Fossil skeleton of Megacauda sungei
University of Chicago
Some 165 million years before creationists imagine Earth existed, an aquatic relative of modern mammals was already carrying anatomical equipment associated with one of our most characteristic abilities: suckling milk. A newly described fossil from Inner Mongolia, China, adds another inconvenient chapter to the evolutionary history that young-Earth creationism insists never happened. Its significance extends beyond its age, however. It also preserves a revealing combination of ancestral and more modern features — precisely the sort of transitional anatomy that creationists routinely claim is missing from the fossil record.
The animal, Megacauda sungei, is described in a new paper in Nature. It belonged to the docodonts, an extinct branch of mammaliaforms, the broader group encompassing mammals and their closest extinct relatives. Living approximately 168–163 million years ago, it had a broad, flattened tail, swimming adaptations and specialised teeth suited to an animal diet. It was a functioning, specialised inhabitant of Jurassic freshwater environments, with an evolutionary history written into its anatomy.
Particularly informative are small bony projections near the back of the palate and specialised throat bones. In living mammals, comparable structures support the muscles and soft tissues involved in swallowing and suckling. Their presence in Megacauda suggests that important components of this feeding apparatus had already evolved by the Middle Jurassic. This does not mean that the fossil identifies the first animal to produce milk, or preserves a youngster caught feeding. The inference concerns the anatomical machinery that made mammal-like suckling and swallowing possible.
The transitional evidence is especially telling. The fossil combines bony hooks resembling those of living marsupials and placental mammals with more ancestral ridges found in earlier relatives. Their coexistence challenges an earlier proposal that the hooks developed directly from those ridges. Here, therefore, is science doing two things at once: uncovering further evidence of evolutionary transformation and correcting a particular reconstruction of how that transformation occurred. Revising the anatomical route strengthens our understanding of evolution; it provides no support for separate creation.
Nor does a transitional fossil have to be a direct ancestor of living mammals, or an implausible creature with half a functioning organ. An extinct side branch can preserve a combination of features that helps establish the sequence in which evolutionary innovations appeared. That is why fossils such as Megacauda matter: they allow researchers to compare inherited structures across the branching mammalian family tree and test explanations against physical evidence. The theory of evolution supplies the framework that makes these comparisons informative, while discoveries such as this provide further corroboration of descent with modification.
For young-Earth creationism, the difficulties are cumulative. The fossil belongs to a world more than 160 million years older than its proposed “Creation Week”; its anatomy records a mosaic of evolutionary changes; and understanding it requires neither a magical creation event nor an intelligent designer. Instead, researchers are resolving the historical details of how familiar mammalian functions emerged from earlier anatomy. While creationists repeat that there are no transitional forms, palaeontologists continue to discover them — and use them to ask increasingly precise questions about our evolutionary past.
Milk and suckling^ an “irreducibly complex” partnership? A predictable creationist objection is that milk would be useless without suckling, while suckling would be useless without milk, so both must have been designed together. The argument assumes that neither could have had a simpler precursor or another useful function. That is precisely the assumption that needs demonstrating — and comparative biology gives us good reasons to reject it.The paper in Nature, which regrettably sits behind a paywall, was accompanied by an Ohio University news release:
The central error is to assume that evolution had to assemble the final arrangement in a single step. Existing feeding mechanisms, useful skin secretions, supplementary nutrition and progressive specialisation provide routes that require no foresight. Fossils such as Megacauda help researchers test the anatomical history; living mammals reveal alternative working arrangements. Uncertainty about particular steps is a research question, not evidence of a designer.
- Milk does not require a nipple
Platypuses and echidnas produce milk but have no nipples. Their mammary glands release it onto specialised patches of skin, from which their young obtain it. These living mammals demonstrate that nourishing offspring with milk does not require the nipple-based feeding arrangement familiar from humans and other therian mammals.
