Missing the Evolution of Mammals
Decker Halls is working with the Darwin Ranch over yonder by Deception Pass, and we spoke for a spell about mammal evolution. I asked him what evidence they had for it, and he replied with the usual boilerplate rhetoric. I asked for specifics, and after nervously adjusting the bough of holly on his lapel, Dekker admitted there was not anything definitive. Sometimes his fellow believers in particles-to-paleontologist evolution can be ornery cusses when trying to sort out their numerous disagreements.
 |
| Seal, Pexels / Daniel Lee |
A study of skulls was undertaken to try to settle things down about mammal evolution. The usual "convergence" was stated, which is a way of saying, "We have no evidence for a certain critter evolving, so we say evolution happened in many, so it must be true" (or something like that). The study did not do well, and earliest ancestors remained unidentified. How mammals spread was also unresolved. None of this is surprising to creationists, of course, since evidence supports recent creation and not universal common descent evolution.
The evolution of mammals from non-mammals, like the evolution of all other animal groups, has been, and will always be, problematic. English paleontologist Michael Benton stated, “The origin of the Placentalia, the crown group including modern placental mammals and their ancestors, is a much-discussed question.”
The rest of the article is available at "Evolving Mammals?"