Insect Wing Evolution

I would like to hear some evolutionary theories for insectal wing development. I can't seem to find any material on this subject. There seems to be this obsession with flight evolution in birds when insects should pose a bigger problem to macroevolution. Since Insects compose over 60% of all biological species, one would believe that the theory for insect flight evolution would be very extensive. I am beginning to believe that insecta does create a problem for Macroevolution, because of evolutionists consitent need to change and revise the insectal phylogenetic tree.

I am already aware of all the information there is on Plecoptera. It's just a minor order sunk deep in the Neopterous stock, and has little to do with insect evolution as a whole. That one source "Form and Function of Insect wings, The Evolution of Biological Structures" Sounds interesting though. Thank You.

Why is there all this obsession with Stoneflies? Could someone please send a link to an up-to-date Phylogenetic tree. The information doesn't seem to make any sense when compared to my tree.

I find this exerpt from your link the most interesting. This is a massive gap in the fossil record. 10 new orders of flying animals. That's a lot of missing links. Evolutionists should be more concerned about this than the missing link between ape and man.Edited by BattleAxeDime, : I accidently repeated the same text multiple times. Maybe something wrong with my browser.Edited by BattleAxeDime, : I accidently repeated the same text multiple times. I was using improper HTML coding

Pterygota only provided phylogeny on paleopterous. The whole theory of the wing development from gills only applies to the Paleopterous stock, the Plecopterans, and maybe Trichopterans. I want some information on the devolopment of wings in neoptera.

I had already watched the videos, and read all the material from our previous conversation, which I came away from unsatisfied.

It wasn't meant to add weight to any other model; it was simply to show some "holes" in the Evolutionary model. I'm only familiar with YEC models, and I know they do provide one. I am guessing you do not believe it is valid, because it is not in the context of evolution?Edited by BattleAxeDime, : No reason given.

Galatians 6:7 "Do not be decieved: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows".I'm sorry I am getting off topic, but I had to show you God's reply to your sarcasm. Why doesn't this make you concerned?

As soon as I mention "missing link" everybody starts jumpin all over the place. Is it because you hear that term to often? A Creationist "Buzz Word"?I will explain what I meant by "missing link". There is not enough information in the fossil record to make an educated guess as to the marcroevolutionary development in this particular morphology. Therefore multiple theories will develop. What I would like to recieve is more information about these theories particularly those pertaining to the Neopterous stock, and during this process I am giving my own thoughts and ideas. Which I thought was the purpose of this forum.

I have read that verse in context. That verse also applies to spiritual mockery; reaping what you have sown. You have spent your life mocking God; then you must not expect God's grace. Reading a verse in context is only a small portion of reading and understand Biblical doctrine; the whole Bible must be taken together as a whole with respect to the historical backdrop, and to whom and what persons the message was intended for. Especially an Epistle like Galatians.Again I have talked off topic, but I will not have doctrine go uncontested.

I have read that verse in context. That verse also applies to spiritual mockery; reaping what you have sown. You have spent your life mocking God; then you must not expect God's grace. Reading a verse in context is only a small portion of reading and understand Biblical doctrine; the whole Bible must be taken together as a whole with respect to the historical backdrop, and to whom and what persons the message was intended for. Especially an Epistle like Galatians.Again I have talked off topic. Forgive me.

You might be right, but I was simply saying that creationism has a model regardless if it makes any sense to you.Forgive me, but I will like stay on topic for now on.

OH! you're right it's a link. Thanks. I check it out.

It's model is demonstrated by it's very definition. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. The Fossil record isn't regarded as true to a YEC, and that is how they deal with this problem.

This topic string has gotten way off topic. I have received the information I wanted, and it seems nobody else has anything else to add constructively to the real intent of this topic. I would like to have this topic closed. I have no idea how.