So my browser doesn't have a spell checker. What's your excuse?
Modern mantises have a series of spines—maybe five or six—on their forelegs, to help them catch prey. No mantis from the Cretaceous period has ever been found with spines while an 87-million-year-old
praying mantis found encased in amber in Japan has two such spines protruding from its femur. So tell me again how insects have not evolved. Even the 92 million-year-old ant you alude to has a different mandible than modern ants.
Sorry, but the
Tree of Life metaphor is alive and well.
Sorry but the tree of life is inadequate and dying:
Wiki Tree of life (science)
The model of a tree is still considered valid for
eukaryotic life forms. As of 2010
[update], research into the earliest branches of the eukaryote tree has suggested a tree with either four supergroups
[8][9] or two supergroups.
[10] There does not yet appear to be a consensus; in a review article, Roger and Simpson conclude that "with the current pace of change in our understanding of the eukaryote tree of life, we should proceed with caution."
[11]
Biologists now recognize that the
prokaryotes, the
bacteria and
archaea have the ability to transfer genetic information between unrelated organisms through
horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Recombination, gene loss, duplication, and gene creation are a few of the processes by which genes can be transferred within and between bacterial and archael species, causing variation that is not due to vertical transfer.
[12][13][14] There is emerging evidence of HGT occurring within the prokaryotes at the single and multicell level and the view is now emerging that the tree of life gives an incomplete picture of life's evolution. It was a useful tool in understanding the basic processes of evolution but cannot explain the full complexity of the situation.
[13]
Empusidae do not appear to have changed any further than the expected in-kind variation and adaptation There is only theory as to what they were before they were a mantis.
Wiki: The systematics of mantises have long been disputed. Mantises, along with
walking sticks, were once placed in the order
Orthoptera with the
cockroaches (now
Blattodea) and
rock crawlers (now
Grylloblattodea). Kristensen (1991) combined Mantodea with the cockroaches and
termites into the order
Dictyoptera.
[5]
Phasmatodea: They are sometimes considered related to other orders, including the
Blattaria,
Mantodea,
Notoptera and
Dermaptera, but the affiliations are uncertain and the grouping (sometimes referred to as "Orthopteroidea") may be
paraphyletic and hence invalid in the traditional circumscription.
Basically what Wilconsole is suggesting is fair reasoning. The evolutionary answer to why kinds that are meant to be a transitional species such as wasps to ants is meant to explain why most of these kinds continue to be with us today and obviously the same kind, regardless of the varitions being given species names. I cannot find any information on what a wasp was supposed to be before it took to flight.
The mantis bee wasp ant appear to be in the same vague state as the other taxons. Many maybe's an possibly's but no definitely.
African Fossil Changes Ideas of Ant Origins
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
Published: April 5, 2010
The first fossil ant from Africa, found in amber dating back 95 million years, challenges a previously held theory that ants originated in North America or East Asia.
African Fossil Changes Ideas of Ant Origins
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
Published: April 5, 2010
This 95 million year old ant appears to be doing fine...and you'll likely find even older specimens in time...you know just like one day you may even find one of those common ancestors you all keep talking about.