This is amazing. In Montana, scientists have discovered a mosquito that is still carrying blood from animals in the Eocene — that is some 46 million years ago. Of course, creationists would point out that scientists are again some 46 million years off since the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
The mosquito was found in oil shale and remains engorged with ancient blood. It is believed to be the first of its kind and was announced in this week’s issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Four prior “blood-eating” fossil records have been uncovered and this is the first mosquito with traces of blood. It is very rare to find a mosquito due to the environment in which they operated despite the portrayal in the movie “Jurassic Park.”
There is no word on the blood that it is carrying. The Eocene represents the period at end of the Palaeocene Epoch to the beginning of the Oligocene Epoch. This includes a major extinction event called the Grande Coupure (the “Great Break” in continuity) or the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event. The animals included mammals such as artiodactyls, perissodactyls and primates, which tended to be small. It later included modern ungulates (hoofed animals) as well as carnivorous ungulates and early forms of bats, proboscidians (elephants), primates, rodents and marsupials.
Hubert,
Your mind must ache from the contortions you just went through.
But I must commend you on your creativity.
You made up all that crap, as you went along.
Or maybe not. Creationists and other closed minds have had many years,
now, to think of wild explanations to discredit evolution.
The ironic part is that evolution happens, constantly, whether or not great bronze age desert thinkers believe it.
I’m not going to refute your fantasies, one-by-one.
It’s boring.
Interesting info Hubert C.
Hubert, I accept science as an imperfect yet evolving collection of facts, and understanding of the nature of “Life, the Universe, and Everything else”.
Humans and their brains are limited by what we know. Science explores and increases knowledge. When science errs there are many corrective and critical assessments thrown at the error. Thus insuring a dynamic, growing, truthful body of knowledge.
There is much wisdom in the Bible. There is much wisdom in many books and philosophies. Science is not wisdom, it is the search for factual explanation. Wisdom is how we Humans use facts for the good of ourselves and fellow human race.
Bob Kauten,
An additional evolutionary fact not spoken in this video, but observed by me. Male visual acuity can often interrupt male perceptive and focusing acumen. LOL !! ……
Why women do not control the world is beyond me. :o)
Wow, Blood sucking Mosquitos…… You think you’ll find any politicians too….
Otteray Scribe mosquitoes evolve into what? (drum roll……) MOSQUITOES! Mosquitoes aren’t “evolving”, they are simply adapting to changes in their surroundings. They aren’t going to change into something else over x-billion years like the phoney evolutionism theory claims. Also it is interesting to note that you say a mosquito is turning into a new “species”. Note that species labels are a human invention.
Take a diatom for example. A diatom with a change in its pattern of only a few microns is considered a new “species” of diatom even though it is still a diatom!
The truth is, things follow their own kind. Dogs have dogs, fish have fish, etc… A cow will give birth to a cow every single time. No matter how many x-billion years you throw at it.
rafflaw bleated “I think I will trust the carbon dating system set up by science rather than believe in a book of fictional stories, Tootie.”
It is always entertaining to see how evolutionists/neodarwinists try to squirm their way around the many discoveries that contradict the popular politically protected theory of evolutionism.
Where to begin… We will deal with the “fictional story” strawman argument later. First, you say that you’ll stick to the “carbon dating system” set up by science rather than your strawman book of fictional stories.
I can gauge your knowledge of the Bible by the usage of strawman arguments. I can also detect that your knowledge of science is equally lacking. Otherwise, you would be knowledgeable of the fact that carbon dating is only “accurate” (and I use that term loosely here) to a few thousand years. Carbon dating is based on assumptions. I compare it to a room with a lit candle. Let’s say you enter a room where there is a burning candle. You are to guess how long the candle has been burning. But there are several factors that you don’t know. What is the rate of the candle burning. Carbon dating assumes a constant rate of decay. You can trust carbon dating as much as you can trust the assumption of how long a candle has been burning. You don’t know if the oxygen level in the room has been constant. You don’t know how big the candle was to start with, and you don’t know if the candle was tapered or not. So it’s quite obvious mainstream “science” has tried to distance itself from carbon dating since it isn’t accurate and is only useful for dating something within a few thousand years. Today the Rubidium Strontium Isochron is considered the “holy grail” of dating methods. However, as I’ll illustrate, even the trusted dating method falls flat.
Take the Unikaret lava flows near the Grand Canyon. Several dating methods were used to determine the age of this lava flow.
Six Potassium Argon dating methods yielded results from 10,000 years to 117 million years old
Five Rubidium Strontium dating methods yielded 1.27 billion years to 1.39 billion years old
Four Lead/Lead Isochron methods were at 2.6 billion years old
One Rubidium Strontium Isochron yielded 1.34 billion years old
Remember, the Rubidium Strontium Isochron method is considered the most accurate. There’s only one problem. There were Indian artifacts found in an archaeological dig that dated the area to be 800 to 1,000 years old. WHOOPS! Your science that you cling to and trust so well had the area dated between 10,000 years to 2.6 BILLION years old!
Also it is interesting to point out that the alleged age of the earth has increased exponentially over the past few decades. Your science seems to be using a rubber ruler for some odd reason. And upon every discovery, your scientists always try to shoe-horn data to fit preconceived notions. That’s why we see such asinine exponentially erroneous dates for objects because evolution demands such a ridiculous time frame to work. (Never mind some scientists have concluded that there simply hasn’t been enough time for evolution to have produced anything. The human body, for example, is a “statistical monstrosity” for evolutionism).
There have been objects found in coal seams such as bells, shoe soles, spark plugs, tools, etc… found buried deep in coal seams that are SUPPOSED to have taken billions of years to form. There have been petrified trees standing vertically that passes through several layers that allegedly are separated by millions of years. And don’t even get me started about the whole circular reasoning “strata dates the fossils/fossils date the strata” issue that plagues so many school textbooks.
