An international team of researchers at the Universidade Federal do Pampa recently discovered a skull dating back 250 millions of years that could provide answers regarding the evolution of reptiles since the Triassic period. The new fossilized reptiles discovered in the Rio Grande do Sul in southern Brazil could be the missing link between primitive reptiles and dinosaurs, paleontologists suggest.
The species found by researchers named Teyujagua paradoxa apparently lived in the Triassic period and it was an ancestor of a group of animals called archosauriforms. This particular group of animals will later give rise to dinosaurs and pterosaurs. It’s worth mentioning that the name Teyujagua is Guarani for ‘fierce lizard’ due to the aggressive look of the skull discovered in Brazil.
And the term paradoxa means is a testament to significant differences between this species and other contemporary fossils. The team of British and Brazilian researchers responsible for the finding believes that the reptile outlived 90 percent of prehistoric animals after a super volcano eruption triggered a mass extinction, including dinosaurs.
The Permo-Triassic mass extinction gave the animals that survived the chance to expand its new habitats freely, without worrying of predators and thus, life became more diversified. The new 250-million old species shows similar traits to modern crocodiles with nostrils on the top of a long snout.
250-million-year-old species showed modern features
The reptile also counted with teeth shaped indicating that the ancient animal ate meat on a regular basis. Researchers also noted that the reptile’s body was around 5 feet long and lived mostly in wet areas. For this particular trait, biologists involved in the study believe the newly discovered species represents the link between ancient reptiles and archosauriforms. This feature makes the Teyujagua paradoxa a distant ancestor to all modern birds.
“Teyujagua is a really important discovery because it helps us understand the origins of a group of vertebrates called archosauriforms,” said Dr. Richard Butler from the University of Birmingham, which collaborated in the discovery.
The fossil discovered by the international team of researchers in Brazil shows a combination of features never seen before, which indicates Teyujagua creatures had a unique position in the evolutionary tree of a significant group of vertebrates.Researchers at the Universidade Federal do Pampa plan to continue with excavation in order to find further information on the skull’s origin and more clues on the evolutionary tree of species
3 thoughts on “Reptile fossil could be bird’s ancestor”
Wow. “could provide answers,” “could be the missing link,” “apparently lived in the Triassic period and it was an ancestor of a group of animals called archosauriforms.” “This particular group of animals will later give rise to dinosaurs and pterosaurs,” “after a super volcano eruption triggered a mass extinction, biologists involved in the study believe,” “This feature makes the Teyujagua paradoxa a distant ancestor to all modern birds.”
Imaginative speculation piled onto wild speculation posing as evidence. And we are supposed to believe this is “science.” More like materialistic religion dressed up in a lab coat.
Craig: Nevertheless speculation from folks depicted as “biologist involved in the study” certainly should carry more weight than your baseless, skeptic remarks.
The patron saint of naturalism, Richard Dawkins, believes the greatest gift is that of skepticism. I am sure he intended that to be one sided, but none the less, we will accept his gift at face value.
I also take mild umbrage to your accusation of baselessness. Like those “involved in the study”, I have done thousands of hours of reading and study on these issues, both formal (Master of Arts) and informal. And this is the general pattern I see: layer upon layer of speculation, and almost evidence free. Surely, one can line up fossils in sequences and make an plausible sounding narrative. But I have come to the conclusion that in most cases, those “involved in the study” start with a prior commitment to naturalism and weave whatever evidence they find into an evolutionary narrative. After all, nature (the cosmos) is all there is, ever was or ever will be (in their view). So everything must fit that narrative, even when there are much better explanations. The conclusion (naturalism) is hidden in the premises, and then we are to be astounded when the predetermined conclusion is reached. But it is getting harder and harder to maintain that position, however.
Let’s look at where Darwin started. Uniformitarian geology. Now geologists acknowledge that most of our geological features were not formed slowly, but catastrophically. To keep the narrative going, they still insist on millions of years however. Darwin started with the “simple cell–a blob of gelatinous protoplasm” which made evolution sound reasonable. But the cell is incredibly complex and information based. And we are discovering new layers of complexity. The evolutionist has a narrative, but nothing close to a step by step explanation of how this complexity can arise. Life? It must have happened by natural processes, and “we are working on it–check is in the mail.” The foundations have crumbled.
It is incredible to see the commitment to naturalism even though the evidence is stacked heavily against it. Darwin wrote about the advanced human races, and how they would eventually eliminate those humans that are less advanced. Whew. Darwin was a racist, and thought his race was much better than others. The original title of his book was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Wow, watch the Darwinists scatter like cockroaches to get away from this. This part of the narrative has fallen out of favor.
Shall we continue with Darwin’s assumptions? Embryonic recapitulation—shown to be nonsense, but still taught to the unsuspecting as fact. Missing links are still missing, although there are many fossils that have been imagined to be so without evidence. Darwin’s finches are still finches and the changes are natural selection working on variations already existing in the gene pool. The dominoes been knocked down one after another. But the narrative still exists, and for the time being, stands against the advance of real science.
Well, it is not my intention to write a book. Theologians say there is a God who created the universe. “Those involved in the study”—naturalists or materialists—generally believe that only natural processes are involved. So the real issue is, “where does the evidence lead?” Not how many scientists who have conveniently converted to naturalism nor how pervasive the narrative has become. The question is, “Where does the evidence lead?” And as more evidence comes to light, it increasingly goes against naturalism.