[_ Old Earth _] INSECT-EATEN EVOLUTION!

[Adam]

Neurocordulia alabamensis Hodges in Needham & Westfall, 1955 – Alabama Shadowdragon[3]
Neurocordulia michaeli Brunelle, 2000 – Broad-tailed Shadowdragon[3]
Neurocordulia molesta (Walsh, 1863) – Smoky Shadowdragon[3]
Neurocordulia obsoleta (Say, 1840) – Umber Shadowdragon[3]
Neurocordulia virginiensis Davis, 1927 – Cinnamon Shadowdragon[3]
Neurocordulia xanthosoma (Williamson, 1908) – Orange Shadowdragon[3]
Neurocordulia yamaskanensis (Provancher, 1875) – Stygian Shadowdragon
Somatochlora albicincta (Burmeister, 1839) – Ringed Emerald
Somatochlora alpestris (Selys, 1840) – Alpine Emerald[1]
Somatochlora arctica (Zetterstedt, 1840) – Northern Emerald[2][1]
Somatochlora borisi Marinov, 2001 – Bulgarian Emerald[1]
Somatochlora brevicincta Robert, 1954 – Quebec Emerald
Somatochlora calverti Williamson & Gloyd, 1933 – Calvert's Emerald
Somatochlora cingulata (Selys, 1871) – Lake Emerald
Somatochlora clavata Oguma, 1922
Somatochlora daviesi Lieftinck, 1977
Somatochlora dido Needham, 1930
Somatochlora elongata (Scudder, 1866) – Ski-tipped Emerald
Somatochlora ensigera Martin, 1907 – Plains Emerald
Somatochlora filosa (Hagen, 1861) – Fine-lined Emerald
Somatochlora flavomaculata (Vander Linden, 1825) – Yellow-Spotted Emerald[1]
Somatochlora forcipata (Scudder, 1866) – Forcipate Emerald
Somatochlora franklini (Selys, 1878) – Delicate Emerald
Somatochlora georgiana Walker, 1925 – Coppery Emerald
Somatochlora graeseri Selys, 1887
Somatochlora hineana Williamson, 1931 – Hine's Emerald
Somatochlora hudsonica (Hagen in Selys, 1871) – Hudsonian Emerald
Somatochlora incurvata Walker, 1918 – Incurvate Emerald
Somatochlora japonica Matsumura, 1911
Somatochlora kennedyi Walker, 1918 – Kennedy's Emerald
Somatochlora linearis (Hagen, 1861) – Mocha Emerald
Somatochlora lingyinensis Zhou & Wa, 1979
Somatochlora margarita Donnelly, 1962 – Texas Emerald
Somatochlora meridionalis Nielsen, 1935 – Balkan Emerald[1]
Somatochlora metallica (Vander Linden, 1825) – Brilliant Emerald[2][1]
Somatochlora minor Calvert, 1898 – Ocellated Emerald
Somatochlora nepalensis Asahina, 1982
Somatochlora ozarkensis Bird, 1933 – Ozark Emerald
Somatochlora provocans Calvert, 1903 – Treetop Emerald
Somatochlora sahlbergi Trybom, 1889 – Treeline Emerald
Somatochlora semicircularis (Selys, 1871) – Mountain Emerald
Somatochlora septentrionalis (Hagen, 1861) – Muskeg Emerald
Somatochlora shanxiensis Zhu & Zhang, 1999
Somatochlora tenebrosa (Say, 1840) – Clamp-tipped Emerald
Somatochlora uchidai Förster, 1909
Somatochlora viridiaenea (Uhler, 1858)
Somatochlora walshii (Scudder, 1866) – Brush-tipped Emerald
Somatochlora whitehousei Walker, 1925 – Whitehouse's Emerald
Somatochlora williamsoni Walker, 1907 – Williamson's Emerald
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurocordulia#cite_note-NAO-3

 

[Adam]

