Jurassic Park! But this time with 46 mya mosquito, including blood

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 22, 2013

News, stasis}

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

Dry traces, of course. Reduce your expectations. This is big anyway.

Although scientists have found fossils of suspected blood-sucking insects, the creatures’ feeding habits have mostly been inferred from their anatomy or the presence of blood-borne parasites in their guts. But Greenwalt’s fossilized mosquito contains molecules that provide strong evidence of blood-feeding among ancient insects back to 46 million years ago. …

It’s hard to see what else the mosquito could have fed on (blood or sap), given its anatomy, but more such finds may enable some insight into the physiology of the mosquito’s extinct victims. You can only get so far with anatomy (fossils).

Comments

Evolution the theory that explains everything! If it evolves it's evolution if it does not it is also evolution, round and round we go and in the end it explains absolutely nothing! Since WD400 seems to know evolution so well, please explain to me how the genes that are responsible for finches nest building evolved? Where did they lay their eggs before? How come they all build the exact same structure? Also how does the female know when a nest is not good enough and she destroys it so that the male can start over? How did this evolve? Please tell me?Andre_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

The only evidence for the age of this bug is geological claims for age. No biology going on here at all! The bug was only fossilized 4500 years ago or so. A post flood event. Its possible some genetic material could be got out. There is probably lots of them. Indeed having these bugs so unchanged in time in a natural order SAID to based on time friendly mutationism and selection is just so unlikely. The bug looks the same because they never evolved in stages and never will in the future. By the way marine mammals did once belong on land. They did change but not from evolution. They were ON the ark. Biological change is real and welcome. Its just mechanisms that are unwelcome that interfere with the bible and common intelligence/sense.Robert Byers_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

goodusername, great finds. And beautiful little critters too. I stand corrected. The question is, did they all evolve over the last 46 million years due to random mutations? Or are we talking about normal variations within a species that we can all observe around us? But then again, maybe none of them evolved at all and they were all flying around 46 millions years ago.Mapou_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT}

There are a million different ways random mutations could change mosquitoes without affecting their survival. Green mosquitoes, blue mosquitoes, yellow mosquitoes, iridescent mosquitoes, hairy mosquitoes, bald mosquitoes, giant mosquitoes, sap sucking mosquitoes, fecal matter ingesting mosquitoes, etc. But for some unknown reason the blood suckers refused to change. What’s up with that?
There are green mosquitoes and blue mosquitos and yellow mosquitoes and iridescent mosquitos and red and orange and hairy mosquitos, etc. And many mosquitoes do feed on sap (and maybe fecal matter, not sure about that one).goodusername_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

wd400:
The theory of evolution is a set of hypothesis and tools that helps us understand how evolutionary forces interact to shape the way lineages form and change at various different time scales.
There is no theory of evolution. There is a grab-bag of hypotheses. Whether these unrelated and often contradictory hypotheses help us to understand anything at all is a strictly subjective matter. Not science. The antithesis of science.Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

wd400:
Actually, evolution happens and that’s a fact.
Yup. Evolution happens when it happens, and that is a fact. wd400:
Actually, evolution happens and that’s a fact.
Yup. Evolution happens when it happens, except when it doesn't happen. And that is also a fact. wd400:
Or at least, evolutionary change is an inescapable onsequence of finite population sizes and non-zero mutation rates.
Yup. That's the theory, anyways. Evolution happens, unless it doesn't. Great theory. Logically inescapable. Hardy–Weinberg principleMung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

Do you really think all those phenotypes would be reachable by mutations that don't effect the mosquitoes survival? The changes in trait are that easy, what's your problem withe evolution? :)wd400_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

There are a million different ways random mutations could change mosquitoes without affecting their survival. Green mosquitoes, blue mosquitoes, yellow mosquitoes, iridescent mosquitoes, hairy mosquitoes, bald mosquitoes, giant mosquitoes, sap sucking mosquitoes, fecal matter ingesting mosquitoes, etc. But for some unknown reason the blood suckers refused to change. What's up with that?Mapou_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Actually, evolution happens and that's a fact. Or at least, evolutionary change is an inescapable consequence of finite population sizes and non-zero mutation rates. The theory of evolution is a set of hypothesis and tools that helps us understand how evolutionary forces interact to shape the way lineages form and change at various different time scales.wd400_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

wd400:
Mutations arise all the time, not just during periods of diversification.
ok. I think that's what NeilBJ said. Think of mutations as a bombardment from an enemy during combat. An intelligently designed bombardment would cease when the target was destroyed. Under Darwinism, mutations have no knowledge of any target. The bombardment continues, even when the friendly forces move in to occupy the enemy positions.
To a first approximation the rate or morphological evolution is decoupled from the rate of mutation.
So?
When new niches are available, evolutionary change is favoured so relatively more mutations take over the populations that arise in (are “fixed”). Conversely, when niches are closed changes are not favoured and selection rids gene pools of new mutation.
Evolution happens when it happens and doesn't happen when it doesn't happen. And this is a theory?Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Neil, I'll presume you raise your "delimma" in good faith, so will provide you with a good faith answer. To a first approximation the rate or morphological evolution is decoupled from the rate of mutation. Mutations arise all the time, not just during periods of diversification. The difference between a period of diversification and one of relative stability in a lineage is the fate of mutations. When new niches are available, evolutionary change is favoured so relatively more mutations take over the populations that arise in (are "fixed"). Conversely, when niches are closed changes are not favoured and selection rids gene pools of new mutation. This is, indeed, natural selection but the important thing is to understand its effect rather than repeat the name.wd400_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

Neil, you're thinking too hard for an evolutionist. This is all you need to know: Natural Selection dunnit Natural Selection dunnit Natural Selection dunnit repeat to infinitylifepsy_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

NeilBJ, you're right, of course. Darwinian evolution is a big pile of BS put together and maintained by mediocre minds.Mapou_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Mapou, you have touched upon a dilemma that I have thought about frequently. Random mutations have to occur often enough and in significant numbers to effect the changes we see in nature. The evolution of the whale is a prime example - one complex creature after another. David Berlinski uses 50,000 changes as a starting target for the number of changes required to change a land animal into a whale. Yet, at the same time those random mutations have to "know" when to stop. Or do all the random mutations that do occur just happen to have no effect when a satisfactory solution is reached?NeilBJ_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Mosquitoes don't seem to have evolved much, if at all, in 46 million years. I guess they must have found a way to dodge those pesky random mutations.Mapou_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply