Category Archives: Science

Education, Geology, Paleontology, Science

Know Your Bones: September 2014

10 Comments

Once again, last month’s challenge brought in a few good guesses and several participants guessed the correct answer. However, Dragan Glas was the first to give the correct answer.

 

 It’s likely to be one of the following three:

a) M. Comlumbi – most common in NM;
b) M, Meridionalis;
c) M. Imperator.

Since I don’t know how to tell the difference between them, I’ll go with the numbers – M. Columbi.

 

This is indeed Mammuthus columbi (Columbian mammoth). I also want to say that I loved seeing the deductive reasoning that brought Dragan Glas to this answer.

 

 

(Taken at The New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

The Columbian mammoth roamed across the southern half of North America during the Pleistocene (2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago), also known as the Ice Age. The northern and southern boundary of their range would have changed with the movement of the ice sheets, but their fossils have been found in southern Canada thru Nicaragua. The Columbian mammoth inhabited the grasslands of North America and was an herbivore.

 

The Columbian mammoth was larger then its more famous cousin to the north, the woolly mammoth (M. primigenius). The Columbian mammoth could reach a height of 4 meters and weighed in at 9 tons. The males had tusks that could reach a length of over 4 meters. This makes the Columbian mammoth the largest animal to have inhabited North America since the Mesozoic and one of the largest land mammals to ever walk the earth. It is believed that the Columbian mammoth would have little body hair, much like modern elephants, because it inhabited warmer areas of North America during the Pleistocene and had such a large body size.

 

Moving on to this month’s challenge.

 

 

(Taken at The Dinosaur Museum and Natural Science Laboratory)

 

Good luck to all those that read this.

Education, Geology, Paleontology, Science

Know Your Bones: August 2014

4 Comments

Last month’s challenge brought in a few good guesses, but only one correct answer. Once again, Isotelus guessed correctly, and within hours of the posting of the challenge.

 

 While it looks like a Wiener dog T-rex, I’m going to guess: 

 

This prehistoric wiener-dog is indeed Postosuchus.

 

(Taken at the Dinosaur Museum and National Science Laboratory)

 

During the late Triassic (288 to 202 million years ago), Postosuchus roamed across most of what is now North America. During this time, it was one of the largest predators on earth. It could have hunted and killed any of the dinosaurs that were alive at the same time. Postosuchus could reach a length of ~4 meters, stood ~2 meters tall, and could have weighed 250 to 300 kilograms. Postosuchus possessed a skull that was 55 cm long and 21 cm across.

 

Postosuchus had protective plates that covered their back, neck, and tail. These plates are something they share with their closest living relative the crocodilians. However, Postosuchus was a terrestrial predator and walked with its legs directly under the body. This armor probably protected them from other Postosuchus. During the late Triassic, there were not many other critters in the world that could challenge a full-grown and healthy Postosuchus, except another Postosuchus.

 

Moving on to this month’s challenge:

 

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

Good luck and thanks to everyone that reads and guesses.

Education, Geology, Paleontology, Science

Know Your Bones: July 2014

5 Comments

Last month’s challenge is a true titan. It held the record for being the largest dinosaur for several decades. So, who was able to name this giant? Isotelus once again named this critter.

 

 Brachiosaurus. I would guess the species name starts with an ‘a’ :P

 

This is indeed Brachiosaurus altithorax.

 

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

Brachiosaurus roamed 145 to 150 million years ago, during the Jurassic (and possibly the early Cretaceous) across the Western U.S. Brachiosaurus shared its range with several other sauropods and an earlier Know Your Bones critter. Brachiosaurus was ~25 meters in length, ~13 meters tall, and it had an estimated weight of ~28 tons, making it a true giant by any standard. Unlike most other dinosaurs, Brachiosaurus had longer forelegs than their hind legs. This curious trait is where it gets its genus name from (Brachiosaurus literally means, “arm lizard”).

 

Brachiosaurus was an herbivore, most likely feeding off the tops of fern trees that the other sauropods could not reach. Its large body would have been more than enough protection from predators that lived at the same time. It probably took a Brachiosaurus ten years to reach full size and could eat up to (if not more) ~182 kg of plant matter a day as an adult.

 

Moving on to this month’s challenge:

 

 

(Taken at the Dinosaur Museum and National Science Lab)

 

Good luck to all.

Paleontology, Science

The Transitional Tiktaalik Tirade

14 Comments

The objection to the importance and/or existence of transitional fossils is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition, implications, and usage of the term in the scientific literature. This post is therefore an attempt to accurately describe the significance of transitional fossils and their correct application as is evident in science articles. Popular science and media publications are in a sense obligated to use hyperbole when describing new fossil finds, and I personally consider them as on-the-go summaries of larger, more important bodies of work. While not always the case, such news reports often construe and overemphasize the results published by the paper in question. Granted, they are writing to the general public and must use language palatable to the lay person, although the use of certain terms in a news article may not accurately reflect their use within a scientific setting. That being the case, news publications are not and should never be viewed as a viable source or taken as such over the primary literature, even when said literature is not available to the public. When possible (unfortunately often not the case), always read the paper itself.

