Defying evolution for over 100 million years? - GoFuckYourself.com

$5 submissions · 08-26-2005, 02:46 AM

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-03y.html

"The common scientific belief has been that army ants originated separately on several continents over millions of years. Now it is found there was no evolution. Using fossil data and the tools of a genetics detective, a Cornell University entomologist has discovered that these ants come from the same point of origin, because since the reign of the dinosaurs, about 100 million years ago, army ants in essence have not changed a bit."

Question: Is this evidence AGAINST evolution or is it evidence that there IS evolution but sometimes certain species are SO successful that they reach an evolutionary "stasis" for millions of years?

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 08-26-2005, 02:52 AM

Or perhaps evolution has not required Ants to evolve.

But why is the real question if thats the case.

Ants are an incredible creature in strength, endurance and versatility.
Maybe it is a creature that does not require evolution.
I am sure the same research results would cover a large number of different insects as well. Such as the Mesquito.

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 08-26-2005, 02:55 AM

Then again it is also known that ants have a very very evolved sense of communication. I wonder if that has evolved over a 100 million years.

$5 submissions · 08-26-2005, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlienQ

Then again it is also known that ants have a very very evolved sense of communication. I wonder if that has evolved over a 100 million years.

Good point. Maybe the scientists are just focusing on MORPHOLOGICAL evolution based on fossil records as opposed to BEHAVIORAL evolution. One key example of this is that modern human beings have been around for thousands and thousands of years with little morphological change (at least enough to warrant a new human subspecies) but our CULTURAL and COMMUNICATION evolution has been quite dramatic.

CuriousToyBoy · 08-26-2005, 02:59 AM

But if you stamp on them don't they still die ?

Evolved you call it ?

;-)

Gunni · 08-26-2005, 03:00 AM

All these discoveries they are always making using fossils and things like that are not that reliable, it is mostly guess work. There are so many gaps in the things that they know that it is pretty hard to be 100% sure about anything.
I read that if everyone in N-America were to die today, something like 3 humans should statistically become fossils (wich goes to show that people researching it afterwards wouldn't have much to work with). We only know about 2% of the creatures that have walked the earth, and evolution is an ongoing thing, perhaps these ants are just a bit slow.

I personally don't think this has any meaning about anuthing

$5 submissions · 08-26-2005, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunni

All these discoveries they are always making using fossils and things like that are not that reliable, it is mostly guess work. There are so many gaps in the things that they know that it is pretty hard to be 100% sure about anything.
I read that if everyone in N-America were to die today, something like 3 humans should statistically become fossils (wich goes to show that people researching it afterwards wouldn't have much to work with). We only know about 2% of the creatures that have walked the earth, and evolution is an ongoing thing, perhaps these ants are just a bit slow.

I personally don't think this has any meaning about anuthing

You raise an interesting point about statistical representation, however, much of science does rely on interpolation and inferences.

One funny angle of this information is that it does get the ANTI Darwinist (read: creationist) camp in a tizzy. Here's one representative comment:

**Take your pick - either there is no evil Darwinist consipiracy to suppress this kind of information, or this information is consistent with the modern synthesis of evolution... Actually, the truth is "both".

Of course the truth is both. This is why the theory of evolution is not falsifiable. Darwinists are like the Borg - they simply assimilate anything into the theory whether it is consistent with it or not.

"Suppression of information" is not the problem. What Darwinists suppress is any interpretation of the information that is inconsistent with Darwinist dogma.**

Dirty Dane · 08-26-2005, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Good point. Maybe the scientists are just focusing on MORPHOLOGICAL evolution based on fossil records as opposed to BEHAVIORAL evolution. One key example of this is that modern human beings have been around for thousands and thousands of years with little morphological change (at least enough to warrant a new human subspecies) but our CULTURAL and COMMUNICATION evolution has been quite dramatic.

Thousands of years is not a big scale when you talk about evolution at the higher levels of the food chain, in the past. In fact there is a physical evolution going on among humans right now; people that do not develop wisdom teeth at all, and it will become more and more common.

BRISK · 08-26-2005, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Question: Is this evidence AGAINST evolution

Quote:

"Army ants have evolved only once and that was in the mid-Cretaceous period," says Sean Brady, a Cornell postdoctoral researcher in entomology

Kinda hard to disprove evolution if the ant doctor is saying they did actually evolve at one point in time, isn't it?

ADL Colin · 08-26-2005, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaughtyWhores

But if you stamp on them don't they still die ?

Evolved you call it ?

;-)

No. Ant souls go to India and re-emerge 20 years later in call centers.

Gunni · 08-26-2005, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

You raise an interesting point about statistical representation, however, much of science does rely on interpolation and inferences.

One funny angle of this information is that it does get the ANTI Darwinist (read: creationist) camp in a tizzy. Here's one representative comment:

**Take your pick - either there is no evil Darwinist consipiracy to suppress this kind of information, or this information is consistent with the modern synthesis of evolution... Actually, the truth is "both".

Of course the truth is both. This is why the theory of evolution is not falsifiable. Darwinists are like the Borg - they simply assimilate anything into the theory whether it is consistent with it or not.

"Suppression of information" is not the problem. What Darwinists suppress is any interpretation of the information that is inconsistent with Darwinist dogma.**

Yes, but no science relies more on guesses and propabilities than this one.
Like someone said, it does not put any question marks at the evolution theory since it is said they did actually evolve, just haven't evolved very much since that time. I bet you can find many insects that are the same.
Saying that things did not evolve is kind of strange, how did animals come to be? Did they just magically form out of thin air or dirt?