This does not mean that monotreme feeding involves no specialised behaviour or muscular coordination. It means that there is more than one workable way of delivering and obtaining milk. Modern monotremes are also evolved animals in their own right, not unchanged replicas of mammalian ancestors.
- Swallowing was useful before milk existed
The ancestors of mammals already had mouths, tongues, throat muscles and mechanisms for ingesting food and water. Evolution therefore had existing structures to modify. Improvements in manipulating food, transporting liquid and protecting the airway could provide benefits without depending on milk feeding.
The relevant evolutionary question is how this inherited feeding apparatus became specialised for suckling. It is not how an animal acquired an entirely new mouth and throat solely for a food that did not yet exist. The structures highlighted in Megacauda are associated with swallowing as well as suckling: their usefulness was not confined to extracting milk.
- Mammary secretions could have served earlier functions
One influential hypothesis, developed by lactation researcher Olav Oftedal, proposes that ancestral skin secretions helped keep permeable, parchment-shelled eggs moist. Secretions serving that function would already have been useful before they became an important food for hatchlings. Protection against microbes is another proposed contribution to the early evolution of mammary secretions.
These proposals concern a remote evolutionary history that cannot be observed directly, so the precise sequence remains open to investigation. Nevertheless, they identify biologically plausible functions for the precursors of milk. The creationist claim that such secretions must have been useless simply ignores those possibilities.
- A nutritional supplement need not begin as a complete diet
Early hatchlings need not have depended entirely on a modern, nutritionally complete milk. In a plausible evolutionary sequence, parental secretions initially supplemented other resources, including residual egg yolk. Any heritable change that improved offspring survival sufficiently to outweigh its costs could be favoured by natural selection.
Over generations, richer secretions and more effective feeding behaviour could evolve together. Increasing reliance on parental nutrition could then permit changes in egg provisioning and development. The fully dependent newborn familiar today would be an outcome of that history, not a necessary starting point.
- Present-day dependence does not prove simultaneous origin
A modern system can contain interacting parts that are now essential even though their predecessors performed different functions or worked in simpler combinations. Co-option of an existing feature for a new role is called exaptation. Subsequent specialisation can make components increasingly dependent on one another.
Removing a component from a modern system and finding that it fails does not recreate an ancestral organism. It merely damages the modern system. Consequently, the dependence of a newborn mammal on milk and effective feeding tells us nothing by itself about whether their evolutionary precursors were independently useful.
Professor Peishu Li coauthors Nature study uncovering ancient origins of mammalian suckling and swallowing
An international team of researchers, including Ohio University’s Peishu Li, has uncovered new evidence illuminating the evolutionary origins of one of the defining features of mammals: the ability to suckle and consume milk during infancy. Their findings, published in Nature, suggest that key anatomical structures required for mammalian suckling, swallowing and breastfeeding behaviors evolved nearly 165 million years ago, long before the appearance of modern mammals.
The findings describe a newly discovered species called Megacauda sungei, a large mammaliaform that lived during the Middle Jurassic Period in what is now Inner Mongolia, China. The research was led by scientists from the University of Chicago, Shenyang Normal University, Shandong University of Science and Technology, the University of Bonn and Ohio University.
Using high-resolution microCT imaging, the team reconstructed the skull and skeletal anatomy of the fossil. They discovered an unexpected combination of traits. Megacauda had specialized blade-like cheek teeth resembling those of modern seals, a platypus-like pelvis, and an otter-like tail, indicating it was likely a semiaquatic predator that hunted small vertebrates and invertebrates in freshwater environments.
More significantly, the researchers identified a pair of small bony projections on the roof of the mouth that closely resemble features found in living therian mammals, a group that includes marsupials (such as kangaroos and opossums) and placental mammals, (such as elephants and humans). In modern mammals, these structures help support the soft palate and muscles involved in suckling, swallowing and protecting the airway.
Because soft tissues are rarely preserved in fossils, scientists have long struggled to determine when these important feeding structures first evolved.
