[_ Old Earth _] Termite Mutualism - Another Blow For Evolution!

[Asyncritus]

I am fascinated by the sometimes startling behaviour of insects.

These little (mostly) creatures create some major evolutionary nightmares. We won't go into metamorphosis and evolution's total inability to account for the transition fro egg to magnificent mature adults (as in the butterflies) - but this time I choose another of those facts which are as inexplicable today as they were in Darwin's day.

The Termites.

I will confine myself to only one of their incredible features: their digestion.

Here's an extract from an article:
http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_termites.html

Cellulose is a poly-saccharide, that is, a large number of sugar molecules linked together by tight chemical bonds to form a very long, strong chain.

Cellulose is the substance that gives plants their structure and is the most abundant organic compound in the world.

Wood is mostly cellulose, and so are cotton and all paper products. In the Sonoran Desert, trees, shrubs, grasses, and cactus skeletons are the primary source of cellulose, which represents more than half of all the organic material produced by photosynthesis.

Cellulose is durable because it is a physically strong material resistant to mechanical breakdown, but more important, very few organisms produce enzymes that can chemically break it down.

[Termites, however, live on cellulose, and in fact, survive extremely well. How do they manage to do this marvellous thing, if they couldn't digest cellulose? Here's the answer... marvellous as it really is]

Among those that do produce the cellulose break-down enzyme cellulase are fungi and tiny animals called protozoans.

Termites do not produce cellulase, but all termites contain protozoans in their guts in a mutually beneficial relationship known as mutualism.

Termites grind up the cellulose mechanically by biting off bits and chewing them up; then the protozoans in their guts break down the chewed mass into sugars, which are readily absorbed through the termites’ guts.

[From that, you can see that the protozoans can't chew up the wood. They just aren't big enough to do so - so the termites do the heavy stuff.

[The termites, having done the big job, now depend entirely on the little guys to complete the digestive process. If they weren't there, the cellulose would simply pass straight through the gut and out the other end.

[But they ARE there, and so the termites survive, and so do the protozoans. Because BOTH organisms are mutually benefited. the arrangement is called mutualism.

[The evolutionary nightmares have begun.

Assume a proto-termite who has no protozoans in its gut. He chews the wood till he's blue in the face - and starves to death, because the wood just goes straight through him. No benefit whatever. Death and extinction of the species now follows as night follows day.

How did the relationship 'evolve' by little steps? Answer: it didn't, and couldn't. Without the protozoa, the termites are dead. Without the termites, the protozoa are exposed and would probably also perish.

[BOTH HAD TO APPEAR TOGETHER. NO EVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE. THE FIRST TERMITE HAD THE PROTOZOA IN ITS GUT AND SO COULD LIVE OFF THE WOOD.

IF IT DIDN'T LIVE OFF THE WOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEN WHY DID IT START DOING SO?]

Both the termites and their protozoans share in the nutritional benefit of these released sugars.

[SO THE PROTOZOA HAD A HOME, AND THE TERMITE HAD A VERY USEFUL SERVANT - AND BOTH LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER - TOGETHER.

Now notice a demonstration of pure intelligence.

But wait a minute, does a termite have a brain able to figure out the mysteries of bacterial and protozoal inoculation? How did this happen...?]

Newly hatched termites are first inoculated with these indispensable protozoans by eating the feces of their older brothers and sisters.

So termite no.1 had protozoa in it's feces. Or it couldn't pass them on to its descendants.So how did the protozoa get there?

Answer, they were placed there by the Creator. No evolution possible or necessary.

Another major flop - because there are 2.600 species known, and estimated there is a total of 4,000 species in all. That's a pretty big number! Not to mention the fact that there are zillions of individual termites!

Another 4000 species whose existence and survival cannot be accounted for by evolution!

 

[Barbarian]

Termite Mutualism - Another Blow For Evolution!

I am fascinated by the sometimes startling behaviour of insects.

You'd be more fascinated if you knew something about them.

These little (mostly) creatures create some major evolutionary nightmares. We won't go into metamorphosis and evolution's total inability to account for the transition fro egg to magnificent mature adults (as in the butterflies)

The origins of insect metamorphosis
http://www.insecta.ufv.br/Entomologia/ent/disciplina/ban 160/AULAT/aula8/truman.pdf

Turns out, there is striking evidence that the larva/pupa/adult transitions are hormone-mediated elaborations of the primitive pronymph/nymph,adult transitions of primitive insects.

Surprise.

but this time I choose another of those facts which are as inexplicable today as they were in Darwin's day.

The Termites.

I will confine myself to only one of their incredible features: their digestion.

Here's an extract from an article:
http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_termites.html

Cellulose is a poly-saccharide, that is, a large number of sugar molecules linked together by tight chemical bonds to form a very long, strong chain.

Cellulose is the substance that gives plants their structure and is the most abundant organic compound in the world.

Wood is mostly cellulose, and so are cotton and all paper products. In the Sonoran Desert, trees, shrubs, grasses, and cactus skeletons are the primary source of cellulose, which represents more than half of all the organic material produced by photosynthesis.

Cellulose is durable because it is a physically strong material resistant to mechanical breakdown, but more important, very few organisms produce enzymes that can chemically break it down.

[Termites, however, live on cellulose, and in fact, survive extremely well. How do they manage to do this marvellous thing, if they couldn't digest cellulose? Here's the answer... marvellous as it really is]

Among those that do produce the cellulose break-down enzyme cellulase are fungi and tiny animals called protozoans.

Termites do not produce cellulase, but all termites contain protozoans in their guts in a mutually beneficial relationship known as mutualism.

Termites are genetically and anatomically linked to cockroaches. Wood roaches have various levels of adaptation to eating cellulose. Most eat decaying wood, but a few eat harder wood, and a few of those actually have the same protist symbiotes as termites.

The symbiotes are related to organisms that digest wood in very wet environments, BTW.

[From that, you can see that the protozoans can't chew up the wood. They just

[But they ARE there, and so the termites survive, and so do the protozoans. Because BOTH organisms are mutually benefited. the arrangement is called mutualism.

Termites and these little protists are much better off then their relatives, both of which have less than optimal adaptations to eating wood.

Assume a proto-termite who has no protozoans in its gut.

Wood roaches. They live on decaying wood, which has already had most of the cellulose broken down by fungi and bacteria. But at least one genus of wood roaches has the same symbiotes as termites and can eat undecayed wood. Like termites they pass the symbiotes to their offspring which are not born with them. The rest have intracellular symbiotes instead of gut symbiotes.