Now, on to that “fictional book” strawman argument. There’s a passage in the Bible that talks about the sun having a circuit. Only recently, scientists have “discovered” that the sun isn’t in a fixed point in space as previously believed. Matthew Mauray read something in the Bible about “paths of the sea”. He took God’s word literally and went out to find them. Modern oceanography is indebted to his discovery of the channels of the sea. Still another passage talks about freshwater springs at the bottom of the ocean. This was of course, written a couple thousand years before the discovery of freshwater vents at the bottom of the ocean. Also we are aware that the Bible is archaeologically correct. Every discovery of ancient civilizations agrees with the Biblical account. At the same time the scripture was penned, Isaiah and other passages described a spherical earth that hung “upon nothing”, the trusted scientific knowledge at the time thought the earth was carried on the back of a huge turtle.
Now we observe that the facts in the Bible don’t change, but your “science” changes daily, molding itself to every discovery and trying to take on a new shape in order to desperately keep alive the completely stupid belief in evolutionism. Think how further along we would be in science if such idiotic belief systems such as evolutionism/neodarwinism were put to rest a long time ago.
Something interesting I’d like to know, if you had to defend your evolutionism in a court of law, would you be able to do so?
Killer whales are actually dolphins. And, while most everyone considers the Great White Shark the top of the food chain, Orca’s eat them “w/ some fava beans and a nice chianti.” Netflix has all the National Geo docs and the Killer Whale one is fascinating. Higher order thinkers who communicate in different dialects based upon where they live in the world, just like we humans.
You need to watch Cristina Rad talk about evolution. Yes, you.
Don’t blame me if you don’t watch this.
Bron: “Elephants are “evolving” in Asia because hunters are shooting elephants with large tusks so those traits are no longer heritable.”
More like they aren’t living long enough to develop those large tusks. That’s not an evolutionary development because the genetic traits for tusk size are still present and generational turnover in elephants doesn’t occur fast enough to show an evolutionary response to pressure from poaching. Mosquitoes, however, breed rapidly, with several or more generations each season. That’s why they would be able to develop an evolutionary resistance to commonly used pesticides.
Evolutionary adaptations are based on a species suitability to survive. when a species is perfectly adapted to its environment, like crocs and sharks, they evolve very little, if at all, until a change occurs in the environment. Changes in the environment might be climate change or shifting food resources – either the type or amount of available food. That’s when the rapid changes OS described above will occur.
Of course, I could just be spewing some of that god-hatin’ anti-science gibberish out of the left side of my mouth. Again
I was thinkin’ that it’s more obvious that whales, dolphins, porpoises, and those guys, came from land animals, if you think about the fact that they are mammals with lungs.
Lungs aren’t something that’s likely to develop in sea creatures. Gills work better, in the water.
Seems they developed on land, and had to develop structures and habits that allowed them to get air, at least occasionally, for full-time water living.
Fossil evidence of the transitional species has been identified.
I believe National Geographic ran a pictorial on how whales are believed to have evolved.
Yes, there are a few nice photos, here:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/whale-evolution/barnes-photography
Thanks, Gene.
Yah, I was being called away, so I didn’t take precautions. Hmmm…sounds like a hygiene lecture.
There you go, Bob.
And that’s good advice. Sometimes the filter doesn’t just taketh away, but eats them whole.
Bron, The most diverse species in our world are dogs. They all derive from wolves. The wolf has a gene, unique to them, that allows quick hybrids that usually take centuries. Over just the past 20 years, the Russians have honed a species of bomb sniffing dogs. These dogs are incredibly bred to smell a grain of explosive material no other dog can. And, unlike other bomb sniffing breeds, this breed does not need to be shown objects to sniff, they lead and know where to sniff. They smell explosives, they bark once and sit. So, like most everything in life, it’s all in the genes. And the dog has, by far, the most easily adapted. I learned this on a National Geographic doc. Better than porn!
Bob K:
whenever you write a long one or interesting one, save it to a word file.
os:
that was rather interesting. that theory has been around for awhile.
The filter seems to have swallowed my long reply to Bron.
Bron,
We’ve already answered your question. If an organism is well-suited to a niche that doesn’t change, then species change will be quite slow. There’ll be less evolutionary pressure.
But all of us change, over millions of years. Some genetic change will eventually happen, that’s advantageous to the organism, eventually. Most of the changes will be deleterious.
A land creature did not turn into a blue whale. An ape did not turn into a human.
A land creature mutated so that it was better suited to swimming, than its ancestors. Very slowly. By chance, that turned out to be a beneficial mutation. The creatures slowly mutated to become better at catching prey in the water. After many millions of years, something similar to a whale developed. That was the ancestor to a blue whale.
Primates have been around a very long time. A primate species branched out to fill some evolutionary niches. Most of the branches died out. One branch that didn’t, evolved into apes. Another branch, that didn’t yet die out, evolved into humans. We didn’t come from apes.
Blue whales didn’t come from a wolf-like animal. They came from a whale-like animal.
That’s the picture.
Bron,
It is called “punctuated equilibrium.” In some animals change is very slow over huge spans of time. Others seem almost explosive in change. Caymans are a stable species, as are several other creatures. However, because they are stable over vast stretches of time does not mean evolution does not happen. If you look at the fossil record, there used to be huge crocodiles, just as Megalodon was a gigantic forerunner of the modern shark. What fossil records show is that even in stable species, there seems to be occasional episodes of rapid evolutionary change; hence, punctuated equilibrium.
OS:
Yes, I believe that to be the case. But if DNA accidents happen, why does a species like an aligator not change in millions of years, except mabe very small changes. What causes the genetic stability?