The Gladiators - Back from Extinction!

[Micaiah]

The insect in question is nicknamed the Gladiator because of its fearsome appearance. They were first found fossilized in amber and dated as 45 million years old. The technical name is the Raptophasma kerneggeri, and assigned to the new order Mantophasmatodea. The amber specimen was in the nymph stage.

The living specimens were found thriving on top of a stony mountain in Namibia.

Here is another example of a living fossil. Funny how after 45 million years of evolution the specimen remains similar to the walking stickinsect and mantis. Personally, I think the evidence fits were comfortable with the notion that the amber fossil was formed less than six thousand years ago.

Another question. Can DNA be recovered from these fossils. If so, how can the DNA last for 45 million years when scientists generally accept a maximum life of 100 000 years for DNA.




Another article from the latest Creation mag [Vol 25 No 2 Mar MAy 2003]

 

[notto]

Sounds like the Gladiator is well adapted to it's current habitat (it is surviving). If no mutations come up that improve its ability to survive, natural selection will not select on it and change it. No problem for evolution here. Evolution does not require creatures to change over any amount of time. "Living Fossils" is one of the weaker arguments against evolution and in fact demonstrate one of its finer points. In order to evolve, a few things need to happen. Environment needs to change to stress the successfulness of a species to breed, a random mutation has to happen that gives an advantage over others in breeding and survival success. Natural selection needs to select against those without the mutation to kill them off. If these things don't happen, a population will not evolve new traits or into something else.

As far as ancient DNA, there has been little success at retrieving it. If everything is under 10,000 years old, the success rate should be much higher. It is interesting that we can retrieve DNA from species that evolution places as recent in the timeline such as mammoths and other mammals, but have little success at it with animals that are much further back like dinosaurs. If they were all buried in the flood died off at the same time, the success rates should be equal for all of them. Another weak argument against evolution and in fact, demonstrates that the life in the fossil record represents a long span of time.

 

[Micaiah]

AIG puts the estimate of living extinct fossils into the hundreds.

I find it difficult to reconcile the notion that something will develop by chance from a single cell to animal on the one hand, and yet on the other hand get told that another creature is so perfectly adapted to its environment that it has no possible need to evolve further, and remained static for 45 million years. I'd suggest that regardless of the suitability for its environment, if evolution was true, over 45 million years you almost certainly would see genetic change in a population. The percent increase in chance of survival due to a notional beneficial mutation is so low that it has little affect in the short term on whether the offspring will live or die.

Of course the other explanation is that animals don't evolve, and the ages given to the fossils should reflect the timeframe from Scripture.

I understand that Christian scientists predict that dinosaurs became extinct befor many other animals. That could explain the apparent variation in ages of the DNA in question. If dinosaurs became extinct many millions of years ago (the last time I discussed the matter the estimate given for one specimen was 80 million years ago), we need some explanation on how come we are still able to recover any DNA at all. That explanation was never provided.

 

[notto]

Today at 03:18 PM Micaiah said this in Post #3

I understand that Christian scientists predict that dinosaurs became extinct befor many other animals. That could explain the apparent variation in ages of the DNA in question. If dinosaurs became extinct many millions of years ago (the last time I discussed the matter the estimate given for one specimen was 80 million years ago), we need some explanation on how come we are still able to recover any DNA at all. That explanation was never provided.

Do you have any references that show that dinosaur DNA can be recovered easily, in any large amounts, or in situations other than very specifc preservation scenarios?

The search for DNA from dinosaurs has been for the most part unsuccesful. Small samples "may" have been obtained but they cannot be verified as dinoaur and contamination has not been ruled out in the cases where success is suspected. Even these can only be retrieved from fossils found in very specific preservation scenarios and are very, very rare. If everything is the same age and relatively young, why wouldn't we have more success with this?

If the right conditions are met, there is no reason to discount the preservation of DNA in unfossilized bones of extremely old age. Only with the most current and painstaking methods of retrieval, can they be found. It is a difficult process, but it can be done. In general, yes, scientists do not expect DNA to last for long amounts of time, and for the most part, this is what we see. Modern methods of extraction are challenging this generality but the question would be, why can't we find more unfossilized bones in the first place?