The next step in the evolution of termites would have to be an insect with halfway characteristics of cockroaches and modern termites. One of those is still living:

Mastotermes darwiniensis, common names giant northern termite and Darwin termite, is a termite species found only in northern Australia. It is a very peculiar insect, the most primitive termite alive.[1] As such, it shows uncanny similarities to certain cockroaches, the termites' closest relatives. These similarities include the anal lobe of the wing and the laying of eggs in bunches, rather than singly. It is the only living member of its genus Mastotermes and its family Mastotermitidae, though numerous fossil taxa are known. The termites were traditionally placed in the Exopterygota, but such an indiscriminate treatment makes that group a paraphyletic grade of basal neopterans. Thus, the cockroaches, termites and their relatives are nowadays placed in a clade called Dictyoptera.

These singular termites appear at first glance like a cockroach's abdomen stuck to a termite's fore part. Their wings have the same design as those of the roaches, and its eggs are laid in a case as are roach eggs. It is thought to have evolved from the same ancestors as the wood roaches (Cryptocercus) in the Permian. Fossil wings have been discovered in the Permian of Kansas which have a close resemblance to wings of Mastotermes of the Mastotermitidae,[2] which is the most primitive living termite. This fossil is called Pycnoblattina. It folded its wings in a convex pattern between segments 1a and 2a. Mastotermes is the only living insect that does the same.[3] Unlike roaches not all termites have wings: Only the reproductives, (see Termites-life cycle) whose wings are considerably longer than their abdomen. Mastotermes darwiniensis is usually not very numerous, nor are the colonies large when left to natural conditions. However, when given abundant water(such as regular irrigation) and favourable food & soil conditions (such as stored timber or timber structures), populations can be enormous, numbering in the millions, quickly destroying their host. Its diet is varied, as it will eat introduced plants, damage ivory and leather, and wood and debris, in fact almost anything organic. It becomes a major agricultural pest, to the extent that vegetable farming has been virtually abandoned in Northern Australia[4] wherever this termite is numerous, which it is outside of the rain forest or bauxite soils.[5] It has developed the ability to bore up into a living tree and ring bark it such that it dies and becomes the center of a colony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastotermes

Surprise. These very primitive termites also have intracellular symbiotes, like the cockroaches they are closely related to.

How did the relationship 'evolve' by little steps?

See above. I don't quite have enough hours for a minor in entomology, but I don't have know that much to shoot down this little fiasco.

 

[cupid dave]

Is it mutualism or symbiosis?

Most animal cells today are at that level a case of a symbiotic relationship between mitochondria and the rest of the cell, according to what the biologists tell us.
They say that once the mitochonria had lived nindependently from the res of the cell, as a separate organelle.

 

[Asyncritus]

Termite Mutualism - Another Blow For Evolution!

You'd be more fascinated if you knew something about them.

These little (mostly) creatures create some major evolutionary nightmares. We won't go into metamorphosis and evolution's total inability to account for the transition fro egg to magnificent mature adults (as in the butterflies)

The origins of insect metamorphosis
http://www.insecta.ufv.br/Entomologia/ent/disciplina/ban%20160/AULAT/aula8/truman.pdf

Turns out, there is striking evidence that the larva/pupa/adult transitions are hormone-mediated elaborations of the primitive pronymph/nymph,adult transitions of primitive insects.

Surprise.

No, just stupidity.

You didn't read the paper did you? Or if you did, you didn't understand it, did you? Here, try this:

Insect metamorphosis is a fascinating and highly successful biological adaptation, but there is much uncertainty as to how it
evolved :biglol. [Trust me, that means they haven't a clue!!!]

Ancestral insect species did not undergo metamorphosis [where did they get that from I wonder?] and there are still some existing species that lack metamorphosis or undergo only partial metamorphosis.

[Therefore the presence or absence of metamorphosis has nothing to do with being primitive or non-primitive.

Therefore, metamorphosis was there from the beginning.

The earliest known insect had wings,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3319145/Museums-forgotten-fossil-was-first-creature-on-Earth-to-fly.html indicating that there had been some from of metamorphosis. So the above is just junk. Remember, Barbarian, the brain not the oesophagus...

[And of course, if the first discovered insect DID metamorphose, then your PAPER-R-R-R-R should be consigned to the dumpster, because it sheds no light whatever on the ORIGIN of metamorphosis.

[Failed again, I fear. Copy and paste seems to be your strong point, but comprehension skills are a trifle suspect, I fear. Critical faculties, zero. No degree, I hate to say.]

Based on endocrine studies and morphological comparisons of the
development of insect species with and without metamorphosis, a novel hypothesis for the evolution of metamorphosis is
proposed. Changes in the endocrinology of development are central to this hypothesis. The three stages of the ancestral insect
speciesÃpronymph, nymph and adultÃare proposed to be equivalent to the larva, pupa and adult stages of insects with
complete metamorphosis. This proposal has general implications for insect developmental biology.

This is just optimistic nonsense, and you should be able to recognise it for what it is.

Termites are genetically and anatomically linked to cockroaches. Wood roaches have various levels of adaptation to eating cellulose. Most eat decaying wood, but a few eat harder wood, and a few of those actually have the same protist symbiotes as termites.

OK. So explain how they figured out that they needed protozoa to digest cellulose for them. Explain how the FOUND OUT that protozoa digest cellulose. Then explain how they figured out that getting the protozoa into their gut would be a good idea. And finally, explain how the protozoa survived the trip through the enzymes.

The symbiotes are related to organisms that digest wood in very wet environments, BTW.

2

Related? What do you mean, related? Descended from? Uncles and aunties? What?

Termites and these little protists are much better off then their relatives, both of which have less than optimal adaptations to eating wood.

We know that. How does that affect the point I am making?

Wood roaches. They live on decaying wood, which has already had most of the cellulose broken down by fungi and bacteria. But at least one genus of wood roaches has the same symbiotes as termites and can eat undecayed wood. Like termites they pass the symbiotes to their offspring which are not born with them. The rest have intracellular symbiotes instead of gut symbiotes.

What does this have to do with anything?

The next step in the evolution of termites would have to be an insect with halfway characteristics of cockroaches and modern termites. One of those is still living: [So it didn't evolve. That right?]

Would have been? Might have been? Could have been? Should have been?

Where's your justification for this, apart from the usual question begging?

