Posts Tagged ‘unchanged fossils’

The Splay-Footed Cricket’s Giving Darwinists a Spot of Bother
For 100 Million Years Baby Looked Just Like Mother and Father?
So How Have These Crickets Stayed in Stasis For So Long?
Does This Evolving, Non Evolving Problem Show Darwin Was Wrong?

Church of Darwin,, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Feb 05 2011

Rare insect fossil reveals 100 million years of evolutionary stasis
February 3, 2011

Photo: A fossil found in northeastern Brazil confirmed that the splay-footed cricket of today has at least a 100-million-year-old pedigree. Credit: Hwaja Goetz

Researchers have discovered the 100 million-year-old ancestor of a group of large, carnivorous, cricket-like insects that still live today in southern Asia, northern Indochina and Africa.

The new find, in a limestone fossil bed in northeastern Brazil, corrects the mistaken classification of another fossil of this type and reveals that the genus has undergone very little evolutionary change since the Early Cretaceous Period, a time of dinosaurs just before the breakup of the supercontinent Gondwana.

The findings are described in a paper in the open access journal ZooKeys.

“Schizodactylidae, or splay-footed crickets, are an unusual group of large, fearsome-looking predatory insects related to the true crickets, katydids and grasshoppers, in the order Orthoptera,” said University of Illinois entomologist and lead author Sam Heads, of the Illinois Natural History Survey.

“They get their common name from the large, paddle-like projections on their feet, which help support their large bodies as they move around their sandy habitats, hunting down prey.”

Although the fossil is distinct from today’s splay-footed crickets, its general features differ very little, Heads said, revealing that the genus has been in a period of “evolutionary stasis” for at least the last 100 million years.

Other studies have determined that the region where the fossil was found was most likely an arid or semi-arid monsoonal environment during the Early Cretaceous Period, Heads said, “suggesting that the habitat preferences of Schizodactylus have changed little in over 100 million years.”

More information: The paper, “On the Placement of the Cretaceous Orthopteran Brauckmanni groeningae From Brazil, With Notes on the Relationships of Schizodactylidae (Orthoptera, Ensifera),” is available online.

Provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (news : web)

See Also: Pelican Fossil Poses Evolutionary Riddle; Why, They Haven’t Evolved, Not Even a Little

Thanks to Chris Z. and Scott S.

“Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave, When At First We Practice to Deceive”–Alleged 165 Million Year Old Spider Looks Just Like 165 Day Old Spider

Church of Darwin,, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Feb 12 2010

Genesis 1:24
Then 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.

If evolutionists had a long list of transitional fossils (or even a short list) that they could point to that proved that the living creatures on this planet were “evolving”, then frequently discovering fossils that obviously were unchanged –though supposedly millions of years old would not be so problematic for them.

We’ve written here about the unchanged “95 million year old octopi”, and the fossil lamprey, allegedly 360 million years old which was identical in every respect to “modern” lampreys, and the alleged 150 million year old squid that was also identical to “modern” squids. So, if we have no transitional fossils and we have a surfeit of ancient bees that were bees and ants that were ants and spiders that were; spiders etc. etc. why would anyone believe that Darwinism is true?

Photo: Gould; saying more stuff “out of context”?

It was famous Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould who said “the lack of transitional fossils is the trade secret of paleontology”.

I have to tell you that evolutionists will do a spit take if you say that there are no transitional fossils–but they become downright upset and angry if you go to the Stephen Jay Gould quote. “You’re quoting him out of context they shout”, (or type), ironically, looking just like angry men have always looked from the time of Adam. (They’re unchanged just like spiders and bees.)

Can you imagine a scenario wherein Gould was not really trying to say that there were not a lot of transitional fossils around and that this information was not something generally known? Maybe he was just quoting the lines from some unknown B Movie?

Colin Patterson, another prominent evolutionist, formerly a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and author of the book “Evolution” said the following re: transitional fossils and his understanding of what Gould and some of his associate paleontologists meant by the “lack of transitional fossils”

Photo:Evolution 2nd Edition; Now without transitional fossils! (Previously without transitional fossils).

In a letter to an evolutionist who had complained about the lack of drawings of these whimsical creatures (transitional ones) in Patterson’s book; Evolution, Patterson responded;

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it…

Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils..”

Indeed they are Colin! (he’s passed on)

Re: the subject at hand; scientists have discovered the very well preserved fossil of a spider which they claim is 165 million years old. Was it some kind of “pre-spider”? Something very primitive in the spider line with you know; stooped shoulders, a prominent forehead and copius hair? We know from years of indoctrination that these are the qualities that make a creature primitive.

Nope! According to the article:

E. gertschi shows all the features of the modern members of the family, found in North America, suggesting it has evolved very little since the Jurassic period, Selden said.

“The scimitar-shaped structure you notice out of the male is so distinctive,” he said. “Looking at modern ones, you think, well, it’s just a dead ringer.”

Read More
Read More Here

Thanks to Chris Z……