What does the fossil record say?

[Amill]

I'm basically saying that you have research to suggest we may be related to orangutans rather than chimps.

We're related to both

 

[LuisDantas]

However you have no proof of one kind becoming another kind.

That is correct. In fact, no one has such proof, and never will. Mainly because those quasi-biological "kinds" do not even exist. If kinds are defined by their inability to evolve, then kinds do not exist in Biology, or at the very least have never been found.

You might as well "denounce" science for its failure to prove that angels do not have physical weight.

Were the concept of kind to be taken seriously, it would be up for those curious self-contradictory entities one would have to call "creationist biologists" to prove that kinds exist in the first place. Of course, they couldn't come any closer than counting successive generations without significant diferentiation. At some point they would either find such diferentiation (and choose whether to admit their mistake or disregard the significance of their own findings) or just give up without proving anything.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Dirty Penguin....Don't just accuse..show me where.

It took me a moment but this was one of them I was talking about.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-please-provide-evidence-194.html#post2330444

I like the way you have nothing better to talk about than this. Have you run out of intelligent refutes.

I'm basically saying that you have research to suggest we may be related to orangutans rather than chimps. You have convincing evidence for both sides. You also had many of the same fossils connecting humans to knucklewalkers. Hence what is the fossil evidence good evidence of? is it good evidence for knucklewalking ancestry now that you have one or two extra fossils? Is it good evidence of last common ancestor being related to an orangutan? Is it good evidence of the last common ancestor being related to a chimp? Is it good evidence of ancestry to something that was neither chimp not ornag like?

What I'm saying is why are you focusing on this? It doesn't really matter which of the primates we're most closely related to. The fact is creationist make the presumption humans (ARE NOT) related to primates. If the evidence strongly suggest we are and you appear to be in agreement with it, given your statement above, then why are we having such a long winded debate over this? I don't dwell on morphological similarities considering our genetics suggest we are related.

You tell me, which it is? The same evidence cannot be good evidence for whatever you want. It was much the same fossils that connect humans to a knucklewalking ancestry also and the fossils were meant to be good evidence for that. Then Ardi came along and suddenly they were all good evidence for a non knuckle walking ancestry to something that looks little like a chimp

Let's ay for example this guy wins the day. He is suggesting the same fossils we all look to are suggesting a closer relationship to an orang. Same fossils, a researcher that has credentials (not a creationist) has put up good taxanomic evidence. He also alleges that

Schwartz and Grehan contend in the Journal of Biogeography that the clear physical similarities between humans and orangutans have long been overshadowed by molecular analyses that link humans to chimpanzees, but that those molecular comparisons are often flawed: There is no theory holding that molecular similarity necessarily implies an evolutionary relationship; molecular studies often exclude orangutans and focus on a limited selection of primates without an adequate "outgroup" for comparison; and molecular data that contradict the idea that genetic similarity denotes relation are often dismissed.

"They criticize molecular data where criticism is due," said Malte Ebach, a researcher at Arizona State University's International Institute for Species Exploration who also was not involved in the project but is familiar with it.
"Palaeoanthropology is based solely on morphology, and there is no scientific justification to favor DNA over morphological data. Yet the human-chimp relationship, generated by molecular data, has been accepted without any scrutiny. Grehan and Schwartz are not just suggesting an orangutan–human relationship—they're reaffirming an established scientific practice of questioning data."(Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests ScienceDaily (June 18, 2009)


So are you saying these researchers, Schwartz & Grehan, are geese? Are you saying that finding a human/orang connection is not supportive of the Schwartz and Grehan stance. Regardless the Schwartz & Grehan research is very convincing in itself. They also give a balanced opinion of molecular comparisons being flawed and genetic similarity is not necessarily denoting ancestry.(underlined)

What I'm saying is it doesn't change the fact that humans and primates are related genetically or morphologically. On genetics I've always maintained that we are more related to some species of primates than others. See, I don't disagree with their findings. They are all good evidences but never conclusive. You assume biologist all agree but the debates are ongoing. Case is point would be the other scientist in that article who gave their opinions.

Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests
Paleoanthropologist Peter Andrews, a past head of Human Origins at the London Natural History Museum and coauthor of "The Complete World of Human Evolution" (Thames & Hudson, 2005), said that Schwartz and Grehan provide good evidence to support their theory. Andrews had no part in the research, but is familiar with it.
"They have good morphological evidence in support of their interpretation, so that it must be taken seriously, and if it reopens the debate between molecular biologists and morphologists, so much the better," Andrews said. "They are going against accepted interpretations of human and ape relationships, and there's no doubt their conclusions will be challenged. But I hope it will be done in a constructive way, for science progresses by asking questions and testing results."


"They criticize molecular data where criticism is due," said Malte Ebach, a researcher at Arizona State University's International Institute for Species Exploration who also was not involved in the project but is familiar with it. "Palaeoanthropology is based solely on morphology, and there is no scientific justification to favor DNA over morphological data. Yet the human-chimp relationship, generated by molecular data, has been accepted without any scrutiny. Grehan and Schwartz are not just suggesting an orangutan–human relationship—they're reaffirming an established scientific practice of questioning data."

Again, this kind of query is not a problem for biologist and other scientist in their respective fields should their findings be true. The question is not would we supposed "evolutionist" except it or what we do with this new evidence (if you want to call it new)...but rather will the creationist stop pretending humans and primates aren't related.....

If we'd of had this discussion 15 years ago you would have said there is convincing, irrefuteable fossil evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle walking ancestor, and that I was a goose, or worse, for not accepting it.

If the evidence at that time suggested it then what's the problem? We knew less, and less concerning various sciences and mathematics years ago and we have even more to learn so I'm not sure what you getting at.

So tell me today what you say the fossil evidence is good evidence of? Is it good evidence of transistion from an arboreal, bipedal, chimp like primate? Is it good evidence of some other theory? Then when it changes again I can reqoute this post. One thing for sure the fossil evidence cannot be good evidence for anything you come up with. That's sounds a little to incredible to be believeable.

Do whatever you like but it wouldn't change the fact that humans and primates are genetically and morphologically related....something you keep confirming over and over and then out the other side of your thick skull keep suggesting we aren't...

So again I say that your fossil evidence cannot be good evidence for anything that pops up as a theory. Hence it is not good evidence at all.

You just confirmed it was good evidence so what are you going on about? Let's be clear...the ToE survives just fine without the fossil record.

 

[newhope101]

Hey Newhope and Wilsoncole....


Originally Posted by tumbleweed41
Let's see.
If we take the stories in Genesis as literally true, what would we find in the fossil and geological record?

• The fossil record, from bottom to top would be mainly composed of gradually larger species. But there would be the occasional random mixture of species as well: trilobites with humans with dinosaurs with maples with Cycad trees. Species would be somewhat mixed. The very bottom layers would include signs of human habitation. This is not shown however. This is fine. A creative day is a period of time, not necessarily an earth day. It makes sense for the creator to prepare the earth for inhabitation and stage his creations. Mankind was last hence even a creationist would not expect to find a precambrian human. If a precambrian human was found then new earther literalists would be dead right. Your problem is sorting out Aves, as the bible speaks to sea creatures and birds as the first animal creations. To this day your aves and lizards are in a huge mess, understandably.
• The fossil record clearly shows that land animals developed before birds. But the Genesis account indicates the reverse.No it doesn't. When Ticktaalic landed there were already tetrapod footprints around. Hence at the moment your researchers can not provide clarity around this at all. It is an assumption made as a fish can hardly been seen to take to flight.
• Theologians have generally agreed that the Bible teaches that the earth is less than 10,000 years of age. However, in Wyoming, the Green River Formation shows that varves -- a 260 meters thick formation made from annual layers of sediment -- were laid down for the past 2 million years. Ice core samples have been taken in Greenland that show 40,000 annual layers of ice. In each case, one detectable layer of sediment or ice is laid down each year. I am not a new earther so no probs here at all.In fact the bible talks of the watery type world the earth was. a very good descriptor for the time and in line with current theory of coalescence of the earth.
• When there are fewer than about 40 members to a species, extinction is inevitable, even when massive human intervention occurs. After the flood there would have been only 2 or 7 members to each species; they would not have survived. Again you presume a global flood, It may have been a mega flood.
• There is no indication of a worldwide flood in ancient Egyptian, Indus or Chinese writings, temples, pyramids, sculptures, etc., which existed at the time of Noah. Yet, if the flood really did occur, then all of the world's early civilizations would have been completely destroyed. The entire population of the world would have consisted of 8 people, in the vicinity of the ark. It would have taken millennia for humanity to become re-established in China and elsewhere. The disappearance of the land mass between England nd France disappeared forever due to a mega flood. Just recently here in Australia, half of Queensland and Victoria was underwater after a deluge of rain over a week or two. I can't imagine what the place would have looked like if it rained for 40 days. It would appear to be a global flood, particularly if I couldn't turn on the TV or radio and find out what was going on.

You also forget that by your own researchers you have conceeded that all the population on the earth today is connected tot he MRCA at 5,000 years ago. Hence in that time there are billions of people. Repopulation does not appear to be a problem, especially without birth control.

SOURCE



So, as related to the OP, does the fossil record in any way support a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Darls, right from the start you began with a sweeping assumption that all creationists believe in bible literacy. Some do, some do not. The fossil evidence you have without your assumtions clearly is in line with biblical creation.

Your own science attests species, common ancestors, that have not been found but are presumed to exist somewhere. Likewise this leniency should be given to creationists that alledge birds were created before land animals. Fossils just haven't been found.

Your aves have recently undergone a huge reclassification. It has again been illustrated scientifically that morphological traits do not align with ancestry. Your whole concept is based on this, with your classifications. The hypo is an example of being classified due to toes and then finding out the hippos closest relative is the whale.

I am telling you here and now on RF that this assumption is going to cause your researchers more grief than they'll know what to do with.

The dinosaur has recently been tested via some protein method or something and found to share a common ancestor with Ostriches, chickens and to a lesser extent aligators. Now think about a dino head and tell me a dino appears more related to a chicken than an alligator. What I am alledging is that whatever it is that researchers are saying shows ancestry and cross family rank connections is erranous. This also born out when suggesting that a human and chimp are closer genetically than a chimp is to another knucklewalking, bent over, tree swinging, unreasoning primate. This is absolutely ridiculous and incredible. If genes tell us anything at all about what an organism looks like or is, then a chimp and ornag should be more similar genetically, regardless of evolutionary distance.

I will never be an evolutionist as your science appears to evade common sense.

I still cannot see a reply from Deist Primate. I have requested he be specific as to what ancestry, exactly, the current human ancestry fossil record is good evidence of. I extend the invitation to other evolutionists.

Not that long ago, maybe 10 years, this same discussion would have had evolutionists assert that the fossil evidence showed excellent and convincing evidence for decent from knuckle walking ancestors. Now with the addition of a few extra fossils and including the previous ones, again you suggest there is good evidence for ancestry to Ardi and bipedal, non knuckle walkers. There is now good morphological evidence that perhaps our common ancestor may have been an Orangutan. Is the current fossil evidence also great evidence to illlustrate this connection should this hypothesis come to fruition? What if, with more fossil finds would the evidence still be good evidence if we found tha Ardi was a sister species and we actually evolved from non arboreal species, would the fossil evidence still be good evidence of that?

Once you get to homonins I believe the evidence can be contested on aother ground that I have spoken to previously. There are flat faced monkeys, anoiapithecus, orangs that share many human fearures,there is research to suggest brain size is not necessarily connected to intelligence and ability to reason, it may be large for incresed sense of smell etc. There is no solid basis to presume the Homo skulls you provide as evidence of ancestry to another kind are anything more than decendants of other non human primates and hybrids.

As for genomic similarity to all life I say this. Left and right handed amino acids have been found in meteorites and theorised to have started life on earth by some means. I believe there is one structure for life no matter where it forms, or how many times it forms. There is only one way life can arise and the creator hold the key to it.

So I request again of any evolutionists in relation to human evolution, please inform me what ancestry, exactly, the fossil record is good evidence of?

 

[Dan4reason]

Darls, right from the start you began with a sweeping assumption that all creationists believe in bible literacy. Some do, some do not. The fossil evidence you have without your assumtions clearly is in line with biblical creation.

Your own science attests species, common ancestors, that have not been found but are presumed to exist somewhere. Likewise this leniency should be given to creationists that alledge birds were created before land animals. Fossils just haven't been found.

Your aves have recently undergone a huge reclassification. It has again been illustrated scientifically that morphological traits do not align with ancestry. Your whole concept is based on this, with your classifications. The hypo is an example of being classified due to toes and then finding out the hippos closest relative is the whale.