Mastotermes darwiniensis, common names giant northern termite and Darwin termite, is a termite species found only in northern Australia. .....]

Yawnnnnnn....

Surprise. These very primitive termites also have intracellular symbiotes, like the cockroaches they are closely related to.

Question begging again. So they did evolve, therefore they MUST have evolved. Tut tut, Barbarian.

Your incomprehension of the rules of common sense and argumentation is quite comprehensive.

You beg the question, and you can't see that your quotes also beg the question. Horrendously, in fact.

Re-read the OP and try to answer the question, instead of begging it.

See above. I don't quite have enough hours for a minor in entomology....

It shows. You should have taken a course in logic while you were at it, because you seem to have majored in the art of question-begging.

Didn't know they did courses in that subject, but you would have had a summa cum laude in it if they did.

 

[Asyncritus]

Is it mutualism or symbiosis?

Most animal cells today are at that level a case of a symbiotic relationship between mitochondria and the rest of the cell, according to what the biologists tell us.
They say that once the mitochonria had lived nindependently from the res of the cell, as a separate organelle.

The names seem interchangeable, but there are obligate symbiotes: where one organism simply CANNOT survive without the other.

They say that once the mitochonria had lived nindependently from the res of the cell, as a separate organelle.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
You'd be more fascinated if you knew something about them.

Asyc writes:

These little (mostly) creatures create some major evolutionary nightmares. We won't go into metamorphosis and evolution's total inability to account for the transition fro egg to magnificent mature adults (as in the butterflies)

The origins of insect metamorphosis
http://www.insecta.ufv.br/Entomologi...la8/truman.pdf

Turns out, there is striking evidence that the larva/pupa/adult transitions are hormone-mediated elaborations of the primitive pronymph/nymph,adult transitions of primitive insects.

Surprise.

No, just stupidity.

In this case, ignorance. You didn't know what the evidence is.

You didn't read the paper did you?

Rather, you didn't. You got to the opening sentence and stopped. The paper laid out the evidence that metamorphosis is merely an elaboration of the earlier maturation process in three stages.

[Trust me,

You have a history here. And it's not a good one for reliability in what you claim people wrote. Sorry about that.

The data still matter:
Based on endocrine studies and morphological comparisons of the
development of insect species with and without metamorphosis, a novel hypothesis for the evolution of metamorphosis is proposed. Changes in the endocrinology of development are central to this hypothesis. The three stages of the ancestral insect speciesÃpronymph, nymph and adultages of insects withÃare proposed to be equivalent to the larva, pupa and adult st
complete metamorphosis. This proposal has general implications for insect developmental biology.

This is just optimistic nonsense

It's called "evidence." And renders your imaginary scenario pointless.

Barbarian observes:
Termites are genetically and anatomically linked to cockroaches. Wood roaches have various levels of adaptation to eating cellulose. Most eat decaying wood, but a few eat harder wood, and a few of those actually have the same protist symbiotes as termites.

OK. So explain how they figured out that they needed protozoa to digest cellulose for them.

As you learned, they didn't have to.

Barbarian observes:
The symbiotes are related to organisms that digest wood in very wet environments, BTW.

Related? What do you mean, related?

Similar morphology, biochemistry, genetics.

Barbarian observes:
Termites and these little protists are much better off then their relatives, both of which have less than optimal adaptations to eating wood.

We know that.

Now you do. There are numerous transitional forms between roaches and termites.

How does that affect the point I am making?

The claim that there couldn't be transitionals is shown to be false. Many of them are still living.

Barbarian observes:
Wood roaches. They live on decaying wood, which has already had most of the cellulose broken down by fungi and bacteria. But at least one genus of wood roaches has the same symbiotes as termites and can eat undecayed wood. Like termites they pass the symbiotes to their offspring which are not born with them. The rest have intracellular symbiotes instead of gut symbiotes.

What does this have to do with anything?

What you claimed to be impossible are not only possible; they still exist.

The next step in the evolution of termites would have to be an insect with halfway characteristics of cockroaches and modern termites. One of those is still living:

So it didn't evolve. That right?

Pretty much what Darwin predicted. Relict populations in a limited, but unchanging environment.

Where's your justification for this, apart from the usual question begging?

You deleted it, but I'll restore it for you.

Mastotermes darwiniensis, common names giant northern termite and Darwin termite, is a termite species found only in northern Australia. It is a very peculiar insect, the most primitive termite alive.[1] As such, it shows uncanny similarities to certain cockroaches, the termites' closest relatives. These similarities include the anal lobe of the wing and the laying of eggs in bunches, rather than singly. It is the only living member of its genus Mastotermes and its family Mastotermitidae, though numerous fossil taxa are known. The termites were traditionally placed in the Exopterygota, but such an indiscriminate treatment makes that group a paraphyletic grade of basal neopterans. Thus, the cockroaches, termites and their relatives are nowadays placed in a clade called Dictyoptera.

These singular termites appear at first glance like a cockroach's abdomen stuck to a termite's fore part. Their wings have the same design as those of the roaches, and its eggs are laid in a case as are roach eggs. It is thought to have evolved from the same ancestors as the wood roaches (Cryptocercus) in the Permian. Fossil wings have been discovered in the Permian of Kansas which have a close resemblance to wings of Mastotermes of the Mastotermitidae,[2] which is the most primitive living termite. This fossil is called Pycnoblattina. It folded its wings in a convex pattern between segments 1a and 2a. Mastotermes is the only living insect that does the same.[3] Unlike roaches not all termites have wings: Only the reproductives, (see Termites-life cycle) whose wings are considerably longer than their abdomen. Mastotermes darwiniensis is usually not very numerous, nor are the colonies large when left to natural conditions. However, when given abundant water(such as regular irrigation) and favourable food & soil conditions (such as stored timber or timber structures), populations can be enormous, numbering in the millions, quickly destroying their host. Its diet is varied, as it will eat introduced plants, damage ivory and leather, and wood and debris, in fact almost anything organic. It becomes a major agricultural pest, to the extent that vegetable farming has been virtually abandoned in Northern Australia[4] wherever this termite is numerous, which it is outside of the rain forest or bauxite soils.[5] It has developed the ability to bore up into a living tree and ring bark it such that it dies and becomes the center of a colony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastotermes

Yawnnnnnn....

Surprise. These very primitive termites also have intracellular symbiotes, like the cockroaches they are closely related to.

Question begging again.

It's called evidence. They are the transitionals you claimed couldn't exist.

