rosborne979 wrote:oralloy wrote:We do have common ancestors with reptiles, but synapsids are not reptiles. Our lines diverged before reptiles evolved.
What is the common ancestor we share with reptiles?
I think it would have been an amphibian of some sort.
rosborne979 wrote:Does a fossil of the creature exist?
I don't think so, but every now and then I hear on the news that someone has found a fossil of something "close" to the last common ancestor.
I think that , with newer genetic information on ancient bird groups such as ratites and living diapsids, well see an entirely new classification system.
The problem we have with "mammal like reptiles" is that, while they may be mammal like in inferred structures (such as upright theropod suspensions), they exist in the fossil record in a very few areas right along with some "Almost" mammals(cynodonts which were warm blooded) of approximately the same age. The fossil record needs some infilling with new finds and these finds are busily being dug in the sands of the upper Permian .
Oh! The jobs. The funds. The buildings. The reserved car parks. The senior dining rooms. The teak cabinets. The computers. The titles. The strutting. Endless fun beckons.
Create your own cushy job at the cutting edge of Veblen's "waste=status" principle. Eldorado beckons with a flick of the wrist.
The name "mammal like reptiles" needs to be done away with though. As synapsids, they are not even close to reptiles. I like the term "proto-mammal" for pelycosaurs and therapsids -- it doesn't confuse them with reptiles, and it makes it clear what their significance is.
Surely you don't object to the advancement of science???
I now do too - so then, Dinasaurs are warm blooded?