Yanoconodon allini

yanoconodon_klingler1_72.jpg

yanoconodon_fossil.jpg

A pretty interesting little beast, which shows an inner ear structure transitional between reptiles and mammals. (details below).

Like all these discoveries, it shows again the predictive power of evolution. I post I did a year ago, coupled with this discovery, helps define “predictive power.” My earlier post on reptile-mammal transitional fossils obviously did not include Yanoconodon. But, evolutionary theory “predicts” that transitional forms existed between any other forms that might have already found. Sure enough Yanoconodon fits in between the earlier Morganucodon and Steropodon and the later Cimolestes.

[A] new Chinese Cretaceous mammal Yanoconodon [has been discovered], a chipmunk-size nocturnal mammal, adapted to ground-living (terrestrial) and digging (fossorial) habits. It is estimated to weigh about 30 grams (about 1 ounce) from its skeleton about 15 cm (about 5 inches) in length. Yanoconodon belongs to the primitive Mesozoic fossil mammal group known as triconodonts, characterized by three cusps in a straight line on molar teeth (“tri” – three; “con” – cusps; “don” tooth; “triconodont” – mammal with three-cusped tooth).

The ear structure of Yanoconodon is intermediate between those of mammaliaforms (pre-mammalian relatives, such as Morganucodon) on the one hand, and the typical structure of all modern mammals (such as living opossum) on the other hand.

All modern mammals have a middle ear separated from the lower jaw (see example from living opossum). This jaw-ear detachment is an important evolutionary innovation for mammals to have a delicate and highly sensitive ear structure for better hearing, and to have a more robust lower jaw and jaw hinge for better feeding. By comparison, the middle ear bones are a part of the lower jaw and form the jaw hinge in pre-mammalian relatives (see the example of Morganucodon).

The ear bones in Yanoconodon are partly separated from the jaw, and more similar to those modern mammals than to mammaliaforms, but still retain the premammalian condition that the jaw and the ear are connected to each other. Because it is structurally intermediate between the distant mammalian relatives and modern mammals, it provides crucial fossil evidence for a major evolutionary transition for mammalian origins.

Yanoconodon has relatively short limbs of sprawling posture but a more elongate body by six more vertebrae than the 19 or 20 vertebrae of all other terrestrial mammals. Yanoconodon has mobile ribs in the lumbar (waist) vertebrae and gradational transition of thorax (chest) and lumbar (waist) regions, an ancestral feature of this mammal for its relatively advanced position in the mammal family tree. Recent developmental biology studies have documented that the “re-appearance” of these long-lost lumbar (waist) ribs can result from changes in developmental genes in modern mammals; so scientists hypothesize that the convergent evolution of these primitive features in Yanoconodon could evolve as result changes in developmental genes.

More at Pharyngula

Comments

  1. jfxgillis wrote:

    Commie, allow me to respond, to tell you why I love your blog, and to expand on a point I made a couple of weeks ago.

    Let’s say that roughly speaking American partisan politics is divided into four groups: Republicans, Democrats, Moonbats and Wingnuts.

    While I might and on rare occasions have voted for an individual Republican for lesser office, I will never vote Republican for Federal office because Creationism is a core tenet of Wingnutism, the Republicans rely on Wingnuts for their coalition, and I will not under any circumstances vote to enshrine an idiotic ancient mythology as an explanation for natural phenomena.

    Can’t do it. It’s a deal-breaker. If the Wingnuts and Moonbats broke off and created third and fourth arties, I probably would vote Republican more often (in fact, Wingnuttery is the only reason I did not vote for Mitt Romney when he ran for governor). We can haggle over, say, the size and shape of the public sector in the political economy. But not Creationism. Tom DeLay was a Creationist. Therefore, I cannot vote for his party.

    Watching McCain (hopefully fruitlessly) pander to the Wingnuts is disturbing.

  2. DavidC wrote:

    jfxgillis,

    I find your comments interesting. Why are you so afraid of creationists? I see them as basically harmless, unless they are teachers who are actually teaching science classes and promoting creationism to students.
    But a politician being a creationist, who cares? Do you worry that politicians have religious beliefs? Will you only vote for atheist politicians (good luck finding any)?

