Insects, in general, earlier than thought?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 5, 2014

Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Among the stories that can be told using the new tree is the origin story of insects. Fossil evidence suggests that the first insects lived about 412 million years ago, during the Early Devonian Period. But the researchers’ phylogenetic data indicates that the largest group of insects, hexapoda, may have evolved even earlier, around 479 million years ago, during the Early Ordovician Period.

“All of the key players were already around before the end of the Jurassic Period. When we picture Tyrannosaurus rex roaming the Earth, we can say there were dragonflies around, and probably grasshoppers and crickets and butterflies,” Ware said. Bl21
And the insects that were buzzing and hopping alongside the dinosaurs weren’t prehistoric-looking creatures that modern bug lovers wouldn’t be able to recognize. The phylogenetic data suggest that these insects were actually very similar to the ones still roaming the planet today, according to Kjer.

Yes and … all responses are expected to fall into a designated void, right?

As one commenter elsewhere notes, “So Darwinian evolution created the bugs over a 250 million year period and then took 150 million years off? … I’m not buying it!”

Naw. But believe or lose your job, right?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

tjguy: let’s see you try growing up a mosquito using neo-darwinian genetic change. Let us know how that goes for you! The difference is that your hypothesis implies that we can make the changes in a generation, while the evolutionary hypothesis claims it took a long period of time. The latter is supported by both fossils and genetic studies, the former you should be able to show with a lab experiment,Zachriel_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

tjguy: they didn’t really KNOW what they had claimed to know! This strikes me as a common problem with evolutionary claims because they are in the realm of historical science. Actually, it's a problem with all science. All scientific findings are considered tentative. That's also a strength, by the way. tjguy: But that point aside, do evolutionists really think that people smart enough to make tools, use fire and carve symbols in seashells really sat around for a helf million years before figuring out agriculture, horseback riding, civilization, etc? Evolution doesn't proceed at a constant rate. See Darwin 1859. tjguy: Could it be that what they [claim to] KNOW about homo erectus is also wrong? They are the same genus as modern humans, but their brains were quite a bit smaller. tjguy: Could it be that what they [claim to] KNOW about homo erectus is also wrong? Propose your hypothesis, deduce the entailments, and make the observations. - Why, then the world's mine oyster. Which I with sword will open.Zachriel_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

wd400 @11
Kind of like how you wouldn’t notice if those variations were due to neo-darwinian style genetic change as opposed to simple phenotypic plasticity.
Try growing up a mosquito in such a way it’s “phenotypic plasticity” let’s in develop a blowfly (and then a robber fly and a bat fly) and let us know how that goes for you…
wd, let's see you try growing up a mosquito using neo-darwinian genetic change. Let us know how that goes for you! Right back at you sir! I will admit though that you do make a good point. Historical science has big limitations!tjguy_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

ah, yes, "outdated highschool learning", published in science... lifespy,
Kind of like how you wouldn’t notice if those variations were due to neo-darwinian style genetic change as opposed to simple phenotypic plasticity.
Try growing up a mosquito in such a way it's "phenotypic plasticity" let's in develop a blowfly (and then a robber fly and a bat fly) and let us know how that goes for you...wd400_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

"Insect Tree" is outdated high school learnin'. More like a Lawn than a tree. Like page 5. Lots of blades of grass. No tree, https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/ent201/content/diversity.pdfppolish_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

I we really meant to belive that trees just stop growing ten years into their lives? When was the last time you saw a tree grow a new trunk? All the new growth is tiny twigs! (the gap between bee and no bee isn't very big, btw. Crabronid wasps are frequently mistaken for bees.)wd400_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, the differences between Honey Bee, Apis Bee, and Ancient Bee are trivial compared to the differences between Bee and No Bee. And after all this time, why no Cee or Dee or Fee or Gee? Why only Bee?ppolish_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, There’s was plenty of insect evolution over the last 150 million years, but if all beetles look alike to you, then you probably wouldn’t notice. Kind of like how you wouldn't notice if those variations were due to neo-darwinian style genetic change as opposed to simple phenotypic plasticity. The key here is that there is a tree, and that there is change over time, from no insects, to crawling insects, to flying insects. If by "change" you mean that the different highly specialized body-plans just sort of suddenly appear, then yea. Definitely doesn't look like evolutionary change, though. And guess what, insects had ancestors too. Yup their ancestors were insects.lifepsy_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Zachriel @4
Silver Asiatic: There must have been no environmental or competitive pressures or change in food supply for the past 479 million years.
Wasps date to about 240 million years ago, but modern groups didn’t appear until about 100 million years ago. Apis bees only appeared about 20-40 million years ago, with the modern honey bee only in the last few hundred thousand years. That shows a pattern of evolutionary diversification that spans hundreds-of-millions of years.
Or else it shows a problem with evolutionary speculation/interpretation of the data. If accurate, it shows that nothing happens for long periods of time and then all of a sudden rapid evolution takes place. That is not the evolutionary story. Evolution is slow and gradual, except of course when it isn't. Then it is sudden and fast. Anything and everything becomes data that is interpreted to support the paradigm.tjguy_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