Didymops floridensis
Didymops transversa
Epophthalmia australis
Epophthalmia elegans
Epophthalmia frontalis
Epophthalmia kuani
Epophthalmia vittata
Epophthalmia vittigera
Macromia aculeata
Macromia alleghaniensis
Macromia amphigena
Macromia amymone
Macromia annulata
Macromia arachnomima
Macromia astarte
Macromia bartenevi
Macromia berlandi
Macromia calliope
Macromia callisto
Macromia celaeno
Macromia celebia
Macromia chaiyaphumensis
Macromia chalciope
Macromia chui
Macromia cincta
Macromia cingulata
Macromia clio
Macromia corycia
Macromia cupricincta
Macromia cydippe
Macromia daimoji
Macromia dione
Macromia ellisoni
Macromia erato
Macromia euphrosyne
Macromia eurynome
Macromia euterpe
Macromia flavicincta
Macromia flavocolorata
Macromia flavovittata
Macromia flinti
Macromia fulgidifrons
Macromia gerstaeckeri
Macromia hamata
Macromia hermione
Macromia holthuisi
Macromia icterica
Macromia ida
Macromia illinoiensis
Macromia indica
Macromia irata
Macromia irina
Macromia jucunda
Macromia katae
Macromia kiautai
Macromia kubokaiya
Macromia lachesis
Macromia macula
Macromia magnifica
Macromia malleifera
Macromia manchurica
Macromia margarita
Macromia melpomene
Macromia miniata
Macromia mnemosyne
Macromia moorei
Macromia negrito
Macromia pacifica
Macromia pallida
Macromia pinratani
Macromia polyhymnia
Macromia pyramidalis
Macromia septima
Macromia sombui
Macromia sophrosyne
Macromia splendens
Macromia taeniolata
Macromia terpsichore
Macromia tillyardi
Macromia urania
Macromia viridescens
Macromia westwoodii
Macromia whitei
Macromia yunnanensis
Macromia zeylanica
Phyllomacromia aeneothorax
Phyllomacromia aequatorialis

 

[Adam]

Phyllomacromia amicorum
Phyllomacromia aureozona
Phyllomacromia bicristulata
Phyllomacromia bifasciata
Phyllomacromia bispina
Phyllomacromia caneri
Phyllomacromia congolica
Phyllomacromia flavimitella
Phyllomacromia funicularia
Phyllomacromia funicularioides
Phyllomacromia gamblesi
Phyllomacromia girardi
Phyllomacromia hervei
Phyllomacromia kimminsi
Phyllomacromia lamottei
Phyllomacromia legrandi
Phyllomacromia maesi
Phyllomacromia melania
Phyllomacromia monoceros
Phyllomacromia nigeriensis
Phyllomacromia nyanzana
Phyllomacromia occidentalis
Phyllomacromia onerata
Phyllomacromia overlaeti
Phyllomacromia pallidinervis
Phyllomacromia paludosa
Phyllomacromia paula
Phyllomacromia picta
Phyllomacromia pseudafricana
Phyllomacromia royi
Phyllomacromia seydeli
Phyllomacromia sophia
Phyllomacromia subtropicalis
Phyllomacromia sylvatica
Phyllomacromia trifasciata
Phyllomacromia unifasciata
Phyllomacromia villiersi

 

[Adam]

These are some of the different species of dragonfly, with apparent distinctions that require taxonomic attention for classification purposes.


Just because you say "I don't see any distinction" doesn't mean that distinctions do not exist from species to species or family to family.


Making appeals to ignorance is not an argument.

 

[Asyncritus]

These are some of the different species of dragonfly, with apparent distinctions that require taxonomic attention for classification purposes.

Just because you say "I don't see any distinction" doesn't mean that distinctions do not exist from species to species or family to family.

Dragonflies are among the most advanced insects on the planet today. They fly with TWO PAIRS of wings, synchronising them perfectly well. That's quite a feat, if you didn't know.

They can hover, and they possess the most advanced eyes ever to appear, like the trilobite eyes.

There are distinct dragonflies in the fossil record.

That means that the most advanced insects in the fossil record are there right at the very beginning of their fossil record. Obviously as advanced as they are today.

Therefore, no evolution has taken place. Creation, yes. Evolution, no.