    Personally I get a lot more worried by politicians who want to raise taxes and then waste the money than on those who hold mythologically based views on certain areas of science. Most people are pretty clueless when it comes to scientific issues anyway, and that goes for most politicians as well.

  3. commissar wrote:

    I agree with David. Politics is about assembling coalitions.

    I’m a conservative. Let’s say of the Milton Friedman, “Free to Choose,” school. Generally, I have to choose between a party that theoretically ascribes to such views (with imperfect, evil, etc. implementation) versus a party that opposes such views (and is also imperfect and evil).

    Absent a major SNAFU like the way the Bush admin has handled Iraq, I gotta go with the GOP, whether they have crowded some creationist morons in the big tent or not.

  4. jfxgillis wrote:

    DavidC:

    Dunno if commie’s filter will accept this, but politicians most of all scare me on this because it indicates they have minds beholden to bull$hit.

    I can make a reality-based argument for raising taxes just as you can make a reality-based argument for cutting them. As I said above, that we can haggle about. And we should haggle about it.

    Moreover, during the last 25 years or so, the Republican party has come to rely on the bloc of voters beholden to bull$hit, much the way the Dems had to rely on the Segregationists for generations. (Funny how it’s basically the same people).

  5. jfxgillis wrote:

    That’s all well and good, commie, except that the mainstream Repubs aren’t even theoretically libertarian and the mainstream Dems aren’t even theoretically socialist.

    Basically, we’re haggling over whether the size of the public sector should be in the range of 45% or only 40%. I mean, come on. Is the difference between Paul O’Neil and Robert Rubin really the critical difference between Dems and Repubs? Jim Leach and Barney Frank?

    Since the Republican party CHOSE to construct its coalition with the base of voters beholden to bullcrap, coming back with Milton Friedman just isn’t a viable excuse anymore.

    Think about. It’s another variation on that theme that led to this anyway:

    Absent a major SNAFU like the way the Bush admin has handled Iraq ….

    It was the kind of non-rationalistic mind that believes Creationism that set up this this crazy war and it’s bad consequences. A third way of putting it: It’s because the GOP was thoroughly polluted with Creationists that the war unfolded as it did.

  6. commissar wrote:

    You imply that the differences are in Fed Funds interest rate policies. And set up the strawman that I imply Dems are socialist.

    Notwithstanding Bill Clinton’s famous comment, the Dems are the party of big government, the Reps are the party of small government, with all that implies for many issues. And, please, don’t recount all of the Bush admin’s failures to live up to Conservative ideals.

    As for the Dover School Board creating the faulty intelligence on WMDs, I will consider that. :)

  7. jfxgillis wrote:

    Notwithstanding Bill Clinton’s famous comment, the Dems are the party of big government, the Reps are the party of small government, with all that implies for many issues.

    I suppose that was the case while the New Deal dispensation (and at times its Friedmanite reciprocal) was the core of our political economy and social structure.

    But not anymore. For example, if, in fact, the Republican party was the small-government-low-taxes-low-services party, they’d have fixed the ATM sometime during the six years they had the absolute power to do so.

    But they didn’t. That’s because over the last twenty years or so, and certainly the last ten, the political parties have been distinguished by cultural and social concerns, not along the spectrum of political economy.

  8. jfxgillis wrote:

    Er. AMT

    (Although if the Dems could fix ATMs so they gave out free money all the time, they’d never lose another election)

  9. canuckistani wrote:

    I have to agree with jfx. I politician who believes that lower taxes benefit the economy is someone I can respect as a reasonable person even if I disagree with him. A politician who believes that we were all poofed into existance 6000 years ago is not someone I can respect, because they believe nonsense. A politician who does not believe nonsense but acts as if he does in order to secure the votes of the credulous is someone I fear.

  10. jfxgillis wrote:

    canuck:

    What about my argument that Creationists caused the problems in Iraq?

    Would you mind showing commissar the error of his ways on that?

  11. commissar wrote:

    Canuck,

    They’ve covered that base with ID. If one is not familiar with evolution (when I was 30 years old, and heard Carl Sagan intone “evolution is a fact” I was a bit skeptical, and I was no uneducated wingnut then) … then the notion that all this stuff happened over millions of years, and maybe HE nudged it along seems reasonable.