"EARLIER THAN THOUGHT" Why is "..... than thought" such a common theme for evolutionists? Here's another example about art by homo erectus: crev.info/2014/12/homo-erectus-joins-art-society/#comment-6949
" In 2007, a grad student, fumbling through the shells, got the “shock of his life,” Science Magazine says, when he noticed the etchings on a shell. Apparently, in the intervening time, researchers wanted to ensure the etchings were authentic before going public. The verdict: intelligent design—“We’ve looked at all possibilities, but in the end we are really certain that this must have been made by an agent who did a very deliberate action with a very sharp implement” (Nature News). Scientists are assuming Homo erectus was the agent, because from dates arrived at by analyzing sand in the shells, Homo sapiens had not yet evolved (in the evolutionary timeline)." ... The media response to this: “But what is most surprising about the half-a-million-year-old doodle is its likely creator — the human ancestor Homo erectus.” (Nature) “…came as a total surprise.” (University of Leiden) “Our Homo erectus ancestors may have been smarter and more creative than we thought.… profound implications for human evolution. … Hairy and beetle-browed, H. erectus was never before thought to have such talents.” (National Geographic) “by far the oldest engraving ever found, challenging what we know about the origin of art and complex human thought” (New Scientist) “One finds what one expects, but we never expected to find this.” (Science Magazine)
First of all, New Scientist's article should read "challenging what we THOUGHT we knew" - highlighting a major problem with evolution - How do we know that what we think we know is actually true? Obviously, they didn't really KNOW what they had claimed to know! This strikes me as a common problem with evolutionary claims because they are in the realm of historical science. But that point aside, do evolutionists really think that people smart enough to make tools, use fire and carve symbols in seashells really sat around for a helf million years before figuring out agriculture, horseback riding, civilization, etc? Why the long pause in evolution? Hmm. The article makes a good point here:
We get miffed at the expression “than we thought” (e.g., National Geographic, “Our Homo erectus ancestors may have been smarter and more creative than we thought.”). Who’s we, paleface? Please qualify it next time: “ancestors may have been smarter and more creative than” foolish evolutionist speculators “thought.”
This is a similar problem to what news pointed out here about insects just sitting around for millions of years before "taking off". For problems with this view and for evidence that does not fit this view, click on the following links from the above article:
This attitude [of surpise concerning homo erectus's abilities] assumes that Homo erectus were pre-human, but as other reports have “surprised” evolutionary anthropologists, the more we learn about them, the more they look like people with slightly different build (see 10/14/13, 10/18/13, 12/18/03, 1/03/14, 2/03/14, or search on erectus).
Could it be that what they [claim to] KNOW about homo erectus is also wrong? Could it be that homo erectus really were humans with a slightly different build?tjguy_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: There must have been no environmental or competitive pressures or change in food supply for the past 479 million years. Wasps date to about 240 million years ago, but modern groups didn't appear until about 100 million years ago. Apis bees only appeared about 20-40 million years ago, with the modern honey bee only in the last few hundred thousand years. That shows a pattern of evolutionary diversification that spans hundreds-of-millions of years.Zachriel_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Yes and … all responses are expected to fall into a designated void, right?
True. This kind of thing causes nobody in the evolutionary-establishment to wonder at all.
The phylogenetic data suggest that these insects were actually very similar to the ones still roaming the planet today, according to Kjer.
There must have been no environmental or competitive pressures or change in food supply for the past 479 million years. Before that, though, it was a lot different?Silver Asiatic_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

News: As one commenter elsewhere notes, “So Darwinian evolution created the bugs over a 250 million year period and then took 150 million years off? … I’m not buying it!” There's was plenty of insect evolution over the last 150 million years, but if all beetles look alike to you, then you probably wouldn't notice. News: Among the stories that can be told using the new tree is the origin story of insects. The key here is that there is a tree, and that there is change over time, from no insects, to crawling insects, to flying insects. ETA: And guess what, insects had ancestors too.Zachriel_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

il tempo vola, un anno non è un secolo. ;-)Dionisio_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply