Another Living Fossil Challenges Darwinian Explanations
The excuses that Darwinists make up for evidence against their theory need to be exposed and shamed.
Some rare beetles have been found in Burmese amber 99 million Darwin Years old, according to Phys.org. The Chinese discoverers are calling them “living fossils” — organisms that show no evolution over vast stretches of time. Any living fossil should be an embarrassment to Darwinians, but masters of storytelling that they are, they know how to convince the unsuspecting populace into thinking that living fossils actually support Darwinian evolution. It’s up to perceptive readers to not let them get away with it.
Here are the facts: In Burmese amber, two specimens of Clambidae beetles have been found. They belong to a small order of polyphagan beetles consisting of two families that live in isolated parts of Indonesia, Australia and South America. The beetles are preserved in exquisite detail down to the tiny leg hairs. Measuring only 0.7 to 2.0 millimeters in length, these beetles typically live in leaf litter and rotting wood.
Here are the indications that these fossils should be problematic for Darwinian beliefs:
- There is no evolution in spite of the vast time period alleged.
- The fossil specimens are identical to living species, in spite of being dated at 99 million years old.
- “Both species are extremely morphologically close to their living counterparts, and can be placed in extant genera.“
- “The discovery of two Cretaceous species from northern Myanmar indicates that both genera had lengthy evolutionary histories, originating at least by the earliest Cenomanian, and were probably more widespread than at present.”
Given these problems, Darwinians should have their work cut out for them explaining the stasis in these fossils. How do they mask the blushing on their faces? They use Darwin-Brand Theater Makeup, clear their throats, and proclaim, “Two tiny beetle fossils offer evolution and biogeography clues.” Whatever the clues (even if the Darwinians are clueless), they are evolutionary—always evolutionary. But no evolution occurred! Watch the masters of disaster at work with their slick chicanery:
It is well-known that living fossils exhibit stasis over geologically long time scales. Examples are the panda and ginkgo. Now, two tiny beetles trapped in 99-million-year-old amber may join this group.
Passive voice is the last refuge of scoundrels. “Is is well-known” — by whom? You and me? This semantic trick allows them to sweep everyone into their web of belief where every falsifying anomaly can be explained away by simple assertion. They have just turned a well-known fact against Darwinism into a claim for Darwinism! How brash can one get? Think about this. If Darwinian evolution is some inexorable process that changes everything over time, and has the power to turn bacteria into biologists, why is it “well-known” that “living fossils exhibit stasis?”
The origin and early evolutionary history of polyphagan beetles have been largely based on evidence from the derived and diverse core polyphaga, whereas little is known about the species-poor basal polyphagan lineages, which include Clambidae and four other extant families.
It’s never just history. It’s always “evolutionary history.” Same with origin; it’s always evolutionary origin. But there was no evolution! These fossil beetles look identical to living ones.
They are important for understanding the early evolution and biogeography of the family and even for polyphagan beetles.
Who wants to understand early evolution? Do you? The statement implies that they certainly don’t. The evidence implies that they don’t, either. Propagandists can sweeten their lies by adding words like “biogeography” to the difficult words like “evolution.” Everybody likes biogeography. A teaspoon of biogeography makes the evolution go down.
The discovery of two Cretaceous species from northern Myanmar indicates that both genera had lengthy evolutionary histories, originating at least by the earliest Cenomanian, and were probably more widespread than at present.
Circular reasoning here: using evolution belief to assert evolutionary belief. There are no “lengthy evolutionary histories” indicated by these fossils. They just appear in a piece of amber from the ground. The evolutionist picks up the amber from the ground in 2019, not millions of years ago. He uses it like a divination tool, imagining a long-lost history he never saw. He sees two bugs in a piece of hardened sap in his hand, and divines that they “were probably more widespread than at present.” On what basis?
Remarkable morphological similarities between fossil and living species suggest that both genera changed little over long periods of geological time, which is usually considered to be a feature of living fossils.
One redeeming feature of this article is its illustration of how to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. No evolution is evident. Isn’t that a problem? No; that’s simply a “feature of living fossils,” he announces. Like software salesmen say, ‘It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.’ Well, yes, but he should be crying about that, not celebrating it. Note also that it is “usually considered” that way – more passive voice trickery.
The long-term persistence of similar mesic microhabitats such as leaf litter may account for the 99-million-year morphological stasis in Acalyptomerus and Sphaerothorax.
Here they offer an explanation that should, in principle, be testable: all living fossils should live in similar microhabitats, so that they can escape evolving. This sounds reasonable when you don’t think about it. It fails as an excuse, though. (1) Living fossils inhabit all possible habitats. (2) Everything is supposed to evolve in its habitat anyway, not stay the same. (3) Other organisms live in leaf litter that did not become living fossils.
Here’s the upshot: evolutionists cannot abide their own theory. Things should change over time, especially over millions of years, but these beetles did not. Stasis is not a prediction of Darwinism. It is falsification of Darwinism. So rather than admit their theory is false, they spin-doctor everything to make out sound like this is not a bug; it’s a feature. If people catch on to what is going on in biological science these days, all the king’s hordes and all the king’s yes-men won’t be able to put Humpty Darwin back together again.