An example of these misconceptions at work is evident in any discussion with creationists regarding the elpistostegid fish Tiktaalik roseae and the discovery of an older set of Polish footprints, rendering Tiktaalik wholly “un-transitional”. To define the term, a transitional fossil is one that demonstrates characteristics in common both with its ancestral and descendent groups. As such, it may serve as a suitable representative of how morphological changes proceeded over time, and may have been closely related in some way to a true direct ancestor. The definition does not imply or assume that any such fossil represents direct relation or ancestry to any other, although it is implied that this is how it is viewed by some creationists who state that no evidence exists showing one organisms evolving into another. This misconception is intrinsically linked to the notion that evolution posits progression in a linear fashion. This view may or may not result from misinterpretation of diagrams that evidently depict primitive forms proceeding linearly into advanced forms in a series of strictly anagenetic events, but it must be noted that such graphical representations are often directed at non-scientists and simplified accordingly under the assumption that the viewer can place the image in the context of the correct version of evolution, which postulates the arrangement of organisms in a branching, tree-like structure. Transitional fossils do not imply a linear sequence of evolution and are instead imposed upon and considered within the context of branching lineages typical of phylogenetics (see figure below). The notion of one organism progressing into another also fails in that it makes an incorrect and rather tenuous assumption that any given form must die out and be succeeded by different, more advanced organisms. Recalling that transitional fossils are to be viewed in the context of lineages branching into consequent subsets, members of the branching lineages in question can coexist both in space and time, as each progresses following separate and independent trajectories. Any accumulation of changes would be similarly isolated. As a result, derived or advanced forms do not necessarily replace those that are basal or primitive, which can themselves persist unconstrained through time. This fact is directly observable in modern taxa and is both applicable to and demonstrable in fossil assemblages. Lastly and also crucial to understanding transitional fossils, a particular specimen such as Tiktaalik, is not considered to have been in the process of evolving itself, considering that evolution occurs at the population level, and not directly on individuals. Instead, the lineage containing Tiktaalik may show evolution, as it represents a collection of breeding populations progressing over a given length of time.

This and other arguments along a similar line tend to be incorrectly labeled by creationists as ad hoc rationalizations that feebly attempt to explain away major discrepancies in the fossil record. The description provided above is not however an after-the-fact justification, as it is the correct interpretation of transitional fossils that has always been applied in the scientific literature. The creationist argument that the finding of the older Zachelmie tracks necessarily implies Tiktaalik is out of stratigraphical order would only be true if  it was considered to be ancestral to later forms. The distinct possibility that Tiktaalik represents a member of a perserverant primitive lineage alone invalidates this view, and even more so given that transitional fossils are not presupposed to fall perfectly into a neat, simple progression of morphological forms over time, or fit into an ordered, designated time-slot in geological history. As such, finding fossils seemingly out of temporal order in no way disagrees with the definition of a transitional fossil, or the theory of evolution as a whole. In agreement with the notion of branching lineages, Tiktaalik was first described as the sister taxon to Tetrapoda (represented in the article by Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) and therefore not directly ancestral to later, more derived forms (see figure below) (Daeschler et al., 2006). Tiktaalik remained as a sister group to its derived relatives in spite of the age of the Zachelmie tracks, and as such the particular pattern of branching and progression of morphological traits within this specific group was likewise unaffected (Niedzwiedzki et al., 2010). This serves to demonstrate that the discovery of new specimens cannot and do not diminish or alter the intermediate status of other fossils, in spite of what the popular media may proclaim. The changes that do occur result from the necessary revision of previous hypotheses in accordance with the discovery of new lines of evidence.


A phylogenetic tree showing Tiktaalik as the sister group to Tetrapoda and its relative position based on a set of morphological characteristics. Note that Glyptolepis is representing the sister group to Tetrapodamorpha. The addition of Zachelmie prints did not affect the topology (branching pattern) of this tree.
Modified from “A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan”, by E.B. Daeschler, N.H. Shubin, F.A. Jenkins, 2006, Nature 440: 757-763.