The anatomy of Megacauda suggests that structures involved in coordinating swallowing and sucking had already begun to evolve by the Middle Jurassic. This discovery helps us better understand the biological foundations of one of the defining characteristics of mammals: feeding young with milk.
Professor Zhe-Xi Luo, Ph.D., senior author.
Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy
The University of Chicago
Chicago, IL, USA.
The researchers also found highly specialized hyoid bones in the throat region. In living mammals, these bones help anchor muscles for swallowing. Together, the evidence suggests that Megacauda likely possessed an early version of the coordinated muscular system used by modern mammals to move milk and food safely from the mouth to the esophagus.
The discovery challenges a longstanding assumption about how these structures evolved. Researchers found that the newly identified therian-like bony hooks existed alongside more primitive bony ridges known from earlier mammaliaforms and mammalian ancestors. Their coexistence in the same animal suggests the modern structures did not evolve directly from the primitive ridges as previously believed.
This fossil captures an important stage in mammalian evolution. For decades, scientists have wanted to know when the soft-tissue structures necessary for suckling and complex swallowing first appeared. Megacauda provides some of the clearest evidence yet that many of these innovations emerged well before the rise of modern mammals.
Professor Zhe-Xi Luo.
The research also has important implications for understanding living mammals. While therian mammals use a sophisticated suckling mechanism supported by soft palate and constrictor muscles, monotremes such as platypuses and echidnas use a different method for obtaining milk and lack some of these anatomical features. The new evidence suggests that monotremes likely lost elements of the ancestral suckling apparatus during their evolutionary history and developed an alternative method of milk intake.
Beyond feeding biology, Megacauda highlights the remarkable ecological diversity of mammaliaforms living alongside dinosaurs. At approximately the size of a modern otter, it is among the largest known Jurassic mammaliaforms and represents one of the earliest examples of adaptation to a semiaquatic lifestyle.
These discoveries continue to reveal that the Age of Dinosaurs was also a time of extraordinary evolutionary innovation among early mammals.
Assistant professor Peishi Li, co-author
Department of Biomedical Sciences
The Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine
Ohio University
Athens, OH, USA.
The study’s authors include April I. Neander and Zhe-Xi Luo, Ph.D., (University of Chicago); Yikun Li and Honggang Zhang, Ph.D., (Shenyang Normal University, China); Chang-Fu Zhou, Ph.D., (Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, China); Thomas Martin, Ph.D., (University of Bonn, Germany); and Peishu Li, Ph.D., (Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine).
Publication:
For young-Earth creationism, Megacauda sungei presents the familiar problem of an organism living some 165 million years before a literal reading of Genesis allows it to have existed. But the difficulty goes beyond chronology. Its combination of ancestral features and more modern specialisations provides precisely the sort of anatomical mosaic that evolution predicts and creationists so often insist does not exist. Transitional animals were functioning organisms in their own right, not incomplete creatures waiting for a designer to finish the job.
Nor does the supposed irreducible complexity of milk production and suckling rescue the creationist argument. That argument assumes that the specialised arrangements seen in living mammals were the only possible starting point. Evolution requires no such thing. Structures involved in handling food and swallowing could acquire additional functions, while parental secretions and the means of obtaining them could change incrementally. This fossil does not reveal every step in that history, but an incomplete record is no justification for declaring a natural explanation impossible.
The study also illustrates how science progresses. The coexistence of anatomical features previously thought to represent successive stages prompts researchers to revise a particular evolutionary reconstruction. That is evidence of a method working: explanations remain answerable to discoveries. The theory of evolution supplies the framework within which the anatomical similarities, differences and historical sequence become intelligible, while new evidence helps refine the details.
What emerges is a history of modification, functional change and diversification, with no foresight required. Creationism offers no comparable, testable account of why these features occur together in a Jurassic mammaliaform. Declaring them designed merely replaces the question of how they evolved with an assertion that explains neither their particular combination nor their place in geological history.
Advertisement
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.
Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.