Fossils Of Arthropods Discovered

Out of  the ancient past there are highly complex creatures along with specialized organs along with articulated limbs and mouth parts. These highly complex and interesting creatures according to the evolutionary story, were exposed to a variety of world of change such as; mutations, cosmic rays, meteor strikes, global extinctions, glaciers, earthquakes, volcanoes eruptions, mountain uplifts and climate shifts causing these Arthropods to go through some interesting evolutionary changes as one would assume believing in evolution.

What is real interesting was this when newly fossils of Arthropods were discovered

Antiquity of the gall mites in much their extant form was unexpected, particularly with the Triassic species already having many of their present-day features (such as only two pairs of legs); further, it establishes conifer feeding as an ancestral trait.”

“Feeding by the fossil mites may have contributed to the formation of the amber droplets, but we find that the abundance of amber during the Carnian (ca. 230 Ma) is globally anomalous for the pre-Cretaceous and may, alternatively, be related to paleoclimate. Further recovery of arthropods in Carnian-aged amber is promising and will have profound implications for understanding the evolution of terrestrial members of the most diverse phylum of organisms.”

Let us get this straight, are we supposed to believe with all those environmental changes happening according to the evolutionary story as mentioned before both in the world and all those mutations being produced through the generations inside the complex creature never changed for 230 million years?

Then they show up in amber with no transitional forerunners and no morphological changes, oblivious to the evolutionary story that consists of non-living material producing a living cell along with the emergence of plants, mammals and man. This is very profound discovery when understanding evolution, isn’t it?

Indeed it is! Evolution has once again been falsified with new discoveries on one of its most fundamental principles! Why do we need researchers trying to explain away the evidence of Arthropods which look identical to modern ones as being 230 million years old? There was expectations of discovering a transitional form being that old but they discovered none!

Even one of their attempts to rescue such a falsification in evolution was science now which said, “were probably trapped during a 10-million-year climatic shift that caused the trees to produce more resin than usual,” without going into the climate change debate going on today is nothing more than trying to explain the evidence away.

Noticed how they are surprise and then go into what they do best and that is storytelling that forces what we see into the evolutionary framework. Let the evidence speak for itself! No sign of evolution is because evolution is not a true interpretation of what goes on in nature!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Fossils Of Arthropods Discovered

  1. Let us get this straight, are we supposed to believe with all those environmental changes happening according to the evolutionary story as mentioned before both in the world and all those mutations being produced through the generations inside the complex creature never changed for 230 million years?

    No, Michael, you are the only one who believes that. The rest of us read the cited articles and know better.

    If no changes occurred in 230Ma, then why are these mites designated as new species, distinct from any of the 3,500 present species? Please read the articles again. The rate of change is lower than expected—primarily in that the transition to two legs occurred earlier than expected.[0]

    Michael falsely contends that there are no transitional arthropod fossils. Arthropod fossils have been found as far back as 500 million years, with a chain extending forward.[1] The subject fossils are of high quality because they were preserved in amber—but amber has not been around forever, so earlier fossils of this type will probably never be found.

    There are many gaps in the phylogenetic lines of descent. Conditions for fossilization were relatively rare. Assigning lines of descent only from bones and imprints is often ambiguous. (Soft tissue is rarely preserved, although modern techniques are bringing more success. The Denisovan sequence, for example employs new inventions on merging sequences of numerous small strands of DNA .)

    Te hullabaloo here is that these newly discovered mites should be pinned to a lower branch of the phylogenetic tree,[2] not that the tree has been broken up into firewood.

    Falsify evolution? Michael proclaims the falsification of evolution at least once every three days. Creations and IDologues have been predicting the downfall of evolution for more than a century. But, so far ……

    ============

    [0] Michael’s laughable knowledge of the subject is apparent here. Biologists classify evolution into four broad types. Only two of those types foster morphological change. The others tend to preserve the status quo. Creationists are the only people who are surprised by long periods of stasis—such as sharks, which have changed very little in 420 million years. Go complain about the sharks, Michael.,

    []1] For a quick introduction, start at “Fossil Record” in Wikipedia’s entry on Arthropods. Seems obvious, but Michael won;’t do it for you;’ he’s too busy trying to cover up the evidence.

    [2] “Tree” is a poor metaphor for the evolutionary hierarchy, but it provides a simple analogy.

  2. HURRY, MICHAEL!

    Scrape together a post on how the ENCODE project shows that 80% of the human genome is functional. Thus fulfilling the creationist postdiction (that is, after the discovery) that all genetic material is functional.

    Or hasn’t AiG got its act together yet to provide enough material to plagiarize?

  3. Trying to interpret eveything as evolution, even when there are massive evidences to say the living beings did not change from kind to kind, do you call it Science?

  4. Hi Rolland,

    You say, “Trying to interpret eveything as evolution, even when there are massive evidences to say the living beings did not change from kind to kind, do you call it Science?”

    What do you consider to be the strongest evidence for evolution? Billions of dollars is being spent on research and then interpreting it as evolution which never clarifies but rather creates more questions. This increasing complexity is known as, “Evolution of the gaps.”

    For example, natural law as we know like how amino acids and nucleotides behave, do not form information rich peptides. We also know that proteins and DNA are from non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and proteins themselves which is different than crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. In other words, proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes.

    Since natural selection presupposes a self-reproducing entity, so it can’t be invoked to explain the origin of life which leads one back to law and chance. The fruit fly experiment, where 600 generations were produced, the mutations surprised the researchers who believe in evolution because the mutations became resisted to change over the course of those generations. If evolution were true, mutations should become more open to change! Simple logic! So Rolland what do you believe is the strongest evidence for evolution?

  5. Trying to interpret eveything as evolution, even when there are massive evidences to say the living beings did not change from kind to kind, do you call it Science?

    On the other hand, Roland, there is no evidence whatever for a special creation wherein different kinds of organisms were created separately at about the same time in the recent past..

    If you disagree, please list the evidence. Be specific. No arm-waving. Leave the arm-waving to God.

  6. Quoting the wrong parts of Michael’s comment would be a waste of space, since everything he said is factually incorrect.

    Well, let’s look at one especially laughable error: Since natural selection presupposes a self-reproducing entity, so [sic] it can’t be invoked to explain the origin of life This is just plain stupid. No one has ever thought that natural selection had anything to do with abiogenesis. By definition, selection requires an entity capable of reproduction with variation. Also by definition, the precursors of living organisms did not have this capability.

    Creationists keep confusing abiogenesis with evolution. An analogy to Michael’s statement might be that carbon bonding should explain the big bang. (Hint for the illiterate: the big bang did not produce any carbon.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s