Living Fossils

[bob b]

I have been collecting articles on "living fossils" for some time now. A living fossil is a current form of life which existed in the past as evidenced by a fossil, but which was thought to be extinct because no fossil record of it had been found in succeeding geological layers.

In the current case the usual definition is inverted because a recent fossil finding has shown that there has supposedly been little or no significant morphological change from the current form of life in tens of millions of years. This has a name: "stasis".

-----

The first fossil leaf insect: 47 million years of specialized cryptic morphology and behavior
Sonja Wedmann, Sven Bradler, and Jes Rust.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, January 9, 2007, 104: 565-569. | 10.1073/pnas.0606937104

Abstract: Stick and leaf insects (insect order Phasmatodea) are represented primarily by twig-imitating slender forms. Only a small percentage ( 1%) of extant phasmids belong to the leaf insects (Phylliinae), which exhibit an extreme form of morphological and behavioral leaf mimicry. Fossils of phasmid insects are extremely rare worldwide. Here we report the first fossil leaf insect, Eophyllium messelensis gen. et sp. nov., from 47-million-year-old deposits at Messel in Germany. The new specimen, a male, is exquisitely preserved and displays the same foliaceous appearance as extant male leaf insects. Clearly, an advanced form of extant angiosperm leaf mimicry had already evolved early in the Eocene. We infer that this trait was combined with a special behavior, catalepsy or "adaptive stillness," enabling Eophyllium to deceive visually oriented predators. Potential predators reported from the Eocene are birds, early primates, and bats. The combination of primitive and derived characters revealed by Eophyllium allows the determination of its exact phylogenetic position and illuminates the evolution of leaf mimicry for this insect group. It provides direct evidence that Phylliinae originated at least 47 Mya. Eophyllium enlarges the known geographical range of Phylliinae, currently restricted to southeast Asia, which is apparently a relict distribution. This fossil leaf insect bears considerable resemblance to extant individuals in size and cryptic morphology, indicating minimal change in 47 million years. This absence of evolutionary change is an outstanding example of morphological and, probably, behavioral stasis.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Sweet. :think:
I'm always interested in these sorts of organisms. The most famous, of course, is the Ceolocanth.

 

[eisenreich]

This fossil leaf insect bears considerable resemblance to extant individuals in size and cryptic morphology, indicating minimal change in 47 million years. This absence of evolutionary change is an outstanding example of morphological and, probably, behavioral stasis.

The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically. In fact, in an unchanging environment, stabilizing selection would tend to keep an organism largely unchanged. Many environments around today are not greatly different from environments of millions of years ago.

 

[Real Sorceror]

The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically. In fact, in an unchanging environment, stabilizing selection would tend to keep an organism largely unchanged. Many environments around today are not greatly different from environments of millions of years ago.

Thanks for catching that, eisenreich. I guess I wasn't paying attention.

 

[bob b]

The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically. In fact, in an unchanging environment, stabilizing selection would tend to keep an organism largely unchanged. Many environments around today are not greatly different from environments of millions of years ago.

Correct on the first point. The second is a definition, the third an assertion.

First point: "The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically."

This is why some scientists claim that it is not a scientific theory: it makes no beforehand predictions, at least as far as morphology is concerned.

Evolutionists do invent stories explaining why they think an organism has changed or not changed as the case may be, but this is not science as it is usually defined.

 

[eisenreich]

Evolutionists do invent stories explaining why they think an organism has changed or not changed as the case may be, but this is not science as it is usually defined.

Bob has a unique view of how science is usually defined: he believes "poofing animals into existence" is more supported by the scientific method than evolution.

 

[supersport]

The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically. In fact, in an unchanging environment, stabilizing selection would tend to keep an organism largely unchanged. Many environments around today are not greatly different from environments of millions of years ago.

ToE states that new traits form from random mutations. You would think, then, after 47 million years that there would be countless random mutations that would alter the animal physiologically. Many traits, I'm sure you'll admit, are more or less neutral -- that they may just barely effect the fitness of the organism. And yet, with or without the traits, the organism would be selected because it could still successfully breed -- which would pass on those traits to future generations.

There's no reason to believe that a large number of such mutations wouldn't occur in almost 50 million years....yet that's not what we see. We see virtually no phenotypic change in many many animals. That makes no sense.

 

[The Berean]

Sweet. :think:
I'm always interested in these sorts of organisms. The most famous, of course, is the Ceolocanth.

Rats! You beat me to it! :chuckle:

 

[bob b]

Bob has a unique view of how science is usually defined: he believes "poofing animals into existence" is more supported by the scientific method than evolution.

You actually encourage me very much when you leave the topic of science, because your rationalizations have failed.

This is what Darwin, Mayr and Gould did when they argued that "God wouldn't have done it that way."

BTW, I thought you guys claimed that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

ToE states that new traits form from random mutations. You would think, then, after 47 million years that there would be countless random mutations that would alter the animal physiologically.

There's no reason to believe that a large number of such mutations wouldn't occur in almost 50 million years....yet that's not what we see.

We see virtually no phenotypic change in many many animals. That makes no sense.

You might think that, but it's not true. Don't forget the environment plays a role in what changes are beneficial, especially in phenotype changes.

 

[bob b]

You might think that, but it's not true. Don't forget the environment plays a role in what changes are beneficial, especially in phenotype changes.

So if the environment hasn't changed in 47 million years then no evolution has occurred in that period of time?

 

[Jukia]

You actually encourage me very much when you leave the topic of science, because your rationalizations have failed.

This is what Darwin, Mayr and Gould did when they argued that "God wouldn't have done it that way."

BTW, I thought you guys claimed that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis.

Do you have a particular cite or several to the Darwin/Mayr/Gould quote o "science lover"?

 

[Jukia]

So if the environment hasn't changed in 47 million years then no evolution has occurred in that period of time?

Pssst, bob b, learn some science and then you would not have started this silly thread.

 

[Stripe]

Psst .. Jukia. Sod off like you said you were going to.

 

[Jukia]

Psst .. Jukia. Sod off like you said you were going to.

Nah, Stipe, I think I have only bailed on the Brown series. He is such a maroon. I just think it awful that people like Pastor Enyart allow him to seem to have some credibility.

 

[Stripe]

So you bailed from the place where Walt's work is highlighted and went to the place where Walt's work is highlighted? Nice work, loser.