams, E. L., E. F. Chaffin, R. M. Goette and J. R. Meyer. 1994. Pine Creek Gorge, the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania: An introductory creationist study. Creation Research Society Quarterly 31:44-59.

Dr. Williams is President of the CRS.

Home | Quarterly Journal | Popular Publication | Membership | Bookstore | Speakers | Donate | Search | Site Map

© Copyright 2001-2010, Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.