What does the fossil record say?

[Dirty Penguin]

What get’s me the most is having to provide research on info I speak to all the time. I came here knowing very little and still assume most of you guys know more. I am wrong. I spend most of my time justifying simple statements I expect you to understand and have knowledge of. It is incredibly boring. Then if I don’t reply I get accused of something or other that‘s not nice.

Don't get mad at the forum rules. This isn't the first time some one has asked you to cite your source. You have a knack of presenting very misleading information. Ever wonder why everyone else here quotes some one, some web page or some science article and actually cites their source? One, it's the rules and two, it's common courtesy to do so. Nothing is more irritating than reading the stuff you post, then have to go off and find the article myself. Just link it or cite the author.....

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Autodidact says:
''You have no idea what the Cambrian explosion is. I assure, it has nothing to do with all the creatures of the sea suddenly springing into existence.''

Many creationists get confused.

There was no 'cambrian explosion' as such...even though we are talking about a 70 - 80 million year period here, the diversification is entirely consistant with evolutionary theory in regards to the ecological developmental and atmospheric transitions that were occuring during that period.
Regardless cellular life existed at least 1.25 billion years ago, so there was no biogeneis of divine origin in the Cambrian...so I dont see why the 'cambrian explosion' matters to Creationists...well I don't see logically why anyway.

''The fossil record as Darwin knew it seemed to suggest that the major metazoan groups appeared in a few million years of the early to mid-Cambrian, and even in the 1980s this still appeared to be the case.[13][14]
However, evidence of Precambrian metazoa is gradually accumulating. If the Ediacaran Kimberella was a mollusc-like protostome (one of the two main groups of coelomates),[18][57] the protostome and deuterostome lineages must have split significantly before 550 million years ago (deuterostomes are the other main group of coelomates).[85] Even if it is not a protostome, it is widely accepted as a bilaterian.[61][85] Since fossils of rather modern-looking Cnidarians (jellyfish-like organisms) have been found in the Doushantuo lagerstätte, the Cnidarian and bilaterian lineages must have diverged well over 580 million years ago.[85]
Trace fossils[55] and predatory borings in Cloudina shells provide further evidence of Ediacaran animals.[86] Some fossils from the Doushantuo formation have been interpreted as embryos and one (Vernanimalcula) as a bilaterian coelomate, although these interpretations are not universally accepted.[46][47][87] Earlier still, predatory pressure has acted on stromatolites and acritarchs since around 1,250 million years ago.[42]
The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.[4] However, it does seem that some innovations linked to the explosion — such as resistant armour — only evolved once in the animal lineage; this makes a lengthy Precambrian animal lineage harder to defend.[88] Further, the conventional view that all the phyla arose in the Cambrian is flawed; whilst the phyla may have diversified in this time period, representatives of the crown-groups of many phyla do not appear until much later in the Phanerozoic.[89] Further, the mineralized phyla that form the basis of the fossil record may not be representative of other phyla, since most mineralized phyla originated in a benthic setting. The fossil record is consistent with a Cambrian Explosion that was limited to the benthos, with pelagic phyla evolving much later.[89]''


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

 

[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.
• The fossil record clearly shows that land animals developed before birds. But the Genesis account indicates the reverse.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

SOURCE

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

 

[Nepenthe]

What get’s me the most is having to provide research on info I speak to all the time. I came here knowing very little and still assume most of you guys know more. I am wrong. I spend most of my time justifying simple statements I expect you to understand and have knowledge of. It is incredibly boring. Then if I don’t reply I get accused of something or other that‘s not nice.

Here is some info on Lucy. Hopefully you are satisfied

Copyright © 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
Anthropology
From the Cover
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
Yoel Rak,*† Avishag Ginzburg,* and Eli Geffen‡

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

Also　

Wiki Lucy Australopithecus.. additional research is cited in Wiki
The discovery of this hominid was significant as the skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes and of bipedal upright walk akin to that of humans, providing further evidence supporting the view that bipedalism preceded increase in brain size in human evolution,[5][6] though other findings have been interpreted as suggesting that Australopithecus afarensis was not directly ancestral to humans.[7] In 1994, a new hominid, Ardi, was found, pushing back the earliest known hominid date to 4.4 million years ago, although details of this discovery were not published until October 2009.[8]
Other findings
A study of the mandibular structure of a number of specimens of Au. Afarensis indicated that Lucy's jaw was rather unlike other hominins, having a more gorilla-like appearance.[18] Rak et al. consider that this mandible structure arose "independently in gorillas and hominins", but that Au. Afarensis is therefore "too derived to occupy a position as a common ancestor of both the Homo and robust australopith clades".[7]

Here's a prime example of the usual frustration in dealing with creationists: they'll post a scattershot series of questions that require detailed explanations to get a passing familiarity with a complex subject then they'll ignore it and move on to the next series of questions. They will reference papers like Rak's with no understanding of what is actuall being said here. Then, when some time has passed, they bring up the exact same ridiculous arguments that had already been explained. Their psychological makeup is such that actual explanations fail to accomodate their dogma so they automatically reject it despite the overhwelming evidence.