See above. I don't quite have enough hours for a minor in entomology, but I don't have know that much to shoot down this little fiasco.

It shows.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian chuckles:
You'd be more fascinated if you knew something about them.

How would you know that, since you don't know anything about them yourself?
Async writes:

Turns out, there is striking evidence that the larva/pupa/adult transitions are hormone-mediated elaborations of the primitive pronymph/nymph,adult transitions of primitive insects.

No, just stupidity.

In this case, ignorance. You didn't know what the evidence is.

You don't seem able to read these papers you keep copying and pasting.

If you can call a hypothesis evidence, then you really should abandon debating scientific subjects.

You didn't read the paper did you? Here:

Based on endocrine studies and morphological comparisons of the development of insect species with and without metamorphosis, a novel hypothesis

[recognise that word, hypothesis? What does it mean as far as certainty is concerned? Do you know, or shall I get the definitions for you?]

for the evolution of metamorphosis is proposed.

Changes in the endocrinology of development are central to this hypothesis. The three stages of the ancestral insect speciesÃpronymph, nymph and adultages of insects with are proposed to be equivalent to the larva, pupa and adult ...
complete metamorphosis. This proposal has general implications for insect developmental biology.

Can you comment on the factual nature of this HYPOTHESIS?

Rather, you didn't. You got to the opening sentence and stopped. The paper laid out the evidence that metamorphosis is merely an elaboration of the earlier maturation process in three stages.

No, it laid out the HYPOTHESIS. They said so in the opening statement, and you cannot deny that.They can fool the gullible, the stupid and the illiterate, but give them their due, they state clearly that this is merely another hypothesis.

You clearly don't know what that means, so go google the subject, then come back when you have been instructed.

You have a history here. And it's not a good one for reliability in what you claim people wrote. Sorry about that.

I don't know what you're talking about. You seem to dash off to wiki, cut and paste random articles which may or mostly may not offer any coherent explanation of the observable facts.

Yoy are also incapable of discerning the difference between HOW and WHY questions, and here is yet another example.

The data still matter:

maybe - but note the highlighted words carefully. Google will help if you don't understand them.

Based on endocrine studies and morphological comparisons of the development of insect species with and without metamorphosis, a novel hypothesis for the evolution of metamorphosis is proposed. Changes in the endocrinology of development are central to this hypothesis. The three stages of the ancestral insect speciesÃpronymph, nymph and adultages of insects with are proposed to be equivalent to the larva, pupa and adult st
complete metamorphosis. This proposal has general implications for insect developmental biology.

Did you get that? They are at least honest about this being a hypothesis, a proposal. You are dishonestly or ignorantly claiming that this is 'evidence', and elevating these proposals and hypotheses to the status of fact. Try being honest for a change, willya?

This is just optimistic nonsense

It's called "evidence." And renders your imaginary scenario pointless.

A proposal or a hypothesis (SUCH AS THE PAPER PRESENTS) cannot be admitted as EVIDENCE. You need facts for that.

You would have learned that if you had bothered to attend the logic classes at whatever university you went to.

It's never too late to go, you know.

OK. So explain how they figured out that they needed protozoa to digest cellulose for them.

As you learned, they didn't have to.

Another of these foolish assertions. Show us how they found out about it, in that case.

Please don't invoke magic, mutations and natural selection!

A Termite (no protozoa)-----> dead before it starts.

B Termite ( with protozoa)---> alive and well.

How did the dead A get to B?

Barbarian observes:
The symbiotes are related to organisms that digest wood in very wet environments, BTW.

Related? What do you mean, related?

Similar morphology, biochemistry, genetics.

But not descent, which is the subject being discussed here.

Barbarian observes:
Termites and these little protists are much better off then their relatives, both of which have less than optimal adaptations to eating wood.

We know that.

Now you do. There are numerous transitional forms between roaches and termites.

But you aren't claiming that they evolved from one another, are you? So why bring up the subject?

How does that affect the point I am making?

The claim that there couldn't be transitionals is shown to be false. Many of them are still living.

If they are still living, they haven't evolved. So you idea is falsified.

You still have to demonstrate how A got to B as I indicated above.

Let me quote Yahya on the subject, as you keep on quoting these odd 'authorities'. In bold letters too! I'll highlight the important bits, as you seem unable to recognise them without assistance.

Among the many examples of symbiosis in nature is that of termites and the unicellular protozoa living in their intestines. The flagellates that live and move about with their flagella in the termites’ intestines possess special enzymes able to break down the cellulose of the ingested wood and making it utilizable for themselves and their hosts.

This process takes place in a special section of the termites’ intestinal tract that has widened to form a fermentation chamber. The flagellates multiply profusely, supplying their hosts with not only digestible carbohydrates but also with their necessary protein—because the surplus population of these small organisms is itself digested in the termites’ gut.23


These single-celled protozoa could not survive on their own and so they become attached to termites and other insects. On the other hand, if these single-celled creatures did not exist, termites could not digest the cellulose in wood and provide energy for themselves.

For this reason, the two creatures must have come together at the same time. If termites were born in the absence of these single-celled creatures, they would die from being unable to digest their food.

But as usual, evolutionists assert that these creatures came into existence in various ways through some imaginary process of evolution and later decided to enter into a symbiotic relationship with one another.

But then, evolutionists are bound to answer the question of how termites and the protozoa could manage to survive before they encountered each other.

What contradicts evolutionist claims in this symbiosis is that these two creatures must have come into existence at the same time.

Evolutionist claims assume that creatures are in a state of constant development, choosing whatever ways of behavior are most beneficial and advantageous for them. This being the case, the symbiotic relationship between termites and their protozoa presents a problem for evolutionists.

Why do these single-celled creatures attach themselves to termites, break down cellulose and give it to their hosts to ensure their survival?

These two different creatures living together and complementing each other’s physical systems is clear proof that they could not have come into existence—much less together—by chance.

Everywhere we are confronted by the evident fact that the world functions according to a flawless system. This implies that Someone ensures this order; it is God Who has created the whole universe in all its perfection. He has the infinite power to know the needs of every creature on Earth and endows them with the systems they need.
http://harunyahya.com/en/books/4596/The_Miracle_Of_Termites/chapter/5005

Barbarian observes:

Wood roaches. They live on decaying wood, which has already had most of the cellulose broken down by fungi and bacteria. But at least one genus of wood roaches has the same symbiotes as termites and can eat undecayed wood. Like termites they pass the symbiotes to their offspring which are not born with them. The rest have intracellular symbiotes instead of gut symbiotes.

