What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

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

Note:
I did not say that insects are ignored by biologists.
I said that they have been neglected by EVOLUTION.

Why do unbelievers have to resort to such deceit and deviousness?

See Reply # 960.

Enjoy!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[painted wolf]

They are not neglected. Insects like Drosophila are workhorses of evolutionary studies.
Drosophila - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Insect wing evolution revealed in recycled genes - USATODAY.com
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3723.full

Lots of work has been done with Hox genes and how they influence evolution in insects and the rest of us.
Structural relationships among genes that control development: sequence homology between the Antennapedia, Ultrabithorax, and fushi tarazu loci of Drosophila.
PLoS ONE: Pre-Bilaterian Origins of the Hox Cluster and the Hox Code: Evidence from the Sea Anemone, Nematostella vectensis

The developmental biologist in the University I got my Biology degree at studies the evolution of Mayflies.

Insects are not ignored in the slightest.... except by the news media.
If you check Google Scholar you get a quick 908,000 papers on insect evolution to start with.

wa:do

ps. I wasn't being deceitful.... Biology is evolution, you can't study biology without it.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

None, of course. Unless you expect people to give any attention to it.

(...)

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.

It is a scholarly matter. It takes scholars to comment on it. It is irresponsible of Aware to make untrue claims to begin with, btw.

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.

Sorry, I pay no attention to uninformed arrogant claims about what Evolution can or cannot do.

You are joking - right?

Not at all. Are you?

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!

That is true of the actual plants, not of organizational trees of most kinds.

It is quite patently and obviously not the case with phylogenetic trees, as you would know if you knew anything about them. That could only possibly happen if all species were one and the same - and of course, then there would be no point in even having the trees in the first place.

Would you expect a genealogy tree to have the same person in all branches? I don't think that works at all, personally.

(...)

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

You guessed wrong, then.

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!

Say as you please, just don't expect reality to conform.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

If you, wilsoncole, have an argument to make, please make it, and I will respond.

False! The ToE claims that humans descended from beasts.

ToE demonstrates that human beings are a species of animal.

The Bible states that they were created basically the way they are.

Yes, well it's mistaken then.

BTW - If all insects were extinct, all humans would be, too. What is the origin of insects?

They evolved from earlier invertebrates.

How does evolution account for them?

Via the Theory of Evolution. Are you familiar with it?

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

You obviously have no idea what ToE says. Would you like to learn?

Where do they fit on the evolutionary tree?

As a species of hominid Great apes.

The Phylogenetic tree says nothing about them.

Of course it does, you are simply ignorant of it.

What evidence do you posess that connects the two?

What two? What are you asking? How are insects and humans related?

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.

This is false.

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

Yes.

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

It doesn't. It's an entire field of Biology.

 

[astarath]

Now the fossil record speaks!!!!!

 

[painted wolf]

So where does he fit?

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Wilsonsole, creationists do not have to worry. The evolution of insects is no different that any other taxa in relation to the mess it is in. The presumption of ancestry is strong but the evidence is not there and neither is any consistency.

I like the way PW just pastes in an old fossil and asks for information. I think she forgets that researchers have a hard enough time working out who is who in the zoo, but we should instantly recognize any old set of bones. Is it Ardi? How many guesses do we get?

Without identification this could be anything from a decendant of Lluc, an orangutan variation that shares 28 morphological features with a human, some sort of hybrid, who knows what. One thing for sure is that your reseachers hope their fossil finds and related assumptions will keep them in the public eye for more than a year before they are discredited by someone else.

Your problem is that whom ever you are currently saying this thing is and where he belongs may change tomorrow. Great evidence!

The one I like best is the hippo and whale share a common aquatic ancestor and Hippopotamidae are classified along with other even toed ungulates in the order of Artiodactyla. I can't wait to see the morph pictures and what the common ancestor may have looked like. It will be another wopper of a tale.



So below is a glimpse of the Insect taxon this lot appear to be defending:- Go figure!!!

Wiki - Main article: Evolution of insects
The evolutionary relationships of insects to other animal groups remain unclear.

Although more traditionally grouped with millipedes and centipedes, evidence has emerged favoring closer evolutionary ties with crustaceans. In the Pancrustacea theory, insects, together with Remipedia and Malacostraca, make up a natural clade.[60] Other terrestrial arthropods, such as centipedes, millipedes, scorpions and spiders, are sometimes confused with insects since their body plans can appear similar, sharing (as do all arthropods) a jointed exoskeleton. However, upon closer examination their features differ significantly; most noticeably they do not have the six legs characteristic of adult insects.[61]

The higher-level phylogeny of the arthropods continues to be a matter of debate and research. In 2008, researchers at Tufts University uncovered what they believe is the world's oldest known full-body impression of a primitive flying insect, a 300 million-year-old specimen from the Carboniferous Period.[63] The oldest definitive insect fossil is the Devonian Rhyniognatha hirsti, from the 396 million year old Rhynie chert. It may have superficially resembled a modern-day silverfish insect.