Anyone who actually read and understood Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths will realize there's nothing even suggesting that the mandibular ramus of australopithecus afarensis is identical to a gorillas. I don't expect newhope101 to respond to every post in a long thread nor do I expect her to fully comprehend and absorb all of the relevant information. But it is frustrating to see her make yet another inaccurate post despite being corrected before.

Australopithecus afarensis jaw is not a gorilla jaw. I explained it in post #196 in more detail just over a month ago: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...at-does-fossil-record-say-20.html#post2270545

Debating creationists is futile- I've never had any question about that. But actually educating creationists so they can proceed with a basic understanding of what evolution actually is as opposed to their charicature of it seems just as hopeless.

 

[painted wolf]

What get’s me the most is having to provide research on info I speak to all the time. I came here knowing very little and still assume most of you guys know more. I am wrong. I spend most of my time justifying simple statements I expect you to understand and have knowledge of. It is incredibly boring. Then if I don’t reply I get accused of something or other that‘s not nice.

Here is some info on Lucy. Hopefully you are satisfied

Copyright © 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
Anthropology
From the Cover
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
Yoel Rak,*† Avishag Ginzburg,* and Eli Geffen‡

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

Also　

Wiki Lucy Australopithecus.. additional research is cited in Wiki
The discovery of this hominid was significant as the skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes and of bipedal upright walk akin to that of humans, providing further evidence supporting the view that bipedalism preceded increase in brain size in human evolution,[5][6] though other findings have been interpreted as suggesting that Australopithecus afarensis was not directly ancestral to humans.[7] In 1994, a new hominid, Ardi, was found, pushing back the earliest known hominid date to 4.4 million years ago, although details of this discovery were not published until October 2009.[8]
Other findings
A study of the mandibular structure of a number of specimens of Au. Afarensis indicated that Lucy's jaw was rather unlike other hominins, having a more gorilla-like appearance.[18] Rak et al. consider that this mandible structure arose "independently in gorillas and hominins", but that Au. Afarensis is therefore "too derived to occupy a position as a common ancestor of both the Homo and robust australopith clades".[7]

I rest my case....
Hopping, skipping and jumping down twisted logic alley.

Either that or someone really doesn't understand how the English language works. One feature of the jaw is called "gorilla-like" and suddenly the whole jaw becomes like a gorillas. :sleep:

Up next the Thylacene becomes a part of "dog kind" because it's described as "wolf like".... Icthyosaurs become mammals because they are described as "dolphin like" and my brother has to hibernate because his back is "bear like".

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

i rest my case....
Hopping, skipping and jumping down twisted logic alley.

Either that or someone really doesn't understand how the english language works. One feature of the jaw is called "gorilla-like" and suddenly the whole jaw becomes like a gorillas. :sleep:

Up next the thylacene becomes a part of "dog kind" because it's described as "wolf like".... Icthyosaurs become mammals because they are described as "dolphin like" and my brother has to hibernate because his back is "bear like".

Wa:do

rofl!!!

 

[Gunfingers]

Ew, hairy back!

 

[David M]

What get’s me the most is having to provide research on info I speak to all the time. I came here knowing very little and still assume most of you guys know more. I am wrong. I spend most of my time justifying simple statements I expect you to understand and have knowledge of. It is incredibly boring. Then if I don’t reply I get accused of something or other that‘s not nice.

No you spend your time trying to justify ignorant mistakes and failing.

Here is some info on Lucy. Hopefully you are satisfied

To be satisfied you would need to show that the molars of Lucy's jaw are parallel (like a gorillas), that there is a space behind the canine (like a gorillas) and that it has the same degree of prognathism as a gorillas. And in all three cases it doesn't, therefore Lucy does not have a gorilla jaw.

Has Gorilla-like features does not mean is the same as a gorilla.

 

[Autodidact]

You strive to convey the impression that this method of dating fossils is quite reliable. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's quite reliable, and I can prove it to you.