    I know it isn’t, from a scientific perspective. But if evo is a tangential concern to some politician, or some ordinary citizen, ID could be appealing.

    IOW, there aren’t many folks of the “poofed into existence 6000 years ago” school. I know rabit can give me link dump of all ten million of their names :), but, in terms of what GWB-like politicians are (kinda sorta) saying they would “not rule out if taught the right way,” …that’s not Young Earth Creationism.

    I am no fan of ID, but it’s a subtler case than you describe.

  12. jfxgillis wrote:

    I am no fan of ID, but it’s a subtler case than you describe.

    Au contraire. Accepted in good faith, it’s simply a more intricate magical incantation; in bad faith, it’s even more despicable than the “poofed into existence” crowd.

    The Young Earthers are at least sincerely stupid, so you can admire their sincerity. The IDers are at best more glib, at worst, despicable frauds.

  13. canuckistani wrote:

    The impression I picked up from the ID movement during the Dover trial was that they do not believe their own nonsense; it is simply a tool to discredit evolution and sneak religion into the classroom. But I have to admit I’ve never actually met anyone who professed to believe in ID first hand, so I could be in error.
    Either way, my objection to ID is different from my objection to YEC. Creationism is reality denying nonsense, but ID is reality denying nonsense tying to pass itself off as science, and degrading science as it does so.

    As for the connection between Creationism and Iraq, it seems trivially obvious to me. When policy is being set by people steeped in religious fundamentalism and absolute certainty that they are doing the will of God, disaster is inevitable. Even if there was a God, history shows us that armies that march in his name fail at a pretty alarming rate.

  14. commissar wrote:

    You’re mixing up the politicians and ordinary citizens, to whom it may be appealing, with the ID gurus themselves.

    As to the sincerity of the ID gurus, that’s over my pay grade.

    Again, the politicians who are willing to give ID the (undeserved) benefit of the doubt, are not “despicable, bad faith, insincere, etc.” That is precisely the point I’m making here.

  15. canuckistani wrote:

    Having recently discovered that I am a member of the most despised minority in America, I may be unduly sensitive on the subject of religion and politics. What the ordinary people believe re: science and religion is not my problem. I am regularly dealing with the public as part of my astronomy club’s public star nights, and I deal respectfully with all beliefs, especially when I think they’re wrong. I explain my views when asked, and otherwise keep my mouth shut.
    I hold politicians to different standards, however. If they support ID, or the “teaching of the controversy”, I see two possibilities:
    1) They are ignorant, and don’t know any better.
    2) They are openly appealing to religious fundamentalists for support, and when elected will do their best to restrict divorce, abortion, contraception, science, free speech, gay rights, freedom from school prayer and anything else that conflicts with their interpretation of the bible.

    The problem is, I can’t tell which they are. So I vote against them all. Ignorance of science is not an appealing characteristic in a politician, and fundamentalism is worse.

  16. jfxgillis wrote:

    Commie, they most certainly are:

    Again, the politicians who are willing to give ID the (undeserved) benefit of the doubt, are not “despicable, bad faith, insincere, etc.”

    There is the kind of pandering politicians do that appeals to pure self-interest on the part of the voter or bloc being appealed to. It’s frequently (but by no means always) discreditable or at least morally neutral. But it is at least rational

    Then there is the kind of pandering politicians do that appeals to the rankest sort of ignorance, stupidity, bigotry and irrationality on the part of the voter or bloc being appealed to.

    The second kind of bigotry is always unconscienable.

  17. DavidC wrote:

    “It was the kind of non-rationalistic mind that believes Creationism that set up this this crazy war and it’s bad consequences. ”

    “As for the connection between Creationism and Iraq, it seems trivially obvious to me. When policy is being set by people steeped in religious fundamentalism and absolute certainty that they are doing the will of God, disaster is inevitable.”

    I don’t see the connection at all. There were plenty of reasons to support the war that were in no way irrational, or had anything to do with “doing the will of God.” In my opinion, the supposed influence of Bush’s religious views on his decision making is way overblown, and basically just left-wing propaganda put out by BDS sufferers and anti-religious bigots. And I say this as an atheist myself.

