What does the fossil record say?

[camanintx]

I wonder who slept through their spelling class.

So my browser doesn't have a spell checker. What's your excuse?

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.

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.

 

[wilsoncole]

I get it.
The Bible is literally true, unless in conflicts with the real world. Then you can use excuses such as "Regional Flood" and "Creation Day", or "Old Earth Creationist".

But back to the most important question.

Does the fossil record in any way support Creationism? And if so provide this evidence.

First - are you claiming that the fossil record is infallible, unassailable, perfectly kept?
Second - Who wrote the fossil record?
You see, Mr. Weed, you can only expect exact answers from exact records and you have not shown that the fossil records were undisturbed all these years, not even by tectonic activity.
Is that your claim?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[newhope101]

So my browser doesn't have a spell checker. What's your excuse?

Modern mantises have a series of spines&#8212;maybe five or six&#8212;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.

 

[wilsoncole]

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.

Please - don't be ridiculous!
How many mantises from the Cretaceous period have ever been found?
Some humans are born with 1to 6 fingers. Does that mean that evolution is working on them and they are evolving into something else?

Even the 92 million-year-old ant you alude to has a different mandible than modern ants.

And Jay Leno has a different mandible that most other humans. Others have almost no mandible at all. Does that mean that they are a different species?
Evolution is not working on the insects.

Sorry, but the Tree of Life metaphor is alive and well.

Yeah - you're sorry all right.
Those are words that spring from desperation.
Your "Tree Of Life" died long ago. You are just left with the rotten wood.

 

[wilsoncole]

I will point out that you made the claim
While posting a picture of an ant of today, not a 92 million year old ant. You have yet to post a picture of a 92 million year old ant.

But rather than having the grace to admit this mistake you try and evade the issue.


Between the picture you used and an extant ant species?

NO! Between the picture I used and the one supplied by YOUR link.
http://antbase.org/ants/publications/9506/9506.pdf

No one can because it is an extant ant species.

Irrelevant!

Now if you want to go find some real data on 92 million year old ants I'll take a look at it.

Why? You some kind of expert or something?
Besides, you already did - in your link (above).

The fossilized coelocanth species do not look like the species found today.

They don't?

Why don't you dig up pictures of the various species and show us how they are unchanged?

NO! You can show me how they've changed and explain why they are not coelacanths any longer.
DINOFISH.com - COELACANTH: THE FISH OUT OF TIME
Shouldn't they be salamanders by now?

You won't because as soon as you see them you will know that this is just another claim made from ignorance.

Did you say something about grace earlier?
Lotta grace in that retort.

"Survival of the fittest" where survival means enhanced probability of reproducing ad fittest does not mean strong or fast but slightly better adapted to the current ebvironment is a proven fact,

Don't be a moke! Proven fact my foot! That's theory talking. Sounds just like rationalizing to me.
How does one male moose prove to be more fit than another and gets the privilege of mating in order to reproduce? You cannot tell me that's not the criterion.
How does a race horse owner pick which stallion to buy for breeding purposes?

more of your ignorance showing here.

And more of your emerging grace. Neat!

Its the truth, and is supported by a mountain of evidence. Try presenting some real evidence (with proper sources) if you can.

Your "mountain" has long been whittled down to a pebble.
I'll repeat -
"You insist on the "survival of the fittest" image when no such condition exists in nature. Here's proof:
The "unfit" survives right alongside the "fit."
What happens to the moose that loses his bid for mating privileges?

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?"

With the wilting of your wimpy excuses above, try taking your own advice.

If you dare.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[camanintx]

Please - don't be ridiculous!
How many mantises from the Cretaceous period have ever been found?
Some humans are born with 1to 6 fingers. Does that mean that evolution is working on them and they are evolving into something else?

So out of all the individual mantises which existed during the Cretaceous period, you're suggesting that all we've been able to find are the oddballs? Good luck with that argument.

And Jay Leno has a different mandible that most other humans. Others have almost no mandible at all. Does that mean that they are a different species?
Evolution is not working on the insects.

The fact that over 8,000 existing species of ant differ from all the specimens we have found so far suggests otherwise.

 

[camanintx]

I'll repeat -
"You insist on the "survival of the fittest" image when no such condition exists in nature. Here's proof:
The "unfit" survives right alongside the "fit."
What happens to the moose that loses his bid for mating privileges?

How do you think the moose that fails to mate will pass along it's DNA?