As far as the age of the DNA, they can't date the DNA itself or the bones they find and rely on other methods of dating the ground in which they are found.

 

[notto]

Today at 03:18 PM Micaiah said this in Post #3

AIG puts the estimate of living extinct fossils into the hundreds.

I find it difficult to reconcile the notion that something will develop by chance from a single cell to animal on the one hand, and yet on the other hand get told that another creature is so perfectly adapted to its environment that it has no possible need to evolve further, and remained static for 45 million years. I'd suggest that regardless of the suitability for its environment, if evolution was true, over 45 million years you almost certainly would see genetic change in a population. The percent increase in chance of survival due to a notional beneficial mutation is so low that it has little affect in the short term on whether the offspring will live or die.

This shows a lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution actually predicts. This statement also assumes that the ancient species are the same as similar species we see today and that there is no genetic difference between the ancienct species and currenlty living ones. This is most likely not the case and their are differences between these ancient species and what we find today. This can be shown in species such as the coelecanth, which, while similar to ancient fossils, is not physically, the same or considered the same species.

How could you know that there is no difference genetically between the ancient species? Has anyone extracted DNA of the Gladiator from the examples preserved in amber and compared it to living ones?

 

[Micaiah]

Yesterday at 11:55 PM notto said this in Post #5



This shows a lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution actually predicts. This statement also assumes that the ancient species are the same as similar species we see today and that there is no genetic difference between the ancienct species and currenlty living ones. This is most likely not the case and their are differences between these ancient species and what we find today. This can be shown in species such as the coelecanth, which, while similar to ancient fossils, is not physically, the same or considered the same species.

How could you know that there is no difference genetically between the ancient species? Has anyone extracted DNA of the Gladiator from the examples preserved in amber and compared it to living ones?

Funny you should end with that question because precisely the same one formed in my mind as you were discussing the above species. How can you be sure these living fossils that look the same are not identical to those that are dead without a DNA analysis.

 

[Micaiah]

Care to point out why my post shows "a lack of understanding of what evolution actually predicts."

Point mutations in the form of copying errors occur regularly. It is these copying errors that many evolutionists consider responsible for changes to populations. Over 45 million years, the number of copying errors that would have occured would be numerous and it is hard to imagine that on the one hand one population could undergo dramatic change while the other remained almost entirely static. This sounds like another evolutionist fabrication to explain away the evidence. I think the evidence supports the clear assertions of Scripture that offspring are the same kind as their parents.

 

[notto]

I'm not saying that they are the same species, but the chances are pretty low. They are found thousands of miles apart and across vast amounts of time. Even if they were for the most part the same, this would provide no challenge to the theory of evolution, only to the strawman of the theory that you seem to be putting forth. The theory of evolution does not require the change you say it does and if they were the same species, it does nothing to falsify evolution.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantophasmatodea

Mantophasmatodea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Mantophasmatodea is an order of carnivorous insects discovered in 2002, the first new insect order to be described since 1914. The common name for this order is 'Gladiators'.

Members of the order are wingless even as adults, making them relatively difficult to identify. They resemble praying mantises and other phasmids. The order is known, thus far, from live specimens found in Namibia (Mantophasma zephyra and M. subsolana) and from a 45-million-year-old specimen of Baltic amber (genus Raptophasma).

The authors of the paper describing the new order note that "it cannot at present be categorically excluded" that the two Mantophasma specimens are of the same species, with the size difference reflecting sexual dimorphism, but they consider this unlikely, because of the wide geographical separation of the specimens.

-----------------------------
It is unknown if the living species and the ancient one are the same. At this point all they can do is compare similarities in physiology and place them in the same order. Regardless, "living fossils" present no challenge to evolution. If changed happened without mutation and natural selection "just because", it would in fact, falsify evolution.

If they were the same species, how would this falsify evolution?

 

[Micaiah]

As stated before, it seems inconsistent to me on the one hand to assert that evolution caused large changes to lifeforms, and then on the other hand that certain lifeforms can remain static. In the case of the Wollemi Pine, it has remained static for up to 150 million years.