Major (Tom) · 08-26-2005, 05:26 AM

the shark hasnt evolved in millions of years too, nor the cock roach. evolution has a good philiosophy.. if it aint broke dont fix it.

duke

LadyMischief · 08-26-2005, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-03y.html

"The common scientific belief has been that army ants originated separately on several continents over millions of years. Now it is found there was no evolution. Using fossil data and the tools of a genetics detective, a Cornell University entomologist has discovered that these ants come from the same point of origin, because since the reign of the dinosaurs, about 100 million years ago, army ants in essence have not changed a bit."

Question: Is this evidence AGAINST evolution or is it evidence that there IS evolution but sometimes certain species are SO successful that they reach an evolutionary "stasis" for millions of years?

One would think that the survival of the fittest would apply here, as it has all through living history. If the ant is ultimately suited to survive in just about any climate, it doesn't have to adapt to climate change, therefore it doesn't have to come down to natural selection. They survive simply because they are able to.

citizen tower · 08-26-2005, 05:30 AM

Humans evolve. Please, what was the average male height in the 16th century? 5'4"? What's the average now?

Drake · 08-26-2005, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by citizen tower

Humans evolve. Please, what was the average male height in the 16th century? 5'4"? What's the average now?

Due to better nutrition and chemicals in foods, not evolution

Zebra · 08-26-2005, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Almighty Colin

No. Ant souls go to India and re-emerge 20 years later in call centers.

Colin made a funny!

mikeyddddd · 08-26-2005, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Thousands of years is not a big scale when you talk about evolution at the higher levels of the food chain, in the past. In fact there is a physical evolution going on among humans right now; people that do not develop wisdom teeth at all, and it will become more and more common.

Failure to develop wisdom is very common.

drama · 08-26-2005, 06:54 AM

Ants are not the only animal to not really evolve over time.

Crocodiles have been around since the dinosaur era and havent changed either

$5 submissions · 08-26-2005, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike33

Due to better nutrition and chemicals in foods, not evolution

Bingo. Just look at the change in diets from first generation Asian immigrants and later generations. There's a correlating change in average height.

Doc911 · 08-26-2005, 09:34 AM

they say if we nuke ourselves ants and cockroachs will be the only thing to survive

Penthouse Tony · 08-26-2005, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc911

they say if we nuke ourselves ants and cockroachs will be the only thing to survive

Prove it

Dirty Dane · 08-26-2005, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeyddddd

Failure to develop wisdom is very common.

U mean wisdom in general or wisdom teeth

StuartD · 08-26-2005, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike33

Due to better nutrition and chemicals in foods, not evolution

One could call that a form of evolution. We've progressed, gotten smarter... found new ways to eat.
It's not pretty or scientific, but it's a form of evolution.... to change.

08-26-2005, 02:46 AM	#1
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	Defying evolution for over 100 million years? http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-03y.html "The common scientific belief has been that army ants originated separately on several continents over millions of years. Now it is found there was no evolution. Using fossil data and the tools of a genetics detective, a Cornell University entomologist has discovered that these ants come from the same point of origin, because since the reign of the dinosaurs, about 100 million years ago, army ants in essence have not changed a bit." Question: Is this evidence AGAINST evolution or is it evidence that there IS evolution but sometimes certain species are SO successful that they reach an evolutionary "stasis" for millions of years? __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

08-26-2005, 02:52 AM	#2
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	Or perhaps evolution has not required Ants to evolve. But why is the real question if thats the case. Ants are an incredible creature in strength, endurance and versatility. Maybe it is a creature that does not require evolution. I am sure the same research results would cover a large number of different insects as well. Such as the Mesquito. __________________ NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo! \| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily \| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 \|ICQ: 78943384 \| Last edited by AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE; 08-26-2005 at 02:53 AM..

08-26-2005, 02:55 AM	#3
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	Then again it is also known that ants have a very very evolved sense of communication. I wonder if that has evolved over a 100 million years. __________________ NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo! \| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily \| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 \|ICQ: 78943384 \|

08-26-2005, 02:59 AM	#5
CuriousToyBoy Crazy Aussie Bastard Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Wherever I lay my hat, that's my home. Posts: 16,787	But if you stamp on them don't they still die ? Evolved you call it ? ;-) __________________ Celebs Adult Who's Who ==> Ambush Interview ==> ICQ 293 070 684 ==> intmarpacrim AT gmail DOT com

08-26-2005, 05:26 AM	#12
Major (Tom) Boomer Woffen Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Null Posts: 30,537	the shark hasnt evolved in millions of years too, nor the cock roach. evolution has a good philiosophy.. if it aint broke dont fix it. duke __________________ My mother said, to get things done You'd better not mess with Major Tom

08-26-2005, 03:00 AM	#6
Gunni Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Barcelona Posts: 2,385	All these discoveries they are always making using fossils and things like that are not that reliable, it is mostly guess work. There are so many gaps in the things that they know that it is pretty hard to be 100% sure about anything. I read that if everyone in N-America were to die today, something like 3 humans should statistically become fossils (wich goes to show that people researching it afterwards wouldn't have much to work with). We only know about 2% of the creatures that have walked the earth, and evolution is an ongoing thing, perhaps these ants are just a bit slow. I personally don't think this has any meaning about anuthing

08-26-2005, 05:30 AM	#14
citizen tower Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 238	Humans evolve. Please, what was the average male height in the 16th century? 5'4"? What's the average now?

08-26-2005, 06:54 AM	#18
drama Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 847	Ants are not the only animal to not really evolve over time. Crocodiles have been around since the dinosaur era and havent changed either

08-26-2005, 09:34 AM	#20
Doc911 Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: If i was up your ass you'd know Posts: 3,695	they say if we nuke ourselves ants and cockroachs will be the only thing to survive __________________ For PHP/MySQL scripts ICQ 161480555 or email [email protected]