Either in getting them to that advanced point, or since getting to that advanced point. There they are - dragonflies, easily identifiable as such. No evolution has taken place before or since.

Your titanic lists are therefore useless in showing that evolution has taken place. Variation, yes, of course.

Evolution? No: or should that be:

M-O-O-O-O-O!
​

 

[lordkalvan]

Part One
There's an awful lot that insects say against evolution, and I'll bring the most powerful points to the forum. Even if you aren't overly interested in the subjest, do have a look, and be amazed!

THE ORIGIN OF INSECTS

Before you read this, go here for a thorough brutalisation of the theory of evolution, which underlines many of the points I have been making:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGCkpuNu9QA


There’s an awful lot of insects. Just to give you an idea:

wiki

And all this from a ‘common ancestor’! What utter bunkum!

It beggars belief, that so much, so many, so diverse organisms could come from a ‘common ancestor’!

But then, evolutionsts follow their sacred cow, no matter where it may lead. The cow says: There was a hellish lot of evolution going on at some point in time in the past, wasn’t there!

That, of course, is entirely opposed to the usual mutation/natural selection claptrap we have become used to on this forum.

Mark one against evolution.

Expressions of personal incredulity do not constitute a reasoned argument.

 

[lordkalvan]

[FONT=&quot]They first appeared 407 – 396 million years ago. Looking, guess what? Just like modern insects. Oh yeah, they found wingless insects – but they were INSECTS! Complete with [/FONT][FONT=&quot]head, thorax and abdomen, six legs, just like the wingless insects around today.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
wiki.....

What would you expect organisms classified as insects to look like, then? Cephalopods? The earliest organisms identified as insects which we have fossil evidence for did not have wings, did not have developed legs, did not have developed body parts. They looked most like modern silverfish, which do not undergo metamorphosis, but rather have an ametabolous development, i.e. the young look pretty much like the adults, but lack genitalia and gonads. So not 'just like modern insects' after all. If you offer such misrepresentation as supposedly reasoned criticism, why exactly do you expect to be taken seriously at all?

 

[Barbarian]

Evidence: A fly identified as Psocoptera, one of around 100 species of arthropod found preserved in amber dating back 50 million years

See ANY differences to today’s flies?

Well, let's see what a modern psocopteran looks like...

A modern psocopteran:

And yeah, I see a lot of significant differences. They quite dissimilar. I don't see any similarity at all.

No?

Nope.

What does that prove?

Either you were careless in cutting and pasting from some half-wit creationist website, or possibly the guys who set that site up were as ignorant as you are. The wing veins are not even remotely similar to modern psocopterans:

 

[Barbarian]

Since Async is trying the "Gish Gallop" by throwing out as many foolish misrepresentations as he can, let's pick off another easy one. The springtails are hexapods, "almost insects."

The subphylum Hexapoda (from the Greek for six legs) constitutes the largest (in terms of number of species) grouping of arthropods and includes the insects as well as three much smaller groups of wingless arthropods: Collembola, Protura, and Diplura
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapoda

This classification has been verified by nuclear r-RNA analysis:
http://www.arthropod-systematics.de/ASP_64_1/ASP_64_1_Kjer_et_al_35-44.pdf

The fact is, Async is completely wrong about the survivability of springtails depending on a strong furcula (spring). In fact, some of the Hypogastruridae have no spring at all. According to Async, they must all be dead. But they live on in blessed ignorance of Async's infallible opinion. Likewise, many other species of these almost-insects have less powerful furculae, and can't jump very far. They live too, even though Async demands that no intermediate forms could survive.

And another one bites the dust. More later unless...

 

[Adam]

Variation, yes, of course.

Evolution? No
[/CENTER]

So, you accept evolution as long as you don't call it evolution.

 

[lordkalvan]

So, you accept evolution as long as you don't call it evolution.

If I remember correctly, Asyncritus has elsewhere told us that he accepts 'a bit' of speciation as well, without ever specifying exactly what he means by 'a bit' or what prevents 'a bit' from becoming 'a lot'.