I understand that evolutionists now regard survival as one of a number of factors that cause change in a population. These factors would all be at play in the life cylcle of these living fossils, and if evolution were true, they would have caused significant changes to the populations. Saying everytime you find a living fossil that it was perfectly adapted to its environment, and therefore didn't need to change seems a cop out.

 

[notto]

Today at 05:01 PM Micaiah said this in Post #9

As stated before, it seems inconsistent to me on the one hand to assert that evolution caused large changes to lifeforms, and then on the other hand that certain lifeforms can remain static. In the case of the Wollemi Pine, it has remained static for up to 150 million years.

I understand that evolutionists now regard survival as one of a number of factors that cause change in a population. These factors would all be at play in the life cylcle of these living fossils, and if evolution were true, they would have caused significant changes to the populations. Saying everytime you find a living fossil that it was perfectly adapted to its environment, and therefore didn't need to change seems a cop out.

You are leaving out one of the things necessary to cause the change. A random mutation that creates an advantage to survive in the environment they are found in and a difference that dimminishes the ability of those without it fto breed.

There is no inconsistency, you only perceive one. You are putting forth a strawman of what evolution actually states. You should read Origin by Darwin. It would lay this out well for you and provide a base level of knowledge for discussions of evolution.

How is it a cop out? Evolution does not say that living fossils are "perfectely" adapted to their environment, only adequately adapted to survive in numbers high enough to perpetuate the species. If no mutation that allows them to survive better comes about, or no environmental change causes their success at breeding to be diminished, why would the population change? Why would any particular mutation survive in the population over time if there is no advantage to having it? Remember, populations evolve not individuals.

 

[Micaiah]

I expect that over the time under consideration evolutionists would assume there were significant climactic changes. I recall noting comments to that affect when discussing the formation of the Grand Canyon. It was stated that the changes in sea level would account for the marine formations seen in the Canyon Walls.

Under those conditions, I would expect the optimal design for a particular plant or animal to survive would change drastically. I would anticipate that there were lifeforms in the area of these living fossils that evolutionists would argue did change drastically. A more consistent approach would be to assume that all of the lifeforms would change over that period of time. Of course that contradicts the evidence.

AIG LINK ON LIVING FOSSILS

 

[chickenman]

AIG shoot themselves in the foot - they claim that in every instance mutation results in a loss of information, how are there living fossils at all? shouldn't they have lost so much "information" that they died out

as usual, AIG is a barren wasteland of illogic

 

[notto]

Today at 05:52 AM Micaiah said this in Post #11

Under those conditions, I would expect the optimal design for a particular plant or animal to survive would change drastically. I would anticipate that there were lifeforms in the area of these living fossils that evolutionists would argue did change drastically. A more consistent approach would be to assume that all of the lifeforms would change over that period of time. Of course that contradicts the evidence.

Well, there are also all of the examples of environmental changes causing extinctions when they could not change rapidly enough to adapt to environmental changes. Based on your "consistency", this should not have happened and all organisms should change to adapt. This is not the case and is contradicted by the evidence.

Why would a more consistent approach be that ALL lifeforms would change, if the environmental change does not affect their ability to breed. You are not arguing against evolution, you are arguing against an assumption of what you think evolution does or does not say that is incorrect.

Again, I will ask, what would cause the change if there was not enough environmental pressure to affect their breeding? There are several things that can happen when environmental changes affect a population. They can 1) go extinct (happened alot) 2) the population moves to a better environment (dispersion) or 3) a random mutation allows some members of the population to adapt and survive or 4) The environmental change has no effect.

You need to show that the "living fossils" are not suitable for their niche and environment where they are found living in the past and living today if your argument is to hold any weight. You must show that the animals in question are NOT suitable for their environments and still have not gone extinct or changed.

Many living fossils can be explained by 2 and 4 out of the list above with no problems to evolutionary theory.

You will notice that AIG uses a similar list. Each of them is explained by evolution and unless AIG can show a scientific reason why ALL organisms should be different, they are not presenting an argument against evolution, only the strawman you have adopted.