The trackway does bring into question the relative timing of tetrapod divergence, which was previously thought to occur at some point in the Late Devonian. Incorporating this new data with known body fossils pushed this divergence prior to the Eifelian age and into the Early Devonian. This resulted in the designation of Tiktaalik and other close relatives as ghost lineages, as phylogenetic analysis implied their existence in spite of no fossil specimens. In effect, the relative lengths of the branches signifying time scale changed in accordance, recalling however that the branch arrangement remains the same. This may be viewed as an excuse to explain away an obvious discrepancy, the above explanations as to why this is untrue notwithstanding. However, other studies have corroborated an older divergence date for Tetrapoda and therefore support the ghost lineage label. An earlier publication described a fragmentary Middle Devonian stem-tetrapod, Livoniana, predating Tiktaalik and coeval with Panderichthys, but more derived than both based on discernible morphological characteristics (Ahlberg et al., 2003; Niedzwiedzki et al., 2010). In contrast to what most fossil evidence at the time suggested, the authors predicted that the divergence of Tetrapoda occurred prior to the Late Devonian. As such, the discovery of the Zachelmie tracks simply confirmed their earlier findings. In addition, one phylogenetics paper using Bayesian credible and maximum-likelihood confidence intervals found tetrapod divergence spanned the Early Devonian and potentially extended into the very Late Silurian, a possibility briefly acknowledged by Niedzwiedski et al., (2010), the authors reporting on the Polish footprints (Friedman and Brazeau, 2010). The recent discovery of the fossil fish Tungsenia (409 MYA), now the oldest and most basal tetrapodomorph known, lends further support (Lu et al., 2012). This finding likewise pushed the divergence of early stem tetrapods back roughly 10 million years into Pragian of the mid-Early Devonian, and resulted in an Eifelian time frame for divergence of Tetrapoda; a later date than previous predictions but nevertheless close to the estimates given by Niedzwiedzki et al., (2010) and Friedman and Brazeau (2010). As it is, ghost lineages do not always remain as such, and new fossil material may effectively fill in the gaps over time.

While the dissenting viewpoint is all too eager to tout the trackway as proof against the theory or evolution as a whole, this standpoint foregoes the fact that the authors describing the Zachelmie prints cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions without a definitive body fossil, and that the implications of this finding on the timing of the appearance of tetrapods is suggestive, but nevertheless unresolved. Consideration must also be given to the general paucity of fossil record and other problematic factors such as the geographical sampling bias resulting from collection focused within more developed nations. These points taken together, the creationist’s incriminating position on the implications of the Polish trackways is duplicitous at best. As more relevant fossil specimens are uncovered, including trackways, other factors must be considered. A recent study by King et al., (2011) studying fin movements in the African lungfish (Subclass: Dipnoi, a separate but closely related lineage to Tetrapodamorpha (see figure: Glyptolepis is a Porolepiform and closely related to the Dipnoi)),  P. annectans, found that a tetrapod-like gait potentially originated in primitive and fully aquatic sarcopterygian fish prior to the split of Tetrapodomorpha, and as a result those fossil footprints and trackways lacking definitive digit impressions may in fact not belong to terrestrial tetrapods at all, but to primitive stem-tetrapods or related sarcopterygian fish. As per usual, more evidence is required, and new fossil discoveries will no doubt shed further light on the issue.

My hopes are that this post offers a brief but comprehensive review of the literature reporting on Tiktaalik and tetrapods as a whole, as well as describes clearly what a transitional is and isn’t, and what it means, and what it doesn’t.

END.

 

References

Ahlberg, P.E., Lukševičs, E., Mark-Kurik, E. 2003. A near-tetrapod from the Baltic Middle Devonian. Palaeontology 43 (3): 533–548.

Daeschler, E.B., Shubin, N.H., Jenkins, F.A. 2006. A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature 440: 757-763.

Friedman, M., Brazeau, M.D. 2000. Sequences, Stratigraphy, and Scenarios: what can we say about the fossil record of early tetrapods? Proc Bio Sci B 278 (1704): 432-439.

King, H.M., Shubin N.H., Coates, M.I., Hale, M.E. 2011. Behavioral evidence for the evolution of walking and bounding before terrestriality in sarcopterygian fishes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(52): 21146–21151.

Lu, J., Zhu, M., Long, J. A., Zhao, W., Senden, T. J., Jia, L.,  Qiao, T. 2012. The earliest known stem-tetrapod from the Lower Devonian of China. Nature Communications

Niedzwiedzki, G., Szrek, P., Narkiewicz, K., Narkiewicz, M., Ahlberg, P.E. 2010. Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature 463(7277): 43-48.

Paleontology, Science

A Brief Structural and Developmental Comparison of Trilobites and Modern Arthropods

13 Comments

Hello all! I decided that it was about time to break into the World of Blog! I have a number of topics in mind for the future, which will focus on primarily on paleontology, geology, biology, zoology, etc. Many of you know very well that I tend towards the vertebrate paleontology side of things, however; I do love me some invertebrates! For those of you who weren’t aware, the username “Isotelus” is actually a genus of Asaphid trilobite, the main inspiration being Isotelus rex, the largest trilobite species currently known (My profile picture is as it is because the bird amuses me). In light of this astonishing revelation, my very first post will be a response to the myriad of creationist websites I have come across that seek to disprove evolution using trilobites as an example. As such, this post is not a direct response to any one particular article I’ve read, but a general statement on their overall position.

Trilobites represent one of the earliest arthropod groups in the fossil record, appearing in the lower Cambrian and persisting until the Permian-Triassic extinction event (520 MYA – 252 MYA). Comprising of roughly 20,000 species and 5000 genera, they were among the most successful group of arthropods to date. While an overall highly complex and sophisticated animal, a number of features identify trilobites as a basal member in relation to living relatives. Despite the often spectacular levels of preservation of trilobites (due primarily to their hard exoskeletons), the fact of their extinction can impose great difficulty in attempting to examine and interpret components of the body in relation to function or behaviour, especially when it involves microscopic structures, such as lenses of the eye or layers of the exoskeleton. Nevertheless, the trilobite eye, body plan and associated structures, as well as certain physiological processes including moulting and development, can be successfully compared with those of modern arthropods, which functions to demonstrate the set of primitive and derived characteristics that set the groups apart. Insects, crustaceans, and xiphosurans (horseshoe crabs) will be included here primarily, as most evaluations center on these groups in particular. This brief assessment also serves as a response to certain pseudoscience proponents who falsely claim the complexity of trilobites and modern arthropods is evidence against evolutionary processes. Advocates of creationism and intelligent design tend to focus only on the eyes of trilobite and neglect the rest of the animal, justifying the need to cover other aspects of the body and exoskeleton.

Eye Structure and Function

From personal experiences/encounters, the trilobite eye in particular is sometimes used by creationists to claim evolution has not occurred, primarily because they and modern representatives have functionally the same complex, perfected visual design. According to this view, trilobites were not primitive creatures, keeping in mind that “primitive” here is defined incorrectly. Taxonomically speaking, primitive or basal indicates a character that is closer to the ancestral condition, and relative degrees of complexity or superiority do not apply. In this context, the highly developed trilobite eyes were not necessarily inferior in their visual capacities relative to modern derived forms; however, there are many aspects of the overall structure that are nevertheless primitive in comparison to crown arthropods.

The majority of all arthropods have compound eyes that are comprised of a series of optical units called ommatidia, which themselves contain a variety of structures and function overall as photoreceptors. Trilobites are no exception, and are some of the earliest animals in the fossil record to show a more complicated version of the visual complex. While varying wildly in terms of general shape and placement, three types of eye are present in trilobites (see this site for a more detailed introduction to trilobite eyes, as well as some great pictures http://www.trilobites.info/eyes.htm). Holochroal eyes were the simplest form and by far the most prevalent type characterized by numerous closely packed lenses with a single outer corneal surface. This type is considered to be basal to the trilobite group and was likely associated with a benthic lifestyle (Clarkson et al., 2005). Schizochroal eyes occur only in one suborder and are distinguished from the holochroal type by a fewer number of lenses separated by sclera and each with an individual corneal surface. Both schizochroal and abathochroal eyes were derived from a holochroal ancestor and likely resulted from paedomorphosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny), as fossils of juvenile holochroal species have been found with schizochroal and abathochroal eye types (The abathochroal eye appears only in a certain group for a short time, and so will not be dealt with here)(Thomas, 2005). Trilobite eyes are typically compared to those of horseshoe crabs, which retain a number of primitive traits, including potentially the most basic eye characteristics relative to other extant arthropods (Schoenemann and Clarkson, 2013). This comparison is not always well-supported, as schizochroal eyes are so unique that optical theories typical of many modern taxa cannot always be successfully applied (Fordyce and Cronan, 1993). However, detailed preservation of microscopic structures in a number of trilobite fossils has since reinstated xiphosurans as a useful structural analogue (Schoenemann and Clarkson, 2013). In terms of structural composition, the lenses of trilobite eyes were uniquely made of a single immobile calcite crystal formed in a biconvex shape to counteract aberration, rather than a proteinaceous crystalline cone typical of all insects and most crustacean groups (Nilsson and Kelber 2007). Additionally, trilobite ommatidia likely connected to a single photoreceptor, indicating both holochroal and schizochroal species had simple apposition eyes, which is considered primitive for Athropoda, and present in Limulus (horseshoe crab) and some members of other groups (Fordyce and Cronan, 1993; Nilsson and Kelber 2007; Schoenemann and Clarkson, 2013). Both trilobites and Limulus ommatidia also potentially show a star-shaped arrangement of tubular, light-collecting rhabdomeres associated with a modified sensory receptor (eccentric cell). The above similarities, as well as the similar size and number of ommatidial elements, suggest Limulus has inherited and maintained a comparatively primitive visual system (Schoenemann and Clarkson, 2013). The structure of the trilobite eye, while complex and highly functional, is clearly not as advanced as most modern arthropods.