    Does Cheney strike you as a particularly religious person? How about Rumsfeld? Were they operating according to their understanding of the will of God too?

    In addition, I reject the notion that people who believe in creationalism automatically have a “non-rationalistic mindset,” although that’s certainly true of some. For some, their religious beliefs create a blind spot with regard to evolution. They choose faith over reason and evidence, and their faith tells them they have to reject evolution. That doesn’t mean they are irrational, or that they reject other scientific facts in favor of some sort of myth — only those that specifically conflict with their religious beliefs. Someone who is a creationist can be totally rational on other issues.

  18. jfxgillis wrote:

    DavidC:

    I’m not sure if this violates commie’s “civility” standards, but this:

    They choose faith over reason and evidence, and their faith tells them they have to reject evolution.

    Is “irrational” BY DEFINITION. Therefore, this:

    That doesn’t mean they are irrational ….

    makes you irrational.

    I don’t want to get into a whole thing on political economy, but Bush’s tax cuts combined with his spending non-cuts are bad policy and always was. It’s dessert without vegetables. The best you can say about “major differences” is that stereotypically the Repubs want tax cuts without spending cuts and the Dems want spending increases without tax increases. And the streotype is less true now of Democrats than of Republicans … ergo, the Dems are now the party of fiscal responsibility.

    The funny thing is, it boggles my mind to say that and I’m a Dem!!!

  19. canuckistani wrote:

    DavidC-
    I agree, there are many reational reasons to support the war, and we could probably have a good discussion about them. But how do you feel about the way the war was implemented? Would you agree that there was a certain lack of planning, a lot of wishful thinking, a tendency to appoint adminstrators for their ideological purity rather than their competence? That’s what I see, and it looks clear to me that the minds of the, ahem, “planners”, were steeped in the same unquestioning, absolutely certain mindset I see in hardcore fundamentalist Christians.

  20. jfxgillis wrote:

    That’s what I see, and it looks clear to me that the minds of the, ahem, “planners”, were steeped in the same unquestioning, absolutely certain mindset I see in hardcore fundamentalist Christians.

    Canucky, my core text in defense of that hypothesis is GWB’s full-hour MTP sitdown on 8 Feb 04. Breathtaking in retrospect:

    Transcript for Feb. 8th Guest: President George W. Bush

  21. DavidC wrote:

    jfxgillis,

    “I’m not sure if this violates commie’s “civility” standards, but this:

    They choose faith over reason and evidence, and their faith tells them they have to reject evolution.

    Is “irrational” BY DEFINITION. Therefore, this:

    That doesn’t mean they are irrational ….

    makes you irrational.”

    You entirely missed my point. Does that make you irrational? My point was that people can hold irrational beliefs on certain issues and still be otherwise rational.

    For example, in my opinion Christianity is irrational. The only way one can believe in it is to suspend one’s reasoning and accept it on faith. But there are various reasons why people do just that. Does that make every Christian irrational and incapable of reasoning? I dont’ think so. Neither does a belief in creationism make someone otherwise irrational. It just makes them clueless about one issue.

  22. DavidC wrote:

    Canuckistani,

    “But how do you feel about the way the war was implemented?”

    It was screwed up massively.

    “Would you agree that there was a certain lack of planning, a lot of wishful thinking, a tendency to appoint adminstrators for their ideological purity rather than their competence?”

    Yes, I would agree, especially regarding the wishful thinking aspect.

    “That’s what I see, and it looks clear to me that the minds of the, ahem, “planners”, were steeped in the same unquestioning, absolutely certain mindset I see in hardcore fundamentalist Christians.”

    Again, I don’t see the connection. There are plenty of people (of all ideological types) who are blindly convinced that they are right, engage in wishful thinking, continue obstinately on certain paths, and ignore criticism. Those characteristics are in no way unique to hardcore Christian fundamentalists. And in fact, they tend to be characteristics of many politicians of all stripes.

  23. jfxgillis wrote:

    DavidC

    Not rilly:

    My point was that people can hold irrational beliefs on certain issues and still be otherwise rational.