This species already possessed dicondylic mandibles (two articulations in the mandible), a feature associated with winged insects, suggesting that wings may already have evolved at this time. Thus, the first insects probably appeared earlier, in the Silurian period.[1][64]

 

[Autodidact]

Wilsonsole, creationists do not have to worry. The evolution of insects is no different that any other taxa in relation to the mess it is in. The presumption of ancestry is strong but the evidence is not there and neither is any consistency.

I like the way PW just pastes in an old fossil and asks for information. I think she forgets that researchers have a hard enough time working out who is who in the zoo, but we should instantly recognize any old set of bones. Is it Ardi? How many guesses do we get?

Without identification this could be anything from a decendant of Lluc, an orangutan variation that shares 28 morphological features with a human, some sort of hybrid, who knows what. One thing for sure is that your reseachers hope their fossil finds and related assumptions will keep them in the public eye for more than a year before they are discredited by someone else.

Your problem is that whom ever you are currently saying this thing is and where he belongs may change tomorrow. Great evidence!

The one I like best is the hippo and whale share a common aquatic ancestor and Hippopotamidae are classified along with other even toed ungulates in the order of Artiodactyla. I can't wait to see the morph pictures and what the common ancestor may have looked like. It will be another wopper of a tale.



So below is a glimpse of the Insect taxon this lot appear to be defending:- Go figure!!!

Wiki - Main article: Evolution of insects
The evolutionary relationships of insects to other animal groups remain unclear.

Although more traditionally grouped with millipedes and centipedes, evidence has emerged favoring closer evolutionary ties with crustaceans. In the Pancrustacea theory, insects, together with Remipedia and Malacostraca, make up a natural clade.[60] Other terrestrial arthropods, such as centipedes, millipedes, scorpions and spiders, are sometimes confused with insects since their body plans can appear similar, sharing (as do all arthropods) a jointed exoskeleton. However, upon closer examination their features differ significantly; most noticeably they do not have the six legs characteristic of adult insects.[61]

The higher-level phylogeny of the arthropods continues to be a matter of debate and research. In 2008, researchers at Tufts University uncovered what they believe is the world's oldest known full-body impression of a primitive flying insect, a 300 million-year-old specimen from the Carboniferous Period.[63] The oldest definitive insect fossil is the Devonian Rhyniognatha hirsti, from the 396 million year old Rhynie chert. It may have superficially resembled a modern-day silverfish insect.

This species already possessed dicondylic mandibles (two articulations in the mandible), a feature associated with winged insects, suggesting that wings may already have evolved at this time. Thus, the first insects probably appeared earlier, in the Silurian period.[1][64]

And once again, newhope definitively proves that evolution is (1) science (2) correct. Good job, newhope.

 

[LuisDantas]

Wilsonsole, creationists do not have to worry.

That is indeed true.

They do, however, have to learn.

 

[painted wolf]

Oh newhope.... you ask some fun questions...

here is the ancestral hippo...

Here is an ancestral whale

You will notice how very alike they are. Not to mention all the genetic evidence linking hippos and whales.

If whales are not related... why do they have four chambered stomachs like hippos and cows? They don't need a four chambered stomach to eat fish and krill... most of it is shriveled and underdeveloped. Why would an in "intelligent" designer do that?

wa:do

 

[Dan4reason]

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

Its wikipedia! Wikipedia is not going to absolutely prove evolution to you just like it is not out to prove general relativity. It only explains stuff.

First off, there is no mankind. There is only humankind. Humankind never passed through an insect stage simply because the genus homo began hundreds of millions years after the LCA of humans and insects.

However, we do have a LCA with insects because we are all related. However, since the last insect fossil we have was from the Devonian era (when land animals evolved) and this creature was insect enough to not be a LCA of insects, I do not know how the LCA of insects and humans looked like. Looking at already existing animals and noting that insects are very closely related to crustaceans, we can only guess that the LCA may have looked like some kind of simple sea creature like a sponge or something. There does not appear to be enough evidence that any of our ancestors looked like insects. A family tree might help.

 

[DeistPrimate]

Oh newhope.... you ask some fun questions...

here is the ancestral hippo...

Here is an ancestral whale

You will notice how very alike they are. Not to mention all the genetic evidence linking hippos and whales.

If whales are not related... why do they have four chambered stomachs like hippos and cows? They don't need a four chambered stomach to eat fish and krill... most of it is shriveled and underdeveloped. Why would an in "intelligent" designer do that?

wa:do

Awesome Painted Wolf, thanks

 

[newhope101]

Its wikipedia! Wikipedia is not going to absolutely prove evolution to you just like it is not out to prove general relativity. It only explains stuff.