 

[Tau]

Just a quick comment here. From the AiG link:

Creationists also believe that mutations can cause change—but they degrade information, causing it to be lost or corrupted.

Now, if this is true, wouldn't it imply that all the information found in the combined DNA sequences of all the six billion humans alive today altogether is less information than the DNA sequences of Adam and Eve alone? How do you explain that?

 

[Micaiah]

Well, there are also all of the examples of environmental changes causing extinctions when they could not change rapidly enough to adapt to environmental changes. Based on your "consistency", this should not have happened and all organisms should change to adapt. This is not the case and is contradicted by the evidence.

Faulty logic. Saying that all lifeforms must should change, and that they could change at an acceptable rate are different things.

 

[notto]

Today at 07:30 AM Micaiah said this in Post #15



Faulty logic. Saying that all lifeforms must should change, and that they could change at an acceptable rate are different things.

How do you determine and acceptable rate? What causes the change? If an organisms population is adequately adapted to its environment to produce offspring, and there is no selective pressure or mutation that gives it advantage, why would it change? You are the one saying that they should change for no apparent reason. This is not what evolution predicts. The evidence that these "living fossils" are surviving follows evolutions prediction. They are adequately adapted to their environment and there is no need for them to change or there has not been a random mutation that would give them an advantage for selective pressure to act on.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 08:05 PM notto said this in Post #16



How do you determine and acceptable rate? What causes the change? If an organisms population is adequately adapted to its environment to produce offspring, and there is no selective pressure or mutation that gives it advantage, why would it change? You are the one saying that they should change for no apparent reason. This is not what evolution predicts. The evidence that these "living fossils" are surviving follows evolutions prediction. They are adequately adapted to their environment and there is no need for them to change or there has not been a random mutation that would give them an advantage for selective pressure to act on.

An acceptable rate for the evolutionist would be one that ensures the animal adapts fast enough to avoid death.

The optimal lifeform for one set of environmental conditions would be different for another set of conditions. Hence when conditions changed, the lifeform should also change.

There would be additional pressure for genetic change from competition between rival groups or individuals even with a stable population. I would expect that the biggest, strongest, most desireable etc would be favoured in reproduction quite aside from any survival considerations.

These two factors combined together would cause dramatic genetic change in lifeforms if the theory of evolution is correct, and the lifeforms are hundreds of millions of years old.

I do not believe of course that the earth is millions of years old. The reason these lifeforms are the same as the fossils is because they are thoseands of years old rather than millions of years old, and as stated in Scripture, the offspring are essentially the same as their parents.

 

[notto]

The "living fossils" are alive, therefore they are successful. You are forgetting that in order for evolution to happen, a random mutation needs to happen at the right time to give advantage in the environment the organism is in. If this doesn't happen, no evolution can take place. You are saying that evolution either necessitates change or the population becomes extinct. This is not the case, statis is a perfectly acceptable survival tactic. To support your point, you would need to show why the population of organisms should have changed at some point. You would also need to show that no related species populations branched off from the original species and became new species.

You again, state that there would be dramatic genetic change but you haven't shown why. Evolution does not require or necessitate change. Living Fossils most likely represent only one species that is desended from the original species. There are most likely other related species that arose from members of the population that DID change, but they are not the same species so they are not "living fossils". A population can be split by the environment with new species arising out of the original to fit the new niche while others survive in the old environment or populations are dispersed to new areas with the environment they are suited for. To support their point about the sea shells, AIG would need to show that no new species arose that are related to the original species in subsequent fossil layers.

You seem to be asking the age old question of "If man descended from apes, why are their still apes". If there are descendent species from the original, that does not mean that the original species needs to die off. Populations of additional species can arise from offshoots of the population but of course we don't recognize them as "living fossils" because they aren't the same as the ancient forms.

You should read up on what AIG says about the "cat" kind. It would seem they are not in agreement with your last statement and allow for the possiblity of drastic changes in a short time that even evolution could not account for.

I'm simply trying to clarify what the theory of evolution actually says, compared to what you (and apparently AIG) are saying.

Can you provide any scientific papers or statements that say that evolution does not allow for stasis?