    It’s barely possible that that could be the case where someone was ignorant of the facts and reason on a particular issue, and on much of the grass-roots level, that’s probably the case with respect to Creationism/ID. But you can fix that by presenting the evidence and the logic.

    But no politician, particularly Federal, can possibly have reached their position ignorant of the facts and reason with respect to Creationism or ID. Therefore, they must have rejected facts and reason in favor of faith, and that is by definition irrational.

  24. commissar wrote:

    jfx,

    Then there is the kind of pandering politicians do that appeals to the rankest sort of ignorance, stupidity, bigotry and irrationality on the part of the voter or bloc being appealed to.

    The second kind of bigotry is always unconscienable.

  25. canuckistani wrote:

    DavidC-
    Certainly the fundamentalist mindset is not unique to Christianity. Any religion or political ideology can breed close-minded zealots. I make the connection because of the presence of large numbers of fundamentalist Christianists* in the policy making levels of the Bush Administration.
    The fundamentalists I personally know can’t be reasoned with, and won’t admit error because they KNOW. An admission of error would be to undo everything they have lived for, and they can’t do it. We can compile a list of all the administration’s admitted errors in Iraq pretty damned quickly. To admit one error would be to admit that everything was wrong.

    *Pardon the Sullivanism, I would like to distinguish mainstream Christians from the fundamentalist nuts.

  26. DavidC wrote:

    jfx,

    I’ll try to refine again what I’m arguing, because I still don’t think you understand what I mean. I’m arguing that specific irrationality does not equal general irrationality. There are a significant number of people who hold what I consider to be irrational views on one or more issues. They may be creationists, believe in astrology or psychics, believe in a particular conspiracy theory, or whatever. But in general they are perfectly rational, as long as that particular topic is not at question.

    Some people are irrational in general, ie they are complete nuts who live in their own little worlds. They can’t be reasoned with at all. Many people have specific instances of irrationality, whether it be in regard to their religious beliefs or something else. But they are not nuts and can be reasoned with, as long as you aren’t dealing with their irrational blind spots.l

  27. DavidC wrote:

    canuck,

    ” I make the connection because of the presence of large numbers of fundamentalist Christianists* in the policy making levels of the Bush Administration.”

    Who are these “large numbers,” especially when it comes to people with decision-making power with regard to the Iraq war?

    “The fundamentalists I personally know can’t be reasoned with, and won’t admit error because they KNOW. An admission of error would be to undo everything they have lived for, and they can’t do it.”

    Again, I have not found fundamentalist Christians to be generally irrational, and I have had considerable experience with them. Why wouldn’t they be able to admit error? Their own beliefs are that humans, including themselves, are sinful and flawed. And even fundamentalists are not a monolithic group. Some are complete nuts, most are not.

    Where they can’t be reasoned with is on questions that directly impact their faith, such as the veracity of the bible, and the fundamental interpretations they have of it. If you question the bible, or go directly against biblical teaching (as they understand it), then you run into a brick wall with them.

    But there is nothing in the bible that says: “the U.S. shall go to war with Iraq. And it shall continue until the mission is accomplished.” The Iraq war was a political/strategic decision taken for a variety of reaons. I don’t believe that there is any evidence that the decisions taken were made on the basis of religious thinking.

    Even when a fundamentalist Christian say something like: “I prayed about it and God gave me the answer,” or “I believe I’m acting in accordance with God’s will,” it doesn’t mean they didn’t think over their decision and weigh their options just like a non-religious person would. Only a few nuts actually think they hear God speaking in their heads.

  28. jfxgillis wrote:

    David, I understand exactly what you mean. However, this:

    I’m arguing that specific irrationality does not equal general irrationality.

    Is an assertion, not an argument.

    And it’s analytically false in any event. Since rationality is a general quality of mind, to suggest it’s possible for it to be limited violates the definition.

    Moreover, Ted Bundy was as perfectly rational as you are, right down to the old “low-taxes, small government” stuff except for this one little irrational belief he had … that murdering women who liked his mother would be revenge on her.