 

[David M]

NO! You can show me how they've changed and explain why they are not coelacanths any longer.
DINOFISH.com - COELACANTH: THE FISH OUT OF TIME
Shouldn't they be salamanders by now?

You do realise that Coelacanth is not a species don't you? Its a common name for an entire order of fish and that 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today?

No fossil specimen of either Latimeria species have been found that are tens of millions of years old and the fossils that we do have are so dissimilar that they have been classed as separate species and most of them in separate families.

Yep, they look the same don't they (ignoring the size difference)? No, they don't.

Don't be a moke! Proven fact my foot! That's theory talking. Sounds just like rationalizing to me.
How does one male moose prove to be more fit than another and gets the privilege of mating in order to reproduce? You cannot tell me that's not the criterion.

You have ignored the fact that the moose first has to survive to reach the age when it can mate, any advantage that makes it more likely to do so increases its fitness.

Then any advantages it has that make it more likely to be the moose that mates increases its fitness. Remember: "enhanced probability of reproducing".

Thanks for demonstrating how natural selection works within a species.

Your "mountain" has long been whittled down to a pebble.
I'll repeat -
"You insist on the "survival of the fittest" image when no such condition exists in nature. Here's proof:
The "unfit" survives right alongside the "fit."
What happens to the moose that loses his bid for mating privileges?

Still sticking with the simplistic and igorant view of "Survival of the Fittest", as I pointed out it does not mean that the fit always survive and unfit always die. It means that the animals in a species that have advantages in the current environment have a higher probability of reproducing (and passing on their DNA) than animals with lesser or no advantages.

As you know, the moose that loses its bid for mating privileges does not get to pass on its DNA that mating season unless it gets lucky with another lady moose. Its genes have a lower chance of surviving in the species than the moose that does get to mate.

Thanks for once again demonstrating how natural selection works.

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?

Its irrelevant as giraffes and sheep do not mate with each other and neither do elephants and dik-dik.

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?"

No you can't often tell why, but natural selection is not just an explanation for extinction its one of the explanations for why species evolve. Once they become extinct the species is no longer evolving.

If you dare.

I dared, Coelacanths. Not the same, not even the same species.

 

[wilsoncole]

There has been a lot of change in millions of years. For example the oldest ant Sphecomyrma freyi (not the one you pictured that is a modern ant) has a stinger and jaws like a wasp among other features not seen in modern ants. Here it is... it's a nice example of a transitional fossil actually.
Modern ants are some of the most varied critters on the planet.

That's strange - I don't see "a lot of change" at all!
Ants are still ants, in spite of the tremendous ages you've attached to their fossils.

I admit we don't have all the answers, I've never claimed otherwise... but we are not without some good evidence.

Evidence? Wouldn't that depend on what you're trying to prove?

I'm sorry if you think I claim to have all the answers...I don't and I find the unknown exciting and gives us room to grow... if I didn't I wouldn't be a biologist.

I'd like to know what I said that gave you that impression. You must have been talking to someone else.

That fossil you pointed out is a good example... it's quite different from modern ants and more like wasps.

Now that is quite silly!
There are wasps today that look like ants. No points there.
Green Pest Control - Prompt Service, Fair Prices and Genuine Warranties - Brisbane - Ipswich - Gold Coast - Sunshine Coast - Local technicians in all areas every day - call us 1800 6 12345




(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

So out of all the individual mantises which existed during the Cretaceous period, you're suggesting that all we've been able to find are the oddballs?

That would be YOUR oddball argument.
I asked a very simple question:
"How many mantises from the Cretaceous period have ever been found?"
Is that too difficult for you?

Good luck with that argument.

There is no such thing as luck.

The fact that over 8,000 existing species of ant differ from all the specimens we have found so far suggests otherwise.

Suggestions. They have a way of meaning different things to different people.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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

wa:do

Those fish are awesome.....:yes:

 

[painted wolf]

That's strange - I don't see "a lot of change" at all!
Ants are still ants, in spite of the tremendous ages you've attached to their fossils.

Well... you're not an entomologist are you? And that's cool, neither am I. So we can muddle through it together.

Evidence? Wouldn't that depend on what you're trying to prove?

Nope... regardless of what I'm trying to "prove" evidence is evidence. It's not just evidence if I happen to agree with it.

I'd like to know what I said that gave you that impression. You must have been talking to someone else.

Quite possibly... these sorts of threads can get crowded and confusing from time to time.
Forgive me if I accidentally put words in your mouth, or misinterpreted your position.