Schizochroal eye typical of phacopid trilobites, from http://www.trilobites.info/eyes.htm

Body Plan

Trilobites were so named because of the three lobes consisting of the cephalon (head), thorax, and pygidium (tail) (see image below) (Hughes, 2003). This basic pattern of segmentation is also reflected transversely in the axial and pleural lobes of the main body. This particular configuration is highly conserved across the group, with high levels of variation occurring typically in ornamentation (e.g. spines), and relative size, number, and shape of the segments and associated structures, such as the mouthparts. Unlike the majority of arthropods today, such as crustaceans and insects that occupy a great diversity of habitats, trilobites were restricted to a marine setting and evidently never invaded fresh water or terrestrial environments. This constraint is reflected in the comparatively static trilobite bauplan, which never diverged greatly from the basic roughly ovoid shape or formed highly complex structures such as wings, or showed the higher degree of morphological divergence achieved by comparable aquatic crustaceans (lobsters, crabs, ostracods, barnacles, etc). The latter may seem counter-intuitive considering how speciose and widespread the trilobites were as a whole. One potential interpretation considers their success over a long time period in correlation with their conserved and relatively simplistic body plan, which evidentially allowed them to function perfectly well in a range of marine environments, such that any significant changes or divergences were not favoured by natural selection. Evidence from trace fossils, taphonomy, and general morphology suggests the majority of trilobite species were likely feeding on particulate matter in a seafloor environment, which may at least partially explain both the relatively unchanging body plan and holochroal eye morphology (Hughes, 2003; Clarkson et al., 2005).

Soft-tissue preservation and ventral morphology of Triarthrus, from http://www.fossilmuseum.net/trilobites/ptychopariida/Triarthrus/Triarthrus.htm;

In addition to the body segments themselves, trilobite legs were biramous, consisting of two separate branches on a single limb (Hughes, 2003). Only the antennae were uniramous, and this trait along with biramous appendages seems to be the most basal arrangement among arthropods according to studies in homology and development (Boxshall, 2004).The same arrangement is also typical of crustaceans, while insect limbs are uniramous and lack a second branch. However, unlike both insects and crustaceans, the limbs of trilobites occur in identical pairs that repeated sequentially on the head, tail, and each thoracic segment, with divergence in form appearing in the uniramous antennae, or between species as a result of diet. Morphologically diverse and modified appendages typical of many modern arthropods, such as those for prey capture and consumption, reproduction, swimming, etc., are entirely absent in all known trilobite species; even those with soft tissue preservation. Although it may correlate with the relatively inflexible trilobite bauplan in association with a benthic, particulate-feeding lifestyle as discussed previously, this explanation may not necessarily account for the invariable limb morphology across all trilobite groups, including those that are interpreted as having been planktic, pelagic, or burrowing, based on other specific aspects of their morphology (such as eye size and placement) (Hughes, 2003).

Exoskeletal Structure and Development

The trilobite exoskeleton was highly mineralized in comparison to modern arthropods, which tend to rely more on organic secretions (Miller and Clarkson, 1980). In addition, the calcitic exoskeleton was fairly typical of an arthropod cuticle, with structural similarities occurring variably with modern arthropods, but was composed of only two simple, distinct main layers, the exocuticle and endocuticle (Mutvei, 1981). This same study found that a lack of a thinning endocuticle and the pores and cavities near ducts used to transport/dissolve old calcitic and organic material for reuse indicated trilobites could not reabsorb their molted cuticle. Miller and Clarkson (1980) also showed that the calcium carbonate contained in the cuticle is shed in its entirety during ecdysis. In contrast, absorption of the old cuticle in modern arthropods potentially aids in speeding the hardening process after molting, and some groups will also consume the old cuticle for nutrients and/or later incorporation. Due to the high degree of mineralization of their cuticle, trilobites were not likely able to eat their exoskeleton given the strength of their mouthparts (Brandt, 2008). The inability of trilobites to reabsorb their exuviae (shed exoskeletons) potentially left them at a particular disadvantage during moulting, as regrowth of new calcium carbonate requires a substantial amount of energy and incurs a high metabolic cost. The soft stage directly following molting may have been protracted, making them particularly vulnerable to injury and/or predation directly following their moult.

Fossil evidence shows that trilobite development is hemimetabolous, with gradual change occurring over three stages from the egg, instar, and adult phases (Hughes, 2003; Thomas, 2005). This particular form of ontogeny is primitive among arthropods, with many modern insects being homometabolous. Insects and crustaceans tend to undergo metamorphosis and grow through a series of very distinct stages. Trilobite developmental patterns in contrast are less complex in that they grow by gradually adding thoracic and tail segments with each successive molt until they reach a certain point nearing adulthood at which they continue only to increase in size. The modification across instar stages was also comparatively slight and referred to as hemianamorphic, which is seen currently in primitive crustaceans and fossil xiphosurans, and as a result is considered to be a primitive trait (Hughes et al., 2006). This process, like the eyes and body segments, also remained unchanged over the length of trilobite evolution, possibly due to compromises of selection pressures acting on other aspects of the body (That’s the best explanation I’ve found thus far, as few studies tackle this particular question) (Brandt, 2006).

Concluding Remarks

From a scientific standpoint, comparisons between fossil and modern taxa serve as a means to potentially shed light on the functional significance of certain structures and morphology across various groups. This approach has an alternate function in that it confronts factual misinterpretations of creationists seeking to find faults in the theory of evolution by claiming it evidently did not occur in perfectly-designed fossil trilobites. Trilobite eyes were well-developed and similar in many aspects to modern arthropods, and they shared a number of archaic characteristics with modern horseshoe crabs, which are generally considered to be among the most basal extant arthropods. Conversely, the trilobite bauplan, exoskeleton, and limbs were comparatively basic in contrast to morphologically diverse crustaceans and insects, and remained relatively static over time, possibly due to habitat and lifestyle. Growth and development also seems to follow a primitive pattern both in types of stages and relative degrees of change. Trilobites evidently represent a highly successful group of primitive arthropods that maintained a basic platform over time relative to modern crown taxa.

End :). I highly recommend taking a look at this website: http://www.trilobites.info/, for everything trilobite. I also apologize if the eye section of this post is a tad confusing; it’s a rather complicated topic that deserves its own blog, which I plan on addressing in the future.

Also, special thanks to Prolescum for allowing me to write this blog in the first place, and he_who_is_nobody for helping with editing.

 

References

Boxshall, G. A. 2004. The evolution of arthropod limbs. Biological Reviews. 79 (2): 243-300.

Brandt, D. S. 2002. Ecdysial efficiency and evolutionary efficacy among marine arthropods. Alcheringa. 26 (): 399-421.

Fordyce, D., and Cronin, T. 1993. Trilobite Vision: A Comparison of Schizochroal and Holochroal Eyes with the Compound Eyes of Modern Arthropods. Paleobiology. 19 (3): 288-303.

Hughes, N.C. 2003. Trilobite tagmosis and body patterning from morphological and developmental perspectives. Integrative and Comparative Biology. 43 (1): 185–206.

Nilsson, D.E, Kelber, A. 2007. A functional analysis of compound eye evolution. Arthropod Structure & Development. 36 (4): 373-385.

Miller, J., and Clarkson, E.N.K. 1980. The Post-Ecdysial Development of the Cuticle and the Eye of the Devonian Trilobite Phacops rana milleri Stewart 1927. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 288 (1030): 461-480.

Mutvei, H. 1981. Exoskeletal structure in the Ordovician trilobite Flexicalymene. Lethaia 14 (3): 225-234.

Schoenemann B., Clarkson E.N. 2012. Discovery of some 400 million year-old sensory structures in the compound eyes of trilobites. Scientific Reports. 3 (1429).

Thomas, A.T. 2005. Developmental palaeobiology of trilobite eyes and its evolutionary significance. Earth-Science Reviews. 71, (1–2): 77-93.

Education, Geology, Paleontology, Science

Know Your Bones: June 2014

15 Comments

Last month’s challenge will have a huge contrast to this month’s challenge. Before we get to that, we must name the winner. Isotelus came the closest with:

 

Those dainty little toes remind me of

Hyracotherium (vasacciensis…I think)

 

Hyracotherium vasacciensis is now considered a junior synonym for Eohippus angustidens.

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

When I posted this challenge, I actually did not know that the classification of H. vasacciensis had changed; I found that out doing the research for this post. It turns out that H. leporinum has more basal features shared with several perissodactyls (odd-toed ungulates) outside of the horse clade. Eohippus has features that are only present in Equidae, which is the reason behind the change.

 

Eohippus lived during the Eocene (56 to 33.9 million years ago) and ranged across North America. Eohippus was most likely a forest dwelling animal that fed on soft vegetation as a browser. Eohippus was ~20 cm tall and ~60 cm in length. This tiny critter had five toes on its forelegs and three on the hind legs, and would probably make an adorable pet.

 

Moving on to this weeks challenge:

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

In honor of the giant critter found in South America, I thought I would share another giant that once roamed the earth.