 

[Barbarian]

Dragonflies are among the most advanced insects on the planet today. They fly with TWO PAIRS of wings, synchronising them perfectly well. That's quite a feat, if you didn't know.

Most insects have two pair of wings. It's a step up from primitive form. The first known flying insects had three, although the third set were small and rudimentary. A few insects today, have reduced the second pair to a set of balancing stubs, and have gained considerable agility thereby. Better than dragonflies, which are less agile than advanced dipterans.

They can hover, and they possess the most advanced eyes ever to appear, like the trilobite eyes.

Dragonfly eyes are much inferior in resolving power to many other species of arthropods. They are exquisitely well adapted to detecting movement of small objects, which is more useful for them. Jumping spiders, however, can see about as well as we can, by an entirely different process. I had a small one living on one of my plants. He got very active when he saw me coming, because I often brought an insect for him to stalk. He had come to associate me with lunch, I think.

There are distinct dragonflies in the fossil record.

But before the dragonflies were the Paleodictoptera:

Looks a bit like a dragonfly, no? They were plant-eaters, and not great flyers, judging by their heavy bodies and primitive wings. Notice the eyes are small and primitive; no need for an herbivore to detect movement of small prey.

Palaeodictyopterids were insects related to dragonflies and mayflies. They first appeared in the Early Carboniferous, and became diverse and abundant until their extinction at the end of the Permian. They had elongated, sharp mouthparts for piercing and sucking plant tissue. As well as their large wings, they had a pair of ‘paranota’ or winglets, which didn’t function as wings during flight.

http://museumvictoria.com.au/melbou...on-years/timeline/permian/palaeodictyopterid/

That means that the most advanced insects in the fossil record are there right at the very beginning of their fossil record. Obviously as advanced as they are today. Therefore, no evolution has taken place. Creation, yes. Evolution, no.

Surprise. What you don't know, can hurt you. And dragon flies are neither the most advanced nor the least advanced insects in the fossil record. Would you like to learn about that?

Either in getting them to that advanced point, or since getting to that advanced point. There they are - dragonflies, easily identifiable as such. No evolution has taken place before or since.

And once again, your imagination has failed you.

 

[Barbarian]

The oldest definitive insect fossil is the Devonian Rhyniognatha hirsti, estimated at 407 to 396 million years ago.[6] This species already possessed dicondylic mandibles, a feature associated with winged insects, suggesting that wings may already have evolved at this time.

The specimen, no. In.38234, is preserved in a fragment of Rhynie Chert and mounted on a glass microscope slide. It consists of a pair of jaws (mandibles) and other associated structures. It was collected by the Reverend W. Cran and is dated 19/06/1919. Cran found many arthropod remains in the Rhynie Chert and made them available for study to S. Hirst, S. Maulik and D.J. Scourfield. Hirst and Maulik published a paper in 1926 and figured this specimen as the 'mandibles of supposed larval insect'. They also described and named four other specimens of well-preserved heads as Rhyniella praecursor. Eminent fossil insect expert Robin J. Tillyard then studied these specimens. He named the jaws Rhyniognatha hirsti in 1928 and described it as the 'portion of a head of a small insect, showing the mandibles and some surrounding structures'. He also identified Rhyniella praecursor as a collembolan (springtail). The specimens were donated to the NHM by Scourfield in 1940.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/earth/fossils/article-oldest-insect-fossil/index.html

No wings. Nor do springtails ever have wings.

Ooohh! Just look! The wings are there on the first insect fossils!

Surprise.

This MOST ADVANCED FEATURE possible, is RIGHT THERE, from the beginning!

Reality just blindsided you again. When are you going to learn?

More later...

 

[Barbarian]

Apparently Async isn't coming back. So I'll let it end here, unless anyone wants to hear about anything I missed in that laundry list of misconceptions.

 

[lordkalvan]

Apparently Async isn't coming back. So I'll let it end here, unless anyone wants to hear about anything I missed in that laundry list of misconceptions.

Just await the next OP C&P'd from his website.

 

[Barbarian]

And Async bails out of another thread...