Now that is quite silly!
There are wasps today that look like ants. No points there.
Green Pest Control - Prompt Service, Fair Prices and Genuine Warranties - Brisbane - Ipswich - Gold Coast - Sunshine Coast - Local technicians in all areas every day - call us 1800 6 12345




(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Isn't it? I mean if there are wasp like ants and ant like wasps.... and they both first make their appearances around the same time... doesn't that make you wonder if maybe they are related.
Maybe God has given us a little peek into how he accomplished the creation.

I certainly think that is better than thinking he did it to mess with our heads.

But this is a reflection of my faith. Just as your views are a reflection of yours.

I'm happy as long as we can have a reasonable discussion about those differences.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Hey wilconsole..Just because an older ant has not been found does not mean there is not one out there. I think ants and wasps are a little too different to really be the same kind. A creationist scientist that was able to look into genomes without scaffolding against the presumption of ancestry would likely have insightful information to provide creationists. The point being of course that ants, wasps, bees are all here today. In kind variations are fine. However common ancestors are not found...Which reminds me....

Would you like a little humour. I was amused, you may already of heard this. Look to Wiki Marine Mammals.

There are some 120 extant species of marine mammals, generally sub-divided into the five groups bold-faced below.[1] Each group descended from a different land-based ancestor. The morphological similarities between these diverse groups are a result of convergent and parallel evolution. For example, although whales and seals have some similarities in shape, whales are more closely related to deer than they are to seals.

Of course we also have research to suggest a hippo is more closely related to a whale than a pig. A whale is closer to deer than a seal. Seals are from a bear type ancestor.

Incredible!

I am so glad I am a creationist.

 

[DeistPrimate]

How do you know and who made the classification?

Because forms ancestral to insects and crustaceans are found in the Cambrian some 400 million years prior to 90 million years ago and taxonomists using comparative anatomy would have made the classification.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hey wilconsole..Just because an older ant has not been found does not mean there is not one out there. I think ants and wasps are a little too different to really be the same kind.

I'm not sure what a "kind" is. The term is vague but you are correct that Ants and Wasps are not the same....("species")... While both are from the same order there are other similarities between the two. Morphologically they are very similar. Additionally they have similar social structures.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I'm not sure what a "kind" is.

It is not a scientific term and non comparable with genuine scientific taxonomical classifications based on molecular evidence.

Creationists use the term.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It is not a scientific term and non comparable with genuine scientific taxonomical classifications based on molecular evidence.

Creationists use the term.

Yea, she's used the term before and I was in one of those long winded debates with her where she actually gave some vague definitions for the term. Words or phrases such as "kind" or "kind variation" are a sloppy mess when describing the diversity of life on this planet.

 

[tumbleweed41]

First - are you claiming that the fossil record is infallible, unassailable, perfectly kept?
Second - Who wrote the fossil record?
You see, Mr. Weed, you can only expect exact answers from exact records and you have not shown that the fossil records were undisturbed all these years, not even by tectonic activity.
Is that your claim?

1. No, it is however a reasonably accurate account of the last 3.5 billion years. Stromatolites
2. Silly Creationist, no one "wrote" the fossil record. Unless one is prone to anthropomorphizing natural processes as "Mother Nature".

Now, back to the question you seem to avoid.

Does the fossil record in any way support Creationism, young or old earth varieties, derived from a literal reading of Genesis?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Of course we also have research to suggest a hippo is more closely related to a whale than a pig. A whale is closer to deer than a seal. Seals are from a bear type ancestor.

Incredible!

I am so glad I am a creationist.

Why?

Your lack of imagination and understanding is incredible...you have no comprehension of evolutionary processes or indeed ecological systems at all do you?

You seem to believe that animals of a particular ecological niche should be kindred...that is insanity...that is like saying Dolphins are more closesly related to Sharks than they are Humans...because they are both aquatic predatory and fish shaped.

Why then do you think Whales have remnants of pelvic/hip bones and legs inside their bodies?
You think God put them there for a laugh?...to confuse?

Good God....

That is truly shocking...in this day and age.

Your teachers should be ashamed of themselves...they have let you down.

Tut tut...

 

[camanintx]

That would be YOUR oddball argument.
I asked a very simple question:
"How many mantises from the Cretaceous period have ever been found?"
Is that too difficult for you?

It doesn't matter. Whether there are only one or a million specimens, if none of them have any spines on their forelegs, then we must assume that most mantises from that period didn't have spines on their forelegs, which is far different than what we see today.