I am telling you here and now on RF that this assumption is going to cause your researchers more grief than they'll know what to do with.

The dinosaur has recently been tested via some protein method or something and found to share a common ancestor with Ostriches, chickens and to a lesser extent aligators. Now think about a dino head and tell me a dino appears more related to a chicken than an alligator. What I am alledging is that whatever it is that researchers are saying shows ancestry and cross family rank connections is erranous. This also born out when suggesting that a human and chimp are closer genetically than a chimp is to another knucklewalking, bent over, tree swinging, unreasoning primate. This is absolutely ridiculous and incredible. If genes tell us anything at all about what an organism looks like or is, then a chimp and ornag should be more similar genetically, regardless of evolutionary distance.

I will never be an evolutionist as your science appears to evade common sense.

I still cannot see a reply from Deist Primate. I have requested he be specific as to what ancestry, exactly, the current human ancestry fossil record is good evidence of. I extend the invitation to other evolutionists.

Not that long ago, maybe 10 years, this same discussion would have had evolutionists assert that the fossil evidence showed excellent and convincing evidence for decent from knuckle walking ancestors. Now with the addition of a few extra fossils and including the previous ones, again you suggest there is good evidence for ancestry to Ardi and bipedal, non knuckle walkers. There is now good morphological evidence that perhaps our common ancestor may have been an Orangutan. Is the current fossil evidence also great evidence to illlustrate this connection should this hypothesis come to fruition? What if, with more fossil finds would the evidence still be good evidence if we found tha Ardi was a sister species and we actually evolved from non arboreal species, would the fossil evidence still be good evidence of that?

Once you get to homonins I believe the evidence can be contested on aother ground that I have spoken to previously. There are flat faced monkeys, anoiapithecus, orangs that share many human fearures,there is research to suggest brain size is not necessarily connected to intelligence and ability to reason, it may be large for incresed sense of smell etc. There is no solid basis to presume the Homo skulls you provide as evidence of ancestry to another kind are anything more than decendants of other non human primates and hybrids.

As for genomic similarity to all life I say this. Left and right handed amino acids have been found in meteorites and theorised to have started life on earth by some means. I believe there is one structure for life no matter where it forms, or how many times it forms. There is only one way life can arise and the creator hold the key to it.

So I request again of any evolutionists in relation to human evolution, please inform me what ancestry, exactly, the fossil record is good evidence of?

Since you are out to find evidence against evolution, you might be interested in this question. All the apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, yet humans have 23. If we ask how many chromosomes our LCA with apes had, the most likely possibility is that it had 24 chromosomes just like the rest of the apes because that would require only humans changing their chromosome numbers rather than the rest of the ape species, and because humans are more different from the LCA than other apes.

This is ridiculous because that would mean that hominids just lost a pair of chromosomes one day. When you lose a pair of chromosomes, you die. Can science explain this? Is evolution doomed?

 

[cor bergen]

Of the species that we know of the human seems to be the least perfect. Evolution may corrct the human mind and body in another 10 milion years.

 

[newhope101]

Dan4reason..Are you baiting me? I think evos fairly well believe the difference in chromo numbers is due to fusion of 2 chimpy genes after separation. However, what is different at the fusion site is 135,000 single nucleotides. See chimp genome project wiki. Gene fusion happens alot. It is not about the similarities. It IS about the differences. I have read about similar chimp genes performing different functions. Similarly, just because a plant has FOXP2 does not mean we are related, nor that a plant can speak. It is a nonsense to suggest that similar genes support ancestry. There are ample examples of where this is not the case.

Huge Genome-Scale Phylogenetic Study Of Birds Rewrites Evolutionary Tree-of-Life

ScienceDaily (June 27, 2008) — The largest ever study of bird genetics has not only shaken up but completely redrawn the avian evolutionary tree. The study challenges current classifications, alters our understanding of avian evolution, and provides a valuable resource for phylogenetic and comparative studies in birds.

Shorebirds are not a basal evolutionary group, which refutes the widely held view that shorebirds gave rise to all modern birds.
"With this study, we learned two major things," said Sushma Reddy, another lead author and Bucksbaum Postdoctoral Fellow at The Field Museum. "First, appearances can be deceiving. Birds that look or act similar are not necessarily related. Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."

Again I see some replies that evade the question ..what ancestry is the current fossil evidence good evidence of, in relation to humans?










You had great evidence of knuckle walking ancestry, despite PW confusion, now that is rubbish. Where has the evidence for the chimp hand morph gone...or was it that you never actually had any..it was just made up at the time to fit in with current thinking. I do not care what explanations you provide 'current thinking' has been proved incorrect so many times that it is hardly worth the paper it is written on, when it comes to evolution.

Is the fossil evidence good evidence of mankinds evolution from anything? If so, it is not good evidence of anything at all!!!!!!

I'd speculate that connection makes sense to everyone, except for die hard evos and their theory in evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

It is an assumption made as a fish can hardly been seen to take to flight.

Careful with your "common sense" there. Assumptions made by "common sense" are still assumptions.

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

Wilson:
"Mr. Outhouse, you're not helping anyone - not even yourself."

Why should he when he's speaking the truth?

The complaint was that Outhouse does not ever say anything.
If he is "speaking the truth" like you say, that would be helpful because the truth benefits everyone.
Logical conclusion is that he is not speaking the truth.

The story you hold dear is from an early pagan mythological story "written in stone".... not only the creation myth but the deluge myth as well but in reality none of this has anything to do with the current topic.....

The story YOU hold dear, fossils telling the truth, is really the myth.
Faith in old bones is quite stupid. They cannot provide for you protect you nor save you.

I've said this before and I'm saying it again:
Biblical principles, if followed, NEVER fails. They can bring peace to the entire world.
Can you name one principle, taken from a myth, that can benefit all mankind?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

I wonder what is hidden by those ellipses? Of course the quote comes soley via Susan Mazur

Recursivity: Suzan Mazur - Perpetually Clueless

Here's a hint Wilson, when you see ellipses in quotes touted by organisations such as the Discovery institutes its a good clue that it is a quote mine. And 2 sentences do not require "summing up", that phrase alone shows it is part of a longer discourse.

Like I said: Here comes the nastiness.
Why is it that evolutionists and atheists are unable to say anything upbuilding about anyone who doubts the theory of evolution?
Tear down, slander, villify, abuse - anything that can deflect a refutation of facts brought out by believers.
Your way of life is greatly hindered by your lack of love. somebody needs to point it out.
I don't care about any Susan Mazur.
Does that mean that Stanley salthe did not say it?
If he did, what does it contain that is untrue?
Don't try hiding behind every little rock you can find in order to avoid dealing with those words that cast doubt on your pet theory.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

I thought Awake was a periodical, not a person...? Why shouldn't I criticize its irresponsibility when I see it?

As for facts, you have the whole field of biology. Is that not enough?

As for the rest of your message, David M handled it pretty well already.

Dodge, dodge, dodge!
As expected - no refutation.
Sad!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[LuisDantas]

Like I said: Here comes the nastiness.
Why is it that evolutionists and atheists are unable to say anything upbuilding about anyone who doubts the theory of evolution?

For the most part it is because at this point in time there is no honest way of doubting it. Playing the victim card is quite uncalled for.

 

[LuisDantas]

Dodge, dodge, dodge!
As expected - no refutation.
Sad!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

How many dodges do we have if we start with a refutation and call it a dodge?

None. Calling it so does not make it so.

 

[wilsoncole]

For the most part it is because at this point in time there is no honest way of doubting it. Playing the victim card is quite uncalled for.

Playing? Who's playing?
Why is everything a game to you?
You are dealing with words that you do not understand.
Like "honest." Show me an honest evolutionist! You insist on the "survival of the fittest" image when no such condition exists in nature. Here's proof:
The "unfit" survives alongside the "fit." The long neck of the giraffe gives it no advantage over the sheep. The trunk of an elephant is no real advantage over the dik-dik. Is that not so?

If a type of animal goes extinct, can the fossils really tell why? Can you verify that it was solely because it was not fit or because of fierce competition for food? If you cannot do so, is it honest to continue saying it?

Your weapon of choice is accusations. It works for you because you manage to divert attention from the points at hand when the accused is distracted into defending himself.

It is nasty!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

How many dodges do we have if we start with a refutation and call it a dodge?

None. Calling it so does not make it so.

Even if it is so.
Problem is, we don't get to see the refutation. So what can we call it?

A dodge!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Someone must have slept through the discussion on metphores during their seventh grade English class.

