Oldest rove beetle found at 100 mya

wd400, I didn't ask about monkeys because I know the answer from knowing something about evolution claims. When we have only 3.5 million years separating Australopithecus Afarensis from homo sapiens sapiens and about the same amount of time separating a quadrupedal terrestrial mammal from a fully aquatic whale descendant, I would like to know how a beetle of any "species" can not evolve in 100 million years. BatGuano

Yeah -- the point I was trying to make is that your argument has all the sophistication and understanding of the old YEC classic "why are there still monkeys". wd400

"Why are there still m?o?n?k?e?y?s? rove beetles?"- WD400 Because they didn't become extinct? BatGuano

"No it doesn’t. Darwinism explains change. It doesn’t require it." -AB Darwin described evolution as subtle, incremental, changes filtered through natural selection. Darwin was ignorant of the source of the changes but theorized that they occurred. He theorized that they occur.That is why I said stasis is not an option. I know of no organisms that are immune to mutations and immune to wild climate and population swings and can remain virtually unchanged for 80 to 100 million years. BatGuano

Acartia_bogart, Does the limited 'variation within kind' that is postulated within Theism, or does the unlimited plasticity that is postulated with Darwinism, best explain the following evidence?

In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin's Dilemma? - JonathanM - May 2012 Excerpt: it is the pattern of morphological disparity preceding diversity that is fundamentally at odds with the neo-Darwinian scenario of gradualism. All of the major differences (i.e. the higher taxonomic categories such as phyla) appear first in the fossil record and then the lesser taxonomic categories such as classes, orders, families, genera and species appear later. On the Darwinian view, one would expect to see all of the major differences in body plan appear only after numerous small-scale speciation events. But this is not what we observe. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/has_the_talk-or059171.html Disparity precedes diversity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/battson/images/G.gif The Cambrian's Many Forms Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html

Disparity preceding diversity is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion but is found after it as well. In fact, in the following paper, some Darwinists tried to argue that since Disparity preceding Diversity is a consistent pattern in the fossil record after the Cambrian Explosion then, by their reasoning, that means the Cambrian Explosion wasn’t that special after all:

Cambrian Explosion Solved? - October 2010 Excerpt: Looking at the big picture, though, they argued that the Cambrian explosion was really not all that special; other parts of the fossil record show similar patterns: “the observation that disparity reaches its peak early in a group’s history seems to reflect a general phenomenon, also observed in plants (Boyce, 2005), the Ediacara biota (Shen et al., 2008), Precambrian microfossils (Huntley et al., 2006), and within many individual animal clades, such as crinoids (Foote, 1997), gastropods (Wagner, 1995), and ungulates (Jernvall et al., 1996). Although of significant interest, this high disparity soon after a group’s appearance is not unique to the Cambrian,” they said. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201010.htm#20101031a Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head - July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.",,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas." James W. Valentine - as quoted from "On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine" “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.” G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

A geneticist weighs in here:

A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html

Dogs/Wolves provide an excellent case study of limited 'variation within kind' due to the greater loss of genetic information the further a species diverges from its original parent kind:

podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00

Verse and Music:

Genesis 1:24-25 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good. Third Day – God of Wonders http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CBNE25rtnE

bornagain77

BG:"Darwinism Requires change. There can be no stasis. If there is no change there is no Darwinism." No it doesn't. Darwinism explains change. It doesn't require it. Just like ID is an attempt to explain the change that is observed, but it doesn't require everything to change. Acartia_bogart

horseshoe crabs? Few modern animals are as deserving of the title “living fossil” as the lowly horseshoe crab. Seemingly unchanged since before the Age of Dinosaurs, these venerable sea creatures can now claim a history that reaches back almost half-a billion years. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207135801.htm bornagain77

Why are there still m?o?n?k?e?y?s? rove beetles? wd400

@ Goodusername "Well, it’s not recognizable as any known species. The rove beetle is a group of beetles with tens of thousands of species." 100 milions years and the best you can up with is there are many species? I'm still not clear on what a species is. My definition of a species is a breeding population. Coelacanth was declared extinct until it was found alive and well in '38. I say that is evidence for stasis :) BatGuano

What is the scientific law governing these things.

It's known as the law of higgledy-piggledy. Mung

I watched the video of what was described as a rove Beetle. After 100,000,000 years it shouldn’t be recognizable!

Well, it's not recognizable as any known species. The rove beetle is a group of beetles with tens of thousands of species. No one is saying there hasn't been changes, only that there's still organisms that fit within a certain group or class of organisms. It's a bit like saying "fish". Will there be fish a billion years from now? It wouldn't surprise me if there were still species that still have characteristics that we would still describe as "fish", although it would surprise me to still find rainbow trout. "Coelacanth" also isn't a species. Saying "coelacanth" isn't like saying "gorilla", it isn't even like saying "ape", it's an order, and so it's like saying "primate". And the fossil coelacanths and extant coelacanths are quite different. There were primates tens of millions of years ago, and humans are primates today, but I wouldn't say that that's evidence of stasis. goodusername

@6 (AB) An entity I will call Acartia_bogart says it is possible for a species to exist for one hundred million years unchanged. Darwinism Requires change. There can be no stasis. If there is no change there is no Darwinism. By the way, the "BatFaeces" thing was low but typical of Darwinians. BatGuano

@5 goodusername, stasis over millions of years is unlikely due to the inevitable mutations that Darwin knew nothing about and also environmental conditions that would have a direct impact. Darwinism requires change.No change, no Charley. " But anyway, this species of beetle isn’t known to be extant today." I watched the video of what was described as a rove Beetle. After 100,000,000 years it shouldn't be recognizable! BatGuano

@4Dionisio, I'll keep that in mind as I ponder how a coelacanth can spring up after an eighty million year extinction. BatGuano

@3 Mung, Mutations happen or not. Evolutionary changes take millions of years or not. All species are subject to mutations or not. Mutations increase the odds of survival of a species or they don't (the mutation decreases their odds of survival in most cases). What is the scientific law governing these things. BatGuano

BatFaeces:

According to evolution theory this is not possible. A species may not persist for one hundred million years.

Yes it is possible. Acartia_bogart

BatGuano,

According to evolution theory this is not possible. A species may not persist for one hundred million years.

If mutations are weeded out by selection, than there's no reason there couldn't be statis. But anyway, this species of beetle isn't known to be extant today. goodusername

BatGuano, Sorry, but you don't understand 'n-D evo' ;-) Dionisio

Things change. Or not. Things persist. Or not. Evo 101. Mung

What I mean is that evolutionary theory (as I understand it)does not provide the option of stasis. Considering all of the mutations that are required for evolution it is impossible for a species to remain unchanged for that length of time. The Darwinists may not have it both ways. They may not have an in exorable path to change and still maintain that stasis within a species is also consistent with evolution. No Beetle 100 mya should have anything in common with an extant beetle. BatGuano

According to evolution theory this is not possible. A species may not persist for one hundred million years. BatGuano