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?

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.

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.

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

Evolved you call it ?

;-)

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.**

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

Colin made a funny! :1orglaugh :thumbsup

Failure to develop wisdom is very common.

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

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

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

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

Prove it

U mean wisdom in general or wisdom teeth :1orglaugh

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.