I wonder who slept through their spelling class.
If one is going to use an illustration, it should be workable in order to make the point memorable.
The phylogenic tree is not workable.
It is evident that evolution stopped working on the insects because they remain the same from very ancient times. We have proof of that.
If a tree does not provide nourishment to every branch, then that branch dies off and is not replaced.
Yet - the insect branch of that tree remains alive and vibrant - in fact more successful than most other branches.

What is the explanation for that?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Now once two species cannot mate they can evolve separately without diverging again by interbreeding in often separate environments. After a few billion years, they will be very different.

What two species diverged in the case of the insects?
Can your fossil evidence tell you that?

See Reply # 1014

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[painted wolf]

What two species diverged in the case of the insects?
Can your fossil evidence tell you that?

See Reply # 1014

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

Critters like springtails and bristletails (aka silverfish). So close to being an insect, but not quite.

wa:do

 

[Dan4reason]

What two species diverged in the case of the insects?
Can your fossil evidence tell you that?

See Reply # 1014

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

We don't know.

 

[newhope101]

Critters like springtails and bristletails (aka silverfish). So close to being an insect, but not quite. It appears you may be incorrect again and looking up an old text book. Indeed a silverfish is not a springtail. A springtail is not even considered an insects anymore. See wiki for more info and referenced research.

wa:do

You must be kidding PW. Just look to Wiki for a brief run down on the current state of the taxons. What do you think this picture is supposed to be saying. Your own researchers are not clear about ancestry with these creatures and continue to reclassify and debate. Yet you persist in pasting up a picture, rarely name what it is, nor make a point about it.

Is the point to this picture so that Wilconsole will go look at the mess this taxon is in?

Perhaps you would like to single out some research that supports your point of view. However, it appears Wilconsole will not find it hard at all to refute it.

Wiki: Pterygota: History of the concept
The composition and classification of Apterygota changed over time. By the mid 20th century the subclass included four orders (Collembola, Protura, Diplura, and Thysanura). With the advent of a more rigorous cladistic methodology, the subclass was proven paraphyletic. While the first three groups formed a monophyletic group, the Entognatha, distinguished by having mouthparts submerged in a pocket formed by the lateral and ventral parts of the head capsule, the Thysanura appeared to be more closely related to winged insects. The most notable synapomorphy proving the monophyly of Thysanura+Pterygota is the absence of intrinsic antennal muscles, which connect the antennomeres in entognaths, myriapods, and crustaceans. For this reason, the whole group is often termed the Amyocerata, meaning "lacking antennal muscles".

Moreover, it is now assumed that the Thysanura are more closely related to the Pterygota than to the Archaeognatha [4], thus rendering even the amyocerate apterygotes paraphyletic.
.
Wiki: The pterygotan group comprises almost all insects. The hexapod orders not included are the Archaeognatha (jumping bristletails) and the Thysanura (silverfishes and firebrats), two primitively wingless insect orders. Also not included are the three orders that are no longer considered to be insects: Protura, Collembola, and Diplura.

Wiki:Springtails (Collembola) form the largest of the three lineages of modern hexapods that are no longer considered insects (the other two are the Protura and Diplura). Though the three orders are sometimes grouped together in a class called Entognatha because they have internal mouthparts, they do not appear to be more closely related to one another than they all are to insects, which have external mouthparts.
Some DNA sequence studies[1][2][3] suggest that Collembola represent a separate evolutionary line from the other Hexapoda, but others disagree;[4] this seems to be caused by widely divergent patterns of molecular evolution among the arthropods.[5] The adjustments of traditional taxonomic rank for springtails reflects the incompatibility of traditional groupings with modern cladistics: when they were included with the insects, they were ranked as an order; as part of the Entognatha, they are ranked as a subclass. If they are considered a basal lineage of Hexapoda, they are elevated to full class status.


Basically it appears you, nor your researchers, have any idea of ancestry re winged or non winged insects, and are flat out just classifying them. That's it PW, and Wilconsole is right. You can spin him in as many circles as you wish with convoluted arguments and asides, and all you can do is reconfirm your inability to assimilate current thinking that is perplexed, as the information above demonstrates.

Now, are you going to tell Wilconsole that you have insects all worked out and he is deficient in some way, despite the fact that it is obvious to everyone that not even your own researchers can agree on much of it?