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

This second viewpoint is to help one get an idea of how large this critter once was.

 

Good luck.

Education, Geology, Paleontology, Science

Know Your Bones: May 2014

1 Comment

Last month’s challenge was extremely easy, so easy in fact that just an hour after being posted Inferno gave a correct answer. However, and this seems to be a theme for this series, WarK posted an even more correct answer a few hours later.

 

 Stegosaurus stenops

I’m guessing with the latter part of the name. From what pictures I could find online that one looked the closest to the picture posted by the Bone Torturer

 

This is indeed Stegosaurus stenops, a very famous dinosaur.

 

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

Stegosaurus ranged across most of western North America during the late Jurassic 150 to 145 million years ago, and one specimen was discovered in Portugal. Stegosaurus is found in the Morrison Formation in North America. Stegosaurus stenops could reach a size of ~7 meters in length, although some species of Stegosaurus could reach lengths of ~9 meters. This sounds impressive, but one has to remember that Stegosaurus would have been dwarfed by the sauropods found at the same time and place.

 

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

There are two main branches of dinosaur, ornithischians (“bird” hip) and saurischians (“lizard” hip). Stegosaurus belongs to the ornithischian clade. This means that Stegosaurus possesses a pelvis that superficially resembles a modern bird pelvis. Stegosaurus also belongs to the Thyreophora (armored dinosaur) clade. This clade includes all the dinosaurs that had armored backs and tales. The plates found on the back of Stegosaurus and the spikes on its tale make Stegosaurus one of the easiest dinosaurs to identify. The spikes on its tale were most likely exclusively used as defensive weapons against the predators of its time. However, the plates on the back of Stegosaurus may have been used for thermal regulation as well as defense. The plates show blood vessels ran across their surface. This could have also been used for colorful displays when blood was pumped into them.

 

Moving on to this month’s challenge:

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

Good luck.

Education, Geology, Paleontology, Science

Know Your Bones: April 2014

1 Comment

Last month was a really challenging, some might even say diabolical, fossil. After a whole month, no one was able to guess the correct answer. I guess that makes me the winner for stumping everyone. Now I know that showing fossil/bone fragments is the way to go if I want to win at this game.

 

What was the critter that owned the jaw from last month’s challenge? The jawbone belonged to Deinosuchus, which stands for terrible crocodile.

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

Deinosuchus lived 80-73 million years ago, during the Late Cretaceous, in North America. Fossils of this critter have been found in Canada, Mexico, and several states in the U.S. During this time, North America was cut in half by the Western Interior Seaway. Deinosuchus lived on the coastline of this seaway feeding on large fish and marine reptiles in the sea and large animals (dinosaurs) from the land.

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

The image above shows a lower jaw from a modern American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) compared with the partial jaw of Deinosuchus. Deinosuchus could reach a length of 12 meters and a weight of 8.5 metric tons. This makes Deinosuchus one of the largest crocodilians to ever live. Although it’s name means terrible crocodile, Deinosuchus was actually an alligator, making it the largest alligator to have ever lived.

 

Time for next months challenge.

 

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

Because last month’s was so difficult, I decided to be nice and choose an easy one. I would wish everyone luck, but it is not needed this time.

Education, Geology, Reason, Science, YouTube

Answers for Eight questions for Evolutionists

2 Comments

(Ian Juby, seen here playing a scientist)

Last month Ian Juby asked eight questions for us silly evolutionists to answer. Here are my answers in the order they were asked.

 

 1) Let’s start at the beginning: How did the first life arise? If you have no life, then you have no evolution. Following the laws of science and nature, how did that first life arise?

 

We do not know, yet. However, saying that we do not know does not open up the question for Juby to insert a god(s). Modern science’s inability to answer this question completely is not a victory for magic (a.k.a. creationism).  However, I would encourage Juby to look into the field of abiogenesis. Lots of progress has been made in that field in the past decade.

 

 2) How do you explain the origin of Grand Canyon without a world wide flood?

 

Seeing as how a worldwide flood does not and cannot account for the Grand Canyon, I will give a truncated explanation for it. The layers one observes in the Grand Canyon were laid down at different times. Near the bottom of the canyon, one can easily see an angular unconformity, where the land was laid down horizontally, than uplift happened to one side raising that side higher than the rest. Erosion than happened, which flattened down the raised layers to an even plain, after that, more layers of sediment were laid down on top of the angular unconformity. Some of these layers are made up of limestone, which cannot form rapidly in an aquatic environment; others are made up of sandstone that had to have come from a vast desert. Both of those observations alone expose that the earth is not young and there was not a worldwide flood in recent history.