What does this have to do with anything? We're not discussing wood roaches.

What you claimed to be impossible are not only possible; they still exist.

So they haven't evolved! Therefore, they cannot be used as proof of evolution. Rather, theY PROVE THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!

But I am discussing the existence of these 2 creatures together.

The question before you is, how did these two SPECIFIC CREATURES come to exist together WHEN ONE COULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT THE OTHER?

It is pointless your waving your hand and saying:

The next step in the evolution of termites would have to be an insect with halfway characteristics of cockroaches and modern termites.

There is no half way house for these two SPECIFIC CREATURES. If you want their specific names, I can give them to you, or you could look up the link I gave.

One of those is still living:

So it didn't evolve. That right? If so, it proves that evolution has not occurred.

Pretty much what Darwin predicted. Relict populations in a limited, but unchanging environment.

You haven't answered the question. Try again. It hasn't evolved, right?

Where's your justification for this, apart from the usual question begging?

You deleted it, but I'll restore it for you.[...]

Yawnnnnnn....

Surprise.

No, just stupid.

These very primitive termites also have intracellular symbiotes, like the cockroaches they are closely related to.

Yes, and how does this bear on the 2 species we are discussing? A bit more hand waving, I see.

Question begging again.

It's called evidence. They are the transitionals you claimed couldn't exist.

See above. Some stupid HYPOTHESIS can't be admitted as EVIDENCE. They'd hang you in a court if a hypothesis that you murdered XYZ was admissible as evidence. Aren't you lucky that it can't!?

See above. I don't quite have enough hours for a minor in entomology, but I don't have know that much to shoot down this little fiasco.

It shows.

But as I say, you need some training in the distinction between hypotheses and evidence. They call it the rules of evidence.

Wiki:

Their purpose is to be fair to both parties, disallowing the raising of allegations without a basis in provable fact.

In science:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

So you cannot produce a hypothesis as evidence. Evidence is used to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

Not allowed. Tough luck pal.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
You'd be more fascinated if you knew something about them.

How would you know that, since you don't know anything about them yourself?

As you just learned, there is abundant evidence showing the evolution of termites from roaches. In fact, many of the transitionals you claimed were impossible, are still living.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out, there is striking evidence that the larva/pupa/adult transitions are hormone-mediated elaborations of the primitive pronymph/nymph,adult transitions of primitive insects.

No, just stupidity.

Barbarian obeserves:
In this case, ignorance. You didn't know what the evidence is.

If you can call a hypothesis evidence

You've consused "hypothesis" and evidence, again. The paper cites evidence for the hypothesis.

Paper explain the hypothesis to be tested in the research:
Based on endocrine studies and morphological comparisons of the development of insect species with and without metamorphosis, a novel hypothesis for the evolution of metamorphosis is proposed. Changes in the endocrinology of development are central to this hypothesis. The three stages of the ancestral insect species—pronymph, nymph and adult—are proposed to be equivalent to the larva, pupa and adult stages of insects with complete metamorphosis. This proposal has general implications for insect developmental biology.

[recognise that word, hypothesis?

As you see ( I restored the context for you) these scientists explained their hypothesis, and then went out to test it. As you learned (if you read the paper) the evidence supports their hypothesis. So the evidence clearly supports (now theory) that the stages of metamorphosis are the modified stages of primitive insect change.

Barbarian chuckles:
Rather, you didn't. You got to the opening sentence and stopped. The paper laid out the evidence that metamorphosis is merely an elaboration of the earlier maturation process in three stages.

No, it laid out the HYPOTHESIS. They said so in the opening statement, and you cannot deny that.

Research always starts with a hypothesis. But as you see, they then found evidence supporting it, which is what a theory is.

(Async suggests we trust him)

Barbarian chuckles:
You have a history here. And it's not a good one for reliability in what you claim people wrote. Sorry about that.

They are at least honest about this being a hypothesis, a proposal. You are dishonestly or ignorantly claiming that this is 'evidence',

The authors clearly identify evidence for the hypothesis. Even the abstract cites such evidence, so you have no excuse.

Barbarian chuckles:
It's called "evidence." And renders your imaginary scenario pointless.

OK. So explain how they figured out that they needed protozoa to digest cellulose for them.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, they didn't have to. The ancestors of those protists are still living on the rotting wood wood roaches eat. They merely ingested them by accident, and they happened to be beneficial. Fact is, they couldn't have avoided ingesting them.

A Termite (no protozoa)-----> dead before it starts.

Apparently not so. One very cockroachlike example has the cockroach intracellular symbiotes in addition to the gut symbionts. So we have every stage in the evolution of termites, from cockroaches that merely ingest rotting wood that has been degraded, to cockroaches with endosymbionts that can utilize cellulose a bit, to cockroaches with gut symbionts, to termites that have cockroach anatomical features and cockroach endosymbionts as well as gut symbionts, to advanced termites that have only gut symbionts.

Surprise.

Barbarian observes:
The symbiotes are related to organisms that digest wood in very wet environments, BTW.

Related? What do you mean, related?

Similar morphology, biochemistry, genetics.

But not descent,

As you learned much earlier, genetic relatedness can be checked by looking at organisms of known descent. Always works.

Barbarian observes:
Termites and these little protists are much better off then their relatives, both of which have less than optimal adaptations to eating wood.

But, of course, each represents a stage in evolution. Note that the intermediates are now much less common then the fully evolved termites, and are confined to particular environments and geographic localities.

If they are still living, they haven't evolved.

(Async is referring to the creationist idea that if you're alive, your uncle must be dead)

Let me quote Yahya

First your "high priest" is an atheist. Now he's a Muslim. Not surprising.

This process takes place in a special section of the termites’ intestinal tract that has widened to form a fermentation chamber.

Not all termites have them. Sorry, Yeeha.

These single-celled protozoa could not survive on their own and so they become attached to termites and other insects.

Apparently identical ones live in rotting wood in wet environments. Sorry Yeeha.

On the other hand, if these single-celled creatures did not exist, termites could not digest the cellulose in wood and provide energy for themselves.

In fact, wood roaches do that with intracellular symbionts.