"Paleontologists Try to Date the Fossils

Paleontologists have attempted to copy the geologists’ success in dating rocks only a few million years old. Some of their fossils, they believe, might fall in that age range. Alas, the potassium-argon clock does not work so well for them! Of course, fossils are not found in igneous rocks but only in sediments, and for these radiometric dating is usually not trustworthy.​

An illustration of this is when fossils have been buried in a thick fall of volcanic ash that has later been consolidated to form a tuff. This is actually a sedimentary stratum, but it is made of igneous matter that solidified in the air. If it can be dated, it will serve to give the age of the fossil enclosed in it.​

Such a case was found in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, where fossils of apelike animals attracted special attention because their finders claimed they were linked to humans. First measurements of argon in the volcanic tuff in which the fossils were found showed an age of 1.75 million years. But later measurements at another qualified laboratory gave results a half million years younger. Most disappointing to evolutionists was the finding that the ages of other layers of tuff, above and below, were not consistent. Sometimes the upper layer had more argon than the one below it. But this is all wrong, geologically speaking—the upper layer had to be deposited after the lower and should have less argon.​

The conclusion was that “inherited argon” was spoiling the measurements. Not all the argon previously formed had been boiled out of the molten rock. The clock had not been set to zero. If only one tenth of 1 percent of the argon previously produced by the potassium was left in the rock when it melted in the volcano, the clock would be started with a built-in age of nearly a million years.
As one expert put it:
“Some of the dates must be wrong, and if some are wrong maybe all of them are wrong.”​

Notwithstanding expert opinions that these dates may be quite meaningless, the original age of 1.75 million years for the Olduvai fossils continues to be quoted in popular magazines committed to evolution. They give the lay reader no warning that such ages are really no more than guesses."
(AWAKE! 86 9/22 pp. 20-21)​

Awake magazine is not a scientific resource. FAIL. They are nothing but JW propagandists. If you post a scientific source that denies the reliability of radiometric dating, I will be happy to respond. If not, then make your own arguments; I'm not going to argue with someone who isn't here.

Humans as they are today - the direct descendants of their foreparents.

Duh, of course. How could they be otherwise?

"Let every living thing produce after their own kind." (Genesis)

As Evolution confirms.

 

[DeistPrimate]

What get’s me the most is having to provide research on info I speak to all the time. I came here knowing very little and still assume most of you guys know more. I am wrong. I spend most of my time justifying simple statements I expect you to understand and have knowledge of. It is incredibly boring. Then if I don’t reply I get accused of something or other that‘s not nice.

You make outlandish claims as if they were established fact and even when you do cite references they don't say anything close to what you claim they say.

Bearing false witness is a no no according to the Bible isn't it?

 

[wilsoncole]

It's quite reliable, and I can prove it to you. Awake magazine is not a scientific resource. FAIL. They are nothing but JW propagandists. If you post a scientific source that denies the reliability of radiometric dating, I will be happy to respond. If not, then make your own arguments; I'm not going to argue with someone who isn't here.

You're dodging - again. I think their arguments are adequate because, so far, they are strong enough to render you incapable of disproving them. Why don't you try responding to the claims in the article and refute them, one by one? Disbelieving them does not prove that they are wrong.

Duh, of course. How could they be otherwise?
As Evolution confirms.

False! The ToE claims that humans descended from beasts.
The Bible states that they were created basically the way they are.

BTW - If all insects were extinct, all humans would be, too. What is the origin of insects? How does evolution account for them? If all life on earth began with a single cell, did humans ever have to pass through the insect stage? Where do they fit on the evolutionary tree? The Phylogenetic tree says nothing about them. What evidence do you posess that connects the two?
I couldn't find any evidence anywhere - not even here:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Insects

Ancient remains of insects have shown them to be exactly as they are today, despite the 24 to 400 million year ages attached to them.
Is there any evidence that suggests the gradual appearance of insects?

Why did evolution neglect the insects, so vital to human survival?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<


Wilson

 

[Dan4reason]

You're dodging - again. I think their arguments are adequate because, so far, they are strong enough to render you incapable of disproving them. Why don't you try responding to the claims in the article and refute them, one by one? Disbelieving them does not prove that they are wrong.

False! The ToE claims that humans descended from beasts.
The Bible states that they were created basically the way they are.

