Evolution News

Mystery: Why was top Permian predator the most common fossil?

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG From Texas Observer:

The beast was a mammal relative with a heavy skull, a mouth full of fangs, and a tall dorsal sail made of skin stretched over long struts of bone. Sinuous as a crocodile, leathery scales shining in the hot sun, it padded along black-mud swamps and highlands shaded by swaying tree ferns. Sixty million years before the first dinosaur, it slept, basked, chased and killed. It breathed. It was alive.

That would be about 280 million years ago (Early Permian). So the mystery is:

Paleontologists studying the red beds puzzled over Dimetrodon’s ubiquity for years. No modern land ecosystems support that many apex predators. “If you go on a wildlife-watching tour in Africa,” Bakker said, “you will see on average 100 zebras per lion. Which is what you would expect. But what would it mean if you saw 100 lions per zebra? There’s something wrong with that picture.” And yet the equivalent disparity is present in the red beds, not only with Dimetrodon, but predators Eryops and Xenacanthus as well. While large herbivores such as Edaphosaurus and Diadectes also appear in the deposits, they’re uncommon.

Well, it turned out that Dimetrodon spent a lot of time around ponds…

The researchers now think:

In addition, the remains of aquatic animals often bear the telltale marks of Dimetrodon fangs, indicating that they’ve been chewed in a manner closely resembling the mastication of Dimetrodon’s mammalian relatives, wolves and hyenas. Which means, Bakker said, that instead of regularly attacking land-based browsers such as Edaphosaurus or Diadectes, the sail-backed hunters were most likely eating amphibians and sharks.

According to Bakker, this conclusion had been predicted by paleontologist E.C. “Shorty” Olson in the 1950s. But nobody was listening at the time, and the idea was soon forgotten. Now, on the strength of chewed shark skulls, shed teeth and other clues, it’s looking more and more likely that the top predator of the Craddock ranch regularly swam for its supper. More.

Well, it’s funny no one did listen, because it seems like a fairly obvious hypothesis to test. And isn’t research grand, compared to theory?

Hope Olson (1910–1993) lived and died a hopeful person, neither victim nor perpetrator of Darwinblather—that is, a matter is considered explained once a Darwinian explanation is concocted, regardless of its plausibility or relevance—and no other sort of explanation is wanted.
Darwinblather has given us such glories of science as evolutionary psychology.

See also: Talk to the fossils: Let’s see what they say back

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Mystery: Why was top Permian predator the most common fossil?

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    They have no evidence of predator/prey ratios. All they have is the deposition of the creatures before they were fossilized. its just a deposition issue and so its just concentrations from a severe event. the biblical flood simply was noted by them and they were fossilized in areas where a faster creature could get away to.
    It took a lot to fossilize them by the way. its not happening today.

  2. 2
    Davem says:

    Animals make tracks in the mud all the time, also. Yet they never fossilize. Something catastrophic had to have taken place.

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    Davem
    your right. its very unique to have fossilization and more unique in assemblages or structures showing an order.
    Fossils are worthless as indicators for the past even if evolutionism was right that they were laid over segregated time periods.
    its not thought through very well.

  4. 4
    REC says:

    News,

    Who Hope Olson is, I don’t know. Google returns Miss October 1976.

    E.C. Olson, for his part, wrote “The Evolution of Life”

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Evol.....B001M0BRN6

    Which states on the front cover:

    “The story of the development of life on this planet, from its origins to the emergence of man, with a special emphasis on the illuminating contributions made by modern science to the theory of evolution.”

  5. 5
    Virgil Cain says:

    REC- There isn’t a scientific theory of evolution.

Leave a Reply