After all the layers were formed, the Colorado River started to make its way across the area were the Grand Canyon is now found. It was once a slow meandering river, which one is able to see when looking down on the Grand Canyon (it meanders around the Colorado Plateau). Slowly the Colorado Plateau uplifted making the Colorado River cut down into it more and more. This is how the Grand Canyon was formed.

Again, this is a truncated response, one could write a whole book about the history of the Grand Canyon.

 

 3) How do you explain the copious numbers of dating methods which point to a young earth, and a young universe?

 

One wonders what Juby means by copious, because as far as modern science is concerned there are no dating methods that point to a young earth or young universe. Perhaps Juby could point some out.

 

 4) What scientifically factual information can you supply to support your contention that the universe is billions of years old? Don’t give me your assumptions and theories, and don’t give me the speed of light problem because it’s also a problem for you, and I already answered it with my response. I want scientifically factual information.

 

Seeing as how Juby will not accept the speed of light (i.e. the only reason we can see stars billions of light years away is that their light had to travel billions of light years to get here) I guess we will have to settle for our observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation, globular clusters, white dwarf stars and radiometric dating. All of those establish the universe to be billions of years old.

 

 5) How do you explain the origin of information, such as the information contained in the DNA, without violating the laws of thermodynamics?

 

Well, it would be nice if Juby defined information for us. Using the correct definition of information when talking about DNA (Shannon information), information can arise in a system without violating the laws of thermodynamics. No doubt Juby will take issue with this, but that is because Juby tries to equivocate the different definitions of information in his arguments.

 

 6) How do you explain the PRESERVATION of the information in our DNA over MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years, seeing as how thermodynamics is observably and quickly removing bits and pieces of that information in every single generation? 

 

Since Juby again does not define information, one can only assume he is talking about Shannon information. It is untrue to say that thermodynamics is removing bits and pieces every generation. Thus, this question is invalided because it is based off a flawed premise.

 

 7) How did sex arise? Seeing as how there are miriads of sexual reproduction systems in organisms, pretty much NONE of which are compatible with one another in reproduction. See CrEvo Rant # 13 Ian’s Sex Video for the quick low down on the problems you face in explaining this dilema. I’m not interested in sexual fantasies of how one system evolved into the other, I’m interested in factual, scientific evidence – observed changes, like any good scientist would expect of a theory.

 

Once again, we do not know the exact answer, yet. However much like the first answer I gave, science not knowing an answer does not make room for Juby’s god(s).

 

 8) Do you think your brain was intelligently designed? And if not, then how can you trust your thoughts if they are the result of unintelligent, undirected forces? Random chemistry?

 

This question is a vague attempt to insult proponents of evolution, and never fails to make me laugh when I see it. Of course our brains are not intelligently designed; they are a product of natural and sexual selection. However, just because they were not intelligently designed does not mean our thoughts are based on unintelligent, undirected forces. The reason we can trust our thoughts is based on knowledge that we obtain through experience or learning. Because we live in a natural world, were the laws of physics do not change on a whim, we can base our prior experiences and knowledge on the facts of reality in order to gain a deeper understanding of the world around us.

Hat tip to Bill Needle for transcribing the questions used above. 

Education, Geology, Paleontology, Science

Know Your Bones: March 2014

1 Comment

Last months challenge was apparently very easy. WarK was able to guess the correct answer within a matter of hours. However, later in the day Aught3 gave an even more correct answer.

 

Some kind of terror bird but not a moa :(

Diatryma?

Edit:
Dammit WarK!
How about Gastornis giganteus then? Just to try and be even more correct.

 

Aught3 is correct that this is Gastornis giganteus, formally known as Diatryma giganteus, however, Aught3 is incorrect in thinking that this is a terror bird (also, moas were not terror birds).

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

Gastornis ranged across much of North America, Europe, and Asia during the late Paleocene and early Eocene 56-45 million years ago. It is largely believed that Gastornis was the apex predator of its day, like the “terror birds” that inhabited mostly South America. However, Gastornis and its relatives lack the curved beak and sharp-clawed feet found in their distant cousins, the “terror birds”. The lack of those features leads some paleontologist to believe that Gastornis may have been a vegetarian, using its large beak to crack nuts and branches.

 

Gastornis’s skull and large size (~2 meters) often lead it to be confused with “terror birds”. Gastornis is sometimes called a “terror crane” because it is allied with the wading birds (such as cranes). Often you will see the junior synonym Diatryma used in books or museum displays. The reason this happens, I believe, is because Edward Drinker Cope, a very famous U.S. paleontologist, gave it that name after discovering a large specimen near Cuba New Mexico. This critter is also the first dinosaur to appear in the “Know Your Bones” series.

 

Moving on to the new challenge:

 

 

(Taken at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science)

 

Thought I would give a challenging one this month. Good luck to everyone.