Both bacterial endosymbionts code for urease but display different metabolic functions: Blochmannia strains produce ammonia from dietary urea and then use it as a source of nitrogen, whereas Blattabacterium strain Bge codes for the complete urea cycle that, in combination with urease, produces ammonia as an end product. Not only does the cockroach endosymbiont play an essential role in nutrient supply to the host, but also in the catabolic use of amino acids and nitrogen excretion, as strongly suggested by the stoichiometric analysis of the inferred metabolic network. Here, we explain the metabolic reasons underlying the enigmatic return of cockroaches to the ancestral ammonotelic state.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000721

For this reason, the two creatures must have come together at the same time. If termites were born in the absence of these single-celled creatures, they would die from being unable to digest their food.

Surprise.

But as usual, evolutionists assert that these creatures came into existence in various ways through some imaginary process of evolution and later decided to enter into a symbiotic relationship with one another.

So Yeeha's no smarter than you are. No surprise there.

But then, evolutionists are bound to answer the question of how termites and the protozoa could manage to survive before they encountered each other.

What contradicts evolutionist claims in this symbiosis is that these two creatures must have come into existence at the same time.

See above. You've been had by someone who knows no more than you do.

Evolutionist claims assume that creatures are in a state of constant development, choosing whatever ways of behavior are most beneficial and advantageous for them.

See. He might even honestly believe that.

Why do these single-celled creatures attach themselves to termites, break down cellulose and give it to their hosts to ensure their survival?

These two different creatures living together and complementing each other’s physical systems is clear proof that they could not have come into existence—much less together—by chance.

As you learned, Darwin's discovery was that it wasn't by chance.

Barbarian observes:
Wood roaches. They live on decaying wood, which has already had most of the cellulose broken down by fungi and bacteria. But at least one genus of wood roaches has the same symbiotes as termites and can eat undecayed wood. Like termites they pass the symbiotes to their offspring which are not born with them. The rest have intracellular symbiotes instead of gut symbiotes.

What does this have to do with anything? We're not discussing wood roaches.

In fact, genetically, anatomically, and even symbiotically, wood roaches and termites show common descent.

What you claimed to be impossible are not only possible; they still exist.

So they haven't evolved!

Less than some others, but only in relatively unchanging environments. Darwin discussed it. A well-fitted population in an unchanging environment is actually prevented from evolving by natural selection.

Therefore, they cannot be used as proof of evolution.

They merely show common descent. And of course, they are the very insects you and Yeeha claim cannot exist.

But I am discussing the existence of these 2 creatures together.

The question before you is, how did these two SPECIFIC CREATURES come to exist together WHEN ONE COULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT THE OTHER?

Evolution. Initially, as you learned, wood roaches didn't need these organisms and the organisms didn't need insects. Some still exist like that. But accidental ingestion, followed by adaptation allowed them to form mutalistic symbiosis. As you see in advanced wood roaches and one species of primitive termite, that was merely optional for a while. Then, over time, it became the only way they could live.

Barbarian observes:
The next step in the evolution of termites would have to be an insect with halfway characteristics of cockroaches and modern termites.

There is no half way house for these two SPECIFIC CREATURES. If you want their specific names, I can give them to you, or you could look up the link I gave.

I just showed you one. No point in denying it. Nor is it any point in denying the evidence I showed you for the origin of insect metamorphosis. Next time, don't be so trusting. Yeeha isn't that smart, but he's apparently smarter than you are.

 

[Asyncritus]

Come, come Barbarian. Get that little grey cell into gear. Remember, the brain, not the oesophagus...

As you just learned, there is abundant evidence showing the evolution of termites from roaches. In fact, many of the transitionals you claimed were impossible, are still living.

And therefore, have not evolved from anything into what they are now. Have they! Neither are they going anywhere. They're stuck, static, unevolvable, and unevolving. Tough luck, pal.

Therefore your evolutionary guesswork is invalidated.
Barbarian observes:
Turns out, there is striking evidence that the larva/pupa/adult transitions are hormone-mediated elaborations of the primitive pronymph/nymph,adult transitions of primitive insects.

This is nonsense again. Just think about it.

pro-nymph ------> nymph-----> adult

What does that mean?

These are IMMATURE forms of adult insects. THEY ARE NOT adult forms. Therefore, they cannot reproduce. Therefore pro-nymph and nymph ARE NOT TRANSITIONAL evolutionary stages.

Therefore, whatever the hormonal control of these changes may be, ARE NOT involved in the 'evolution' of the insect.

Where you go from there, I do not know.

Neither do I know what relevance this has to the HUGE problem you have of explaining how those protozoa and the termites became associated symbiotically in the first place.

Try sticking to the point will you, and stop dragging these red herrings across the path of true knowledge.

Barbarian obeserves:
In this case, ignorance. You didn't know what the evidence is.

You've consused "hypothesis" and evidence, again. The paper cites evidence for the hypothesis.

True - but that does not make the hypothesis a fact. It doesn't even qualify as a theory.

[...] So the evidence clearly supports (now theory) that the stages of metamorphosis are the modified stages of primitive insect change.

Can't you see the stupidity of that hypothesis? NO INTERMEDIATE STAGE IN THE LIFE CYCLE OF ANY INSECT CAN REPRODUCE. If these 'intermediate' stages were really the end stages of the life cycle of any insect, then extinction is the only possible result of the defect.

If this is the best you and they can offer, then as we all know, evolution of insect metamorphosis is in a very bad way indeed.

As you now admit, it is still only a theory - NOT A FACT, OR A LAW. A guess, in other words.

OK, Chuckles:
Rather, you didn't. You got to the opening sentence and stopped. The paper laid out the evidence that metamorphosis is merely an elaboration of the earlier maturation process in three stages.

Research always starts with a hypothesis. But as you see, they then found evidence supporting it, which is what a theory is.

So you admit this is only a theory. (I don't agree, it's just another ad hoc hypothesis or guess to cover the general ignorance of how insect metamorphosis evolved).

But let my skepticism pass. You still only have a tottering theory seeking to account for a monumental fact in the life cycle of insects.

But this is way beyond the OP. You still have to account for HOW the protozoa first found their way into the termites' gut. Well?

(Async suggests we trust him)

Barbarian observes:

As you learned, they didn't have to. The ancestors of those protists are still living on the rotting wood wood roaches eat. They merely ingested them by accident,

[ Ha ha haaaaah! :biglol:toofunny You missed the point again. Surprise! If the termites DEPEND TOTALLY on the protozoa for their soluble carbohydrates and protein, then there were no termites existing to ingest the protozoa.

Equally, if the protozoa only live in the gut of the termite, then they could not have existed outside the termites.