BTW - If all insects were extinct, all humans would be, too. What is the origin of insects? How does evolution account for them? If all life on earth began with a single cell, did humans ever have to pass through the insect stage? Where do they fit on the evolutionary tree? The Phylogenetic tree says nothing about them. What evidence do you posess that connects the two?
I couldn't find any evidence anywhere - not even here:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Insects

Ancient remains of insects have shown them to be exactly as they are today, despite the 24 to 400 million year ages attached to them.
Is there any evidence that suggests the gradual appearance of insects?

Why did evolution neglect the insects, so vital to human survival?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<


Wilson

Who said that our LCA with insects looked anything like an insect? Since you are so interested in insect evolution here is a link to start you on your research. Then you can tell us what you found out.

Evolution of insects - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wilsoncole]

Who said that our LCA with insects looked anything like an insect? Since you are so interested in insect evolution here is a link to start you on your research. Then you can tell us what you found out.

Evolution of insects - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I read all of that as I mentioned before.
Nothing specific. Very sketchy, prodigious guesswork.
Absolutely no proof offered.Now you can go ahead and answer the rest of my questions including:
Did mankind ever pass through the insect stage?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[LuisDantas]

You're dodging - again. I think their arguments are adequate because, so far, they are strong enough to render you incapable of disproving them. Why don't you try responding to the claims in the article and refute them, one by one? Disbelieving them does not prove that they are wrong.

That is pretty bold talk, but where are the qualifications and sources for your (and Awake's) claims that dating is unreliable? Considering that you don't even know what the phylogenetic tree is (see below), that boldness is surprising, to say the least.

(...)

BTW - If all insects were extinct, all humans would be, too. What is the origin of insects? How does evolution account for them?

The current evidence suggests that they came from millipedes, centipedes and/or crustacea.

Evolution of insects - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If all life on earth began with a single cell, did humans ever have to pass through the insect stage?

Most certainly not, since we mammals come from a different branch of the evolutionary tree. Specifically, we are of the Phylum Cordata (which basically means that we are vertebrates, since we have internal skeletons) while most if not all insects are of Phylum Arthropoda (usually having external skeletons). We diverged from arthropodes a long time ago, and from chimps, bonobos and gorillas far more recently.

Where do they fit on the evolutionary tree? The Phylogenetic tree says nothing about them.

Not unless one goes through the trouble of actually looking at it, of course.

Insect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What evidence do you posess that connects the two?
I couldn't find any evidence anywhere - not even here:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Insects

Ancient remains of insects have shown them to be exactly as they are today, despite the 24 to 400 million year ages attached to them.

Assuming that to be true (I'm no archeoentomologist), that would only show that insects are remarkably well adjusted to their echological niche.

Is there any evidence that suggests the gradual appearance of insects?

You realize that you are essentially asking if entomologists have any idea of what they are doing, right?

Evolution of insects - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why did evolution neglect the insects, so vital to human survival?

What do you mean by that? In which sense would evolution have "neglected" insects?

 

[LuisDantas]

I read all of that as I mentioned before.
Nothing specific. Very sketchy, prodigious guesswork.

Educated guesswork, that considers various kinds of evidence, including genetic and biomolecular analysis. It is of course limited by the remarkable difficulties of dealing with insect generations of literally dozens of millions of years ago. Which is still far more respectable than plain claims of supernatural creation.

Absolutely no proof offered.Now you can go ahead and answer the rest of my questions including:
Did mankind ever pass through the insect stage?

What would a proof be? And if the current and future levels of evidence are not enough for you, let's talk about what alternative view you have to offer, and what evidence you have for them.

And of course, there is no such thing as an "insect stage" for vertebrates. If you think that the Theory of Evolution would imply the existence of such a stage then you are simply misinformed.

 

[DeistPrimate]

Most certainly not, since we mammals come from a different branch of the evolutionary tree. Specifically, we are of the Phylum Cordata (which basically means that we are vertebrates, since we have internal skeletons) while most if not all insects are of Phylum Arthropoda (usually having external skeletons). We diverged from arthropodes a long time ago, and from chimps, bonobos and gorillas far more recently.

Chordates are defined as organisms that possess a structure called a notochord, at least during some part of their development. The notochord is a rod that extends most of the length of the body when it is fully developed. Lying dorsal to the gut but ventral to the central nervous system, it stiffens the body and acts as support during locomotion. Other characteristics shared by chordates include the following (from Hickman and Roberts, 1994):

ADW: Chordata: Information

• bilateral symmetry
• segmented body, including segmented muscles
• three germ layers and a well-developed coelom.
• single, dorsal, hollow nerve cord, usually with an enlarged anterior end (brain)
• tail projecting beyond (posterior to) the anus at some stage of development
• pharyngeal pouches present at some stage of development
• ventral heart, with dorsal and ventral blood vessels and a closed blood system
• complete digestive system
• bony or cartilaginous endoskeleton usually present.

Our Phylum is Chordata, we are Chordates, our Subphylum is Vertebrata. In the Cambrian Chordates were represented by sea-squirt like forms while ancestors to the insects, arachnids, crustaceans, were represented by hard-shelled segmented marine forms (themselves descended from Pre-Cambrian soft bodied forms leaving tracks in the ocean floor).

Insects were already an ancient Class when their remains were entombed in amber here and there.

 

[David M]

You're dodging - again. I think their arguments are adequate because, so far, they are strong enough to render you incapable of disproving them. Why don't you try responding to the claims in the article and refute them, one by one? Disbelieving them does not prove that they are wrong

So far you have been incapable of providing the sources on which those arguments are based.

Without knowing where this rubbish is supposed to have come from they remain empty assertions. Give us the citations that those arguments are based on and then you might get a response that shows exactly why they are wrong.

All we have so far is the equivalent of "Someone told me that they read in a book somewhere that such and such is true".

 

[outhouse]

good one David, this sums it up quite well for both of these creationist

empty assertions

 

[painted wolf]

Anyone who thinks that arthropods are ignored by biologists has no grasp of the field of biology.

A simplified arthropod phylogeny.
http://arthropoda.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/arthrophyloregier2010.jpg

enjoy.

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

That is pretty bold talk, but where are the qualifications and sources for your (and Awake's) claims that dating is unreliable? Considering that you don't even know what the phylogenetic tree is (see below), that boldness is surprising, to say the least.

Here's some even bolder talk!
This argument is nonsense and evasive in nature. If I say that Albert Einstein was an idiot, do I have to possess a Ph.D just to say that? What "sources and qualifications" would I have to produce in order to say it?

You could leave the statement alone, but if you wanted your disagreement known, would you not produce evidence that disproves my claim?
You could produce evidence of his impressive achievements, but then, I could show that he was instrumental in facilitating the development of the atomic bomb which has resulted in damage and death unequalled in all of earth's past history.

Consequently, if a man's work RESULTS in harm to his environment and humanity, it is not beneficial and should evidently be abandoned, not improved to achieve greater killing potential.

A fool is a person who works consistently against his own interests.

"You will know them by their fruits (works)," is a Biblical principle that remains immutable.
That said, the AWAKE! article that showcases the unreliability of the radiometric dating methods should be disproved by cold hard facts that renders the argument useless, not by ignoring the claims nor by demanding scholarship.

The current evidence suggests that they came from millipedes, centipedes and/or crustacea.

Evolution of insects - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I told you I read that. It is total guesswork - not a single connecting link - and guesswork is NOT evidence. To even suggest that insect wings emerged from external gills is absolute nonsense. No amount of time could achieve such a transformation because time does no work.

Most certainly not, since we mammals come from a different branch of the evolutionary tree.

You are joking - right?
Funny thing about a tree! In its natural state, it ALWAYS produces the same kind of fruit on ALL of its branches. Isn't that right?
Therefore, you are not dealing with any kind of tree.
Just plain imagination!

Specifically, we are of the Phylum Cordata (which basically means that we are vertebrates, since we have internal skeletons) while most if not all insects are of Phylum Arthropoda (usually having external skeletons). We diverged from arthropodes a long time ago, and from chimps, bonobos and gorillas far more recently.

Ridiculous! Scholastic classifications prove nothing. It is the fruitage that matters! The roots of any tree could only supply the branches with the same nutrients. Distributed to all of those branches, it could only produce the same fruitage based on the process called photosynthesis.

There is, therefore, absolutely NO REASON why different branches of the same tree should produce different fruitage. Is there?

Not unless one goes through the trouble of actually looking at it, of course.

Insect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have my response to that (above).

Assuming that to be true (I'm no archeoentomologist), that would only show that insects are remarkably well adjusted to their echological niche.

Adaptation is not a clue to origin. I think you should know that.

You realize that you are essentially asking if entomologists have any idea of what they are doing, right?

Not those entomologists that keep the insects in their respective categories. To the ones who venture to put insects out of their obvious and necessary functions, I am not asking - I am saying it!

What do you mean by that? In which sense would evolution have "neglected" insects?

Well, it is clear that they are no longer attached to nor sustained by the roots of the tree that sustains the rest of the branches.

Something wrong at the root?

I think so!

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

Wilson