  29. DavidC wrote:

    Jfxgillis,

    Ok, point taken. My argument should have had a qualifier. Specific irrationality does not necessarily equal general irrationality. Obviously Ted Bundy is an extreme counter example. I’d hardly equate his instance of irrationality to someone believing in creationism.

  30. jfxgillis wrote:

    DavidC:

    Okay, let’s break this down. I will propose four modes of thought beyond “evidence and reason”-type Rationalism:

    1. Metaphysical speculations on the order of, so says the Vatican: Every fetus is invested by God with an immortal soul at the instant of conception. Call that “non-rational” because there’s no way to test it.

    2. Ignorance. Even though my physicist brother-in-law informs that Hyperdrive is a physical impossibility, I still believe it’s possible. (Not only am I ignorant of the higher physics neccessary to make that claim, I always will be).

    3. Personal or psychological irrationality: I believe my wife would never be unfaithful. I’m holding in my hand a cell-phone bill with mysterious numbers called and I found a condom wrapper in the back of her SUV and I certainly didn’t put it there, but still, she’d never cheat on me.

    4. Foundation or ideological irrationality: The First Principles of my world view require me to reject emperical evidence and reason.

    You think Creationism is either 1, 2 or 3, whereas I say it’s 4.

    I say it can’t be 1 because Evolution can indeed be tested, as commie’s root post demonstrates.

    I say it can’t be 2 because anyone educated enough to win Federal office must be educated enough to be aware of Evolution and the science supporting it.

    I say it can’t be 3 because it isn’t some psycholoical or personal belief and it has very, very public consequences.

    Therefore, it’s ideological irrationality and that is just about the single most dangerous mode of thought for ruler or lawmaker to possess.

  31. canuckistani wrote:

    DavidC-
    I have to admit, I have failed to find any good links on the connection between PNAC and fundamentalism. They’re out there, but I would not call any of the ones I have seen unbiased sources.
    So I will withdraw the point. I still believe it, but I will call it an unconfirmed hypothesis, and eagerly await an alternative explanation for the unprecedented bungling of the war.

  32. John the Marine wrote:

    You know I get the impression that some people think only the GOP is full of Bull Poopy. I’m fairly confident that political correctness and victim politics (to name two) smells like… well bull poopy. Now I’m a practicing Christian, love Jesus and the full nine yards, but I certainly don’t swallow creationism or ID or what ever. But to say that the Dems are free and clear of placating large blocks of narrow minded extremist idiots is equally as, if not more, farcical than creationism. In short, GOP brand BS cost me less than the Dem brand. I’ll take the discount morons thank you very much.

  33. commissar wrote:

    My comment above got truncated. Sorry.

    The Dems indeed pander and race-bait, in “unconscionable” ways, playing a divisive game, appealing to special interests.

    As for Canuck’s claim about PNAC/Christianists, and “awaiting another explanation,” … I might blame the war’s bungling on a purple unicorn, and absent evidence of such a mythical lavender equine, will also sit back to await a better explanation. :)

    (To be clear, the purple unicorn was sitting over Bush’s shoulder egging him on.)

  34. jfxgillis wrote:

    Commie, you’re missing my point.

    Appealing to “special interests” is rational to that special interest (whether or not it is rational for the rest of us is debatable case-by-case).

    “Race baiting” is merely pandering to bigotry of the sort I especially condemn above.

    This is quite correct:

    I might blame the war’s bungling on a purple unicorn …

    since purple unicorns and Creationism are simply different manifestations of the same phenomena, mysti-magico-metaphysical thinking.

    Oh btw, we know unicorns existed because it says so in the Bible.

  35. John the Marine wrote:

    “Appealing to “special interests” is rational to that special interest (whether or not it is rational for the rest of us is debatable case-by-case).”

    Yes, rational when they’re idiots you find tolerable.

    ” “Race baiting” is merely pandering to bigotry of the sort I especially condemn above.”

    Well, lets choose our bigotry. Some bigots, like race baiters, just require a little pandering and everything is just dandy. Thanks for clearing that up. We wouldn’t want hold these people accountable for the damage they do to our country and society would we? After all they’re celebrated Liberals who champion celebrated Liberal causes, like race based hatred.

    Good job, I feel more enlightened already.