Your theory is dead in the water. Sunk, in other words.]

and they happened to be beneficial. Fact is, they couldn't have avoided ingesting them.

[Oh yeah. Like all the other zillions of animals that DON'T have them in their guts. Kinda shortsighted animals, hey?]

Apparently not so. One very cockroachlike example has the cockroach intracellular symbiotes in addition to the gut symbionts. So we have every stage in the evolution of termites, from cockroaches that merely ingest rotting wood that has been degraded, to cockroaches with endosymbionts that can utilize cellulose a bit, to cockroaches with gut symbionts, to termites that have cockroach anatomical features and cockroach endosymbionts as well as gut symbionts, to advanced termites that have only gut symbionts.

Surprise.

No, you obviously can't recognise or spell stupidity.

You can have whatever you like - but until you account for this particular specimen we are discussing (and you are avoiding) having the protozoa, and the protozoa having the termites, we are not going very far, and your defence is valueless.

You can't defend Jack the Ripper by pointing to Harold Steadman. Which is exactly what you're trying to do here. As the Chief Prosecutor, I call the defence to order.

Barbarian observes:
The symbiotes are related to organisms that digest wood in very wet environments, BTW.

Irrelevant. Please come to order, or I will hold you in contempt.

Similar morphology, biochemistry, genetics.

As you learned much earlier, genetic relatedness can be checked by looking at organisms of known descent. Always works.

Further irrelevance.

Barbarian observes:
Termites and these little protists are much better off then their relatives, both of which have less than optimal adaptations to eating wood.

But, of course, each represents a stage in evolution. Note that the intermediates are now much less common then the fully evolved termites, and are confined to particular environments and geographic localities.

This is a terrible admission, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury.

The defence admits that evolution HAS NOT taken place, because the alleged intermediates are still alive and kicking. Therefore, they are NOT intermediates.

I would like the court to note that the defence is wasting the court's time, and a lot of good electrons which could have been better employed.

First your "high priest" is an atheist. Now he's a Muslim. Not surprising.
Not all termites have them. Sorry, Yeeha.

Your honour, the defence is wasting the court's time. We are discussing the case of the Sonora termites which definitely have the protozoa in the guts.

The defence is seeking to evade the point and must be called to order, fined or dismissed. He must be compelled to answer the question, (and I ask you to issue the order) which is, just to remind him and the court, HOW DID THE FIRST TERMITE /PROTOZOA RELATIONSHIP ORIGINATE?

Your Honour, here is the defence fudging and evading the issue again, by introducing a major irrelevancy :cockroaches.

May I remind the court that we are discussing the TERMITE/PROTOZOAN relationship and these irrelevancies should be struck from the record. [...]
Thank you, your Honour, for doing that.

Surprise.

It would be useful, your honour, if you would order the defendant to take a crash course in spelling. 'Stupidity' is not spelt 's-u-r-p-r-i-s-e'. Quite different.

Equally, your Honour, dismissing a witness by hand waving, without examining the testimony with any care, is contrary to the rules of the court.

Dr Yahya is an internationally recognised anti-evolution authority, who has published 'The Fossil Museum', a huge, well illustrated book which he has sent to all the biology departments of every university, showing that nothing has evolved over millions of years.

His evidence shows that the first fossil termites ever found wer not particularly different to those of today, and therefore all this nonsense about there being intermediate stages in termite evolution is just that: nonsense.

Here are fossils of termites for the reader to examine and see that the defence's claims are simply absurd, and should be dismissed out of hand.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_...by_Order/Isoptera/isoptera_fossil_gallery.htm

Here is a picture of a fossilised termite (in amber) which makes the point:

This is a soldier termite, and its existence shows that even then, there were castes of termites as there are today. Their complex organisation has not altered, and therefore, any suggestion that they 'evolved' from simpler, immature organisms is entirely fatuous, an unworthy of this courts attention.

In connection with Dr Yahya, we may note that he has challenged Dawkins to debate the subject of evolution on many occasions.

Dawkins has, of course, known better, and remained in his hidey-hole.

​

So Yeeha's no smarter than you are. No surprise there.

How many books did you say you've written?

See. He might even honestly believe that.

This is almost libellous (or slanderous) your honour. The defence exhibits no knowledge of the subject of the fossils of termites, has never read Yahya, and prefers to cite some idiotic hypothesis to prop up his limping theory. He continually makes the mistake of confusing fact, theory, hypothesis, and of using the speculative in his defence.

He continually ignores the rules of evidence as I have shown in my previous submission to the court.

In view of those facts, I move that the defence be fined, and dismissed on the grounds of incompetence, libelling a respected witness and author, and wasting the court's time.

Thank you your Honour,

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you just learned, there is abundant evidence showing the evolution of termites from roaches. In fact, many of the transitionals you claimed were impossible, are still living.

And therefore, have not evolved from anything into what they are now.

Unlikely. As you learned, coelacanths are quite different from those a few hundred million years ago, but they do preserve may transitional features, much as the half-roach/half-termite insects do. They are exactly what Yeeha said could not exist.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out, there is striking evidence that the larva/pupa/adult transitions are hormone-mediated elaborations of the primitive pronymph/nymph,adult transitions of primitive insects.

This is nonsense again.

Comes down to evidence. Science has it. You don't. Read the report.

pro-nymph ------> nymph-----> adult

What does that mean?

It means the maturation of primitive insects goes through three stages of metamorphosis, and these three stages are evidently the source of the three stages of metamorphosis in advanced insects.

These are IMMATURE forms of adult insects. THEY ARE NOT adult forms. Therefore, they cannot reproduce. Therefore pro-nymph and nymph ARE NOT TRANSITIONAL evolutionary stages.

Surprise.

Neither do I know what relevance this has

Then you probably shouldn't have brought it up, um?

to the HUGE problem you have of explaining how those protozoa and the termites became associated symbiotically in the first place.

Protists much like the ones in some cockroaches and in termites, life freely in rotting wood. Wood roaches eat rotting wood. At some point, the microbes adapted to insect guts, and the roaches passed this on to their descendants, the termites. As you learned we have quite a few transitionals still living to show us how it happened.

Barbarian observes:
In this case, ignorance. You didn't know what the evidence is.

You've confused "hypothesis" and evidence, again. The paper cites evidence for the hypothesis.

True - but that does not make the hypothesis a fact.

The evidence confirming the hypothesis makes it a theory in the same sense that evidence for gravitation makes Newton's ideas a theory.

It doesn't even qualify as a theory.