First off, there is no mankind. There is only humankind. Humankind never passed through an insect stage simply because the genus homo began hundreds of millions years after the LCA of humans and insects.
Straining the point. According to you humans were single cells at one point. At one point your theory assumes a shared ancestor at some point beween everything alive, including Lizards.
However, we do have a LCA with insects because we are all related. You better show your researchers as so far LCA is a theory for every species. Evos are flat out agreeing on a date of divergence for anything let alone accommodating the fossil record. However, since the last insect fossil we have was from the Devonian era (when land animals evolved) and this creature was insect enough to not be a LCA of insects, I do not know how the LCA of insects and humans looked like. Of course, that's because you do not have one and are guessing and hoping on a wish list.Looking at already existing animals and noting that insects are very closely related to crustaceans, we can only guess that the LCA may have looked like some kind of simple sea creature like a sponge or something. 'GUESS" is the operative word and yet you continue to produce guess work as evidence of some sort.There does not appear to be enough evidence that any of our ancestors looked like insects. A family tree might help.

You used the operative word "GUESS". Guesses were not evidence last time I checked. Your researchers were surprised yet again that a hippo is closer to a whale than a pig. Big difference! So whatever you were theorising before aint right and now there is a scramble to explain the fossil evidence again in a new light.


As for your tree of life..It is dying...Cladistics, much more prefered these days by many researchers, can't solve some dilemmas like lizards and aves, either. See wiki Cadistics & Horizontal Gene Transfer.



Really what it all boils down to is that your researchers have absolutely no idea, really. Another unexpected find kills the irrefuteable LUCA and replaces her with the irrefuteable HGT theories. Yeah yeah..I know this doesn't really mean your researchers do not know what they are talking about..it just looks that way!

The theory of evolution is meant to explain how life evolved. Rather the theory of evolution is about the evolution of the theory, and not much more.

 

[outhouse]

Really what it all boils down to is that your researchers have absolutely no idea,

researches do know exactly whats going on

you however with your lies and plagairism doesnt know the first REAL thing about evolution.

you are the cut and paste queen of lies

 

[LuisDantas]

You used the operative word "GUESS".

Which goes to show that scientists don't pretend to know everything that happened ten of millions of years ago. How weird.

Guesses were not evidence last time I checked.

It is a good thing, then, that they don't need to be.

Your researchers were surprised yet again that a hippo is closer to a whale than a pig. Big difference!

What are you talking about? PW just reported what was already known. This talk of "being surprised" is a complete fabrication of yours.

 

[Autodidact]

Oh newhope.... you ask some fun questions...

here is the ancestral hippo...

Here is an ancestral whale

You will notice how very alike they are. Not to mention all the genetic evidence linking hippos and whales.

If whales are not related... why do they have four chambered stomachs like hippos and cows? They don't need a four chambered stomach to eat fish and krill... most of it is shriveled and underdeveloped. Why would an in "intelligent" designer do that?

wa:do

Not to mention hip bones and occasional vestigial limbs.

 

[Autodidact]

You used the operative word "GUESS". Guesses were not evidence last time I checked. Your researchers were surprised yet again that a hippo is closer to a whale than a pig. Big difference! So whatever you were theorising before aint right and now there is a scramble to explain the fossil evidence again in a new light.


As for your tree of life..It is dying...Cladistics, much more prefered these days by many researchers, can't solve some dilemmas like lizards and aves, either. See wiki Cadistics & Horizontal Gene Transfer.



Really what it all boils down to is that your researchers have absolutely no idea, really. Another unexpected find kills the irrefuteable LUCA and replaces her with the irrefuteable HGT theories. Yeah yeah..I know this doesn't really mean your researchers do not know what they are talking about..it just looks that way!

The theory of evolution is meant to explain how life evolved. Rather the theory of evolution is about the evolution of the theory, and not much more.

Because all scientists are idiots, especially Biologists! They have no clue! Science doesn't work! It's a big fat waste of time. Why don't those darned scientists just shut up and read the Bible. That worked so much better the last time.

 

[wilsoncole]

Which goes to show that scientists don't pretend to know everything that happened ten of millions of years ago. How weird.
It is a good thing, then, that they don't need to be.

What are you talking about? PW just reported what was already known. This talk of "being surprised" is a complete fabrication of yours.

Now, here's a knowledgable fellow who had something to say about it.
The proper thing to do is to refute what he says with facts, not to go around knocking the man himself, the way you did with AWAKE!, looking for some flaw in the man's personal life, beliefs or utterances.

"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."
(Stanley Salthe, evolutionist, a natural philosopher at Binghamton University with a Ph.D. in zoology)
Business Profiles and Company Information Database | ZoomInfo.com
Honesty - at last.

Here comes the tearing down nastiness that is so much a part of evolutionists' tactics.
Accusations about "quote mining" and all that baloney.
The link should help with that.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[outhouse]

Stanley Salthe, evolutionist, a natural philosopher at Binghamton University with a Ph.D. in zoology

stan is not a evolutionist, he wrote books on it in the 70's and now denounces darwins ideas and evolution.


He is a nut job who goes one way then the other.

finding a nut job isnt to hard, funny only close to death in his very old age does he start turning into a blithering creationist

 

[outhouse]

Wow you caught us !!!!!!!!!!!!!

you got 1 in a few hundred thousand that doesnt agree LOL oh no! what will we do! what will we do???


bwaaa hha ha ha