People who say "it's just a theory" don't know much about science. "Theory" is as strong as it gets in science.

[...] So the evidence clearly supports (now theory) that the stages of metamorphosis are the modified stages of primitive insect change.

Can't you see the stupidity of that hypothesis? NO INTERMEDIATE STAGE IN THE LIFE CYCLE OF ANY INSECT CAN REPRODUCE.

However, the genes for these stages are passed on, so that's not a concern for anyone who was paying attention in 8th grade science.

As you now admit, it is still only a theory - NOT A FACT, OR A LAW. A guess, in other words.

The ignorant often make that mistake. A hypothesis is a sort of "educated guess", where scientists use previous knowledge to think about the unknown.

A hypothesis, when confirmed by evidence, is a theory.

Laws are merely predictions about what scientists expect to see under certain conditions. Theories also make predictions, but in addition, they explain phenomena. Hence, Kepler's Laws predicted the motions of planets, but Newton's theory went beyond laws, and explained why the motion happens.

But this is way beyond the OP. You still have to account for HOW the protozoa first found their way into the termites' gut. Well?

Since they live on the rotting wood eaten by wood roaches, and since the first examples of termite symbionts are actually found in wood roaches, I think even Async could figure that out.

(Async suggests we trust him)

Barbarian observes:
You have a history here, so trusting you on what other people said, isn't something any regular here would do.

[ Ha ha haaaaah! You missed the point again. Surprise! If the termites DEPEND TOTALLY on the protozoa for their soluble carbohydrates and protein, then there were no termites existing to ingest the protozoa.

But their ancestors were. And as you learned, they initially only used the symbionts as an option.

Equally, if the protozoa only live in the gut of the termite, then they could not have existed outside the termites.

Recently, someone discovered that a species of amoeba had ingested some free-living bacteria, and they somehow mutated so that they could only live inside the amoeba, and the amoeba, after some time, could not live without them. Exactly what you just claim could not happen.

J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2004 Sep-Oct;51(5):509-14.
Bacterial endosymbionts of free-living amoebae.
Horn M, Wagner M.
Source

Division of Microbial Ecology, Institute of Ecology and Conservation Biology, University of Vienna, Althanstr. 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria. horn@microbial-ecology.net
Abstract

The occurrence of bacterial endosymbionts in free-living amoebae has been known for decades, but their obligate intracellular lifestyle hampered their identification. Application of the full cycle rRNA approach, including 16S rRNA gene sequencing and fluorescence in-situ hybridization with 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes, assigned the symbionts of Acanthamoeba spp. and Hartmannella sp. to five different evolutionary lineages within the Proteobacteria, the Bacteroidetes, and the Chlamydiae, respectively. Some of these bacterial symbionts are most closely related to bacterial pathogens of humans, and it has been suggested that they should be considered potential emerging pathogens. Complete genome sequence analysis of a chlamydia-related symbiont of Acanthamoeba sp. showed that this endosymbiont uses similar mechanisms for interaction with its eukaryotic host cell as do the well-known bacterial pathogens of humans. Furthermore, phylogenetic analysis suggested that these mechanisms have been evolved by the ancestor of these amoeba symbionts in interplay with ancient unicellular eukaryotes.

Your theory is dead in the water. Sunk, in other words.

Surprise.

Oh yeah. Like all the other zillions of animals that DON'T have them in their guts.

Like all the zillions of other amoebae that don't have the endosymbiotic bacteria inside them. Surprise again.

Apparently not so. One very cockroachlike example has the cockroach intracellular symbiotes in addition to the gut symbionts. So we have every stage in the evolution of termites, from cockroaches that merely ingest rotting wood that has been degraded, to cockroaches with endosymbionts that can utilize cellulose a bit, to cockroaches with gut symbionts, to termites that have cockroach anatomical features and cockroach endosymbionts as well as gut symbionts, to advanced termites that have only gut symbionts.

Surprise.

No, you obviously can't recognise or spell stupidity.

I think we all have a pretty good fix on you by now.

(Async finds a Muslim creationist to follow)

Barbarian observes:
First your "high priest" is an atheist. Now he's a Muslim. Not surprising.
Not all termites have them. Sorry, Yeeha.

Your honour, the defence is wasting the court's time.

You don't have to be so formal. "Your Barbaric Majesty" will suffice.

We are discussing the case of the Sonora termites which definitely have the protozoa in the guts.

And wood roaches, which also do, in addition to endosymbionts. And primitive termites, which are more like wood roaches than termites, and also carry both gut symbionts and endosymbionts.

HOW DID THE FIRST TERMITE /PROTOZOA RELATIONSHIP ORIGINATE?

See above. No point in arguing that something like that can't happen, because it's been directly observed to happen.

Dr Yahya is an internationally recognised anti-evolution authority,

He's a Sunni Muslim zealot, who is also into Holocaust denial, anti-Zionism, who "studied interior architecture."

who has published 'The Fossil Museum', a huge, well illustrated book which he has sent to all the biology departments of every university, showing that nothing has evolved over millions of years.

Perhaps many real scientists make up huge, well-illustrated books and send them to biology departments all over the world to prove their point. Can't think of one, actually...

His evidence shows that the first fossil termites ever found wer not particularly different to those of today

Given the diversity of Cretaceous termites, it is likely that they had their origin at least sometime in the Jurassic. Weesner believes that Mastotermitidae termites may go back to the Permian[27] and fossil wings have been discovered in the Permian of Kansas which have a close resemblance to wings of Mastotermes of the Mastotermitidae, which is the most primitive living termite. It is thought to be the descendant of Cryptocercus genus, the wood roach. This fossil is called Pycnoblattina. It folded its wings in a convex pattern between segments 1a and 2a. Mastotermes is the only living insect that does the same,[28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termite

Surprise. See what happens when you let an interior decorator tell you about evolution?

Barbarian observes:
So Yeeha's no smarter than you are. No surprise there.

How many books did you say you've written?

Two. Like Yeeha, I haven't found anyone else so far to publish them. They are specialized in classic camera and lens design.

The defence exhibits no knowledge of the subject of the fossils of termites,

That's sort of unkind of you, considering all the free education I just gave you on termites. Admit it, all of that blindsided you.

has never read Yahya,

Your friendly Holocaust-denier has a long history. Practically anyone who's studied creationism has read him. I'm just helping you overcome your dependence on your latest "high priest."

Thank you your Honour,

"Your Barbaric Majesty" will be sufficient.