Despite its Bathonian [161 million year] age, the new cryptobranchid shows extraordinary morphological similarity to its living relatives.  This similarity underscores the stasis within salamander anatomical evolution.  Indeed, extant cryptobranchid salamanders can be regarded as living fossils whose structures have remained little changed for over 160 million years.  Furthermore, the new material from China reveals that the early diversification of salamanders was well underway by the Middle Jurassic; several extant taxa including hynobiids and cryptobranchids had already appeared by that time.  Notably, this ancient pattern of taxonomic diversification does not correlate to any great disparity in anatomical structure. [1]

These, about 7 inches long samples have even their soft tissue impressions very well preserved although, for 100 million years older than the previously known oldest salamander fossils.

The example horseshoe crabs

*  “We wouldn’t necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that’s exactly what they look like,” [David] Rudkin [Royal Ontario Museum] said.  
*  “This body plan that they’ve invented, they’ve stayed with it for almost a half a billion years.  It’s a good plan,” Rudkin told LiveScience.  “They’ve survived almost unchanged up until the present day, whereas lots of other animals haven’t.”
*  And whereas major extinction events have wiped even the mightiest, non-avian [sic] dinosaurs from our planet, this primitive-looking organism has come out unscathed.
*  “The horseshoe crab, the lowly little animal that crawls out of the sea every once in a while to mate, it’s survived for at least 445 million years in more or less the same form,” Rudkin said.

 As obvoius, in the above example the evolutionists did not find any ancestors or transitional forms predating the fully-equiped horseshoe crabs. Actually, antropologists accept that 95% of the species appeared in the history suddenly, stayed for very long time and than most of them dissapeared. It is due to these facts that Jaya Gould came up with his punctuated equilibrium theory of long stasis and sudden changes that includes original complexity and change of body size.

 Generally, Darwin supposed that there are many missing fossil records to prove gradual, directional evolution, and he was hoping that during the time, knew evidences will be found to support his theory. After studying many fossil lineages, involving some 250 sequences of evolving traits, Gene Hunt (2007), in his essay published in PNAS wrote: “The rarity with which directional evolution was observed in this study corroborates a key claim of punctuated equilibria and suggests that truly directional evolution is infrequent or, perhaps more importantly, of short enough duration so as to rarely register in paleontological sampling.”[2] According to the result of his research only 5% of fossil lineages could be attributed to directional evolution. This means they have to be revalidated whether they are really correctly identified as "transitional forms" and so, a part of a hypothetical directional evolution. Transitional fossils are very rare, as well known among the evolutionsts nowadays, and so, Directional Evolution cannot be the major mechanism for the existence of varieties of species.  Further, in his study, Hunt showed that there were changes in body size, not body shape. But again, does it helps to prove evolution comparing e.g. two rats, a small and a big one? No, they are still only rats.

Human-like genes in early animals

Human-Ape Difference Tripled   

From Science magazine: “For almost 30 years, researchers had assumed that the DNA of humans and chimps is at about 98.5% identical. Now a closer look has revealed previously undiscovered nips and tucks in equivalent sections of DNA. ... Together, these insertions and deletions suggest that the genomes are not quite as similar as researchers had thought.”

As reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “One interesting observation is that the sequence divergence between chimp and human is quite large, in excess of 20% for a few regions.  Some of the larger gaps are broken by regions within them that align with appropriate segments of the other species’ DNA sequence but only have distant similarity. These observations suggest that complex processes, presumably involving repeated sequences and possible conversion events, may occur that will require detailed study to understand.”

The problem with the old studies is that the methods did not recognize differences due to events of insertion and deletion that result in parts of the DNA being absent from the strands of one or the other species. These are different from the aforementioned substitutions. Such differences, called "indels," are readily recognized by comparing sequences, if one looks beyond the missing regions for the next regions that do match.

The above research study of Roy Britten of Caltech, carried out in 2002, was confirmed by Hahn and co-workers (2006) who reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4%. They concluded that "gene duplication and loss may have played a greater role than nucleotide substitution in the evolution of uniquely human phenotypes and certainly a greater role than has been widely appreciated."

The researchers paid special attention to gene number changes between humans and chimps. Using a statistical method they devised, the scientists inferred that humans have gained 689 genes (through the duplication of existing genes) and lost 86 genes since diverging from their most recent common ancestor with chimps. Including the 729 genes chimps appear to have lost since their divergence, the total gene differences between humans and chimps was estimated to be about 6 percent.

So, if human and chimp had a common ancestor 6 million years ago, then the human genome would have had to independently fix in about 90 million changes… (assuming the other 90 million differences come from the common ancestor to chimp and no percentage of identical changes).

90Mbp/6my = 15 fixed base pairs PER YEAR in the population!

Conclusively, thorough analysis of the chimpanzee genome indicates that humans and chimps display no more than a 93% genetic similarity when all the genetic differences (substitutions, indels, Alu sequences, segmental duplications, chromosomal rearrangements, etc.) are taken into consideration. All this increases the time of evolution from the common ancestor, who must have had even less genetic similarity with humans and chimps. This “extended time”, however, is not a very good argument when all the different constraints of genetic evolution are considered. Thus all the genetic differences and similarities point not to the common ancestry of humans and chimps but to their having a common pattern. For further reading about constraints of genetic evolution, please see the book “The Mystery of Genome” by John Sanford.

Additionally, after the sequencing of genomes of many species, unique microRNA genes were discovered in both the chimps and humans, and from the 244 discovered microRNA[1] genes, 10% are not found in any other organisms except humans. As the micro-RNA genes play a key role in regulating the activity of genes that specify proteins, this greatly undermines one of the best arguments of evolutionary theory (the shaping of genomes of organisms, like those of the humans and chimps, by random biochemical events).

 Reference

Classic experiments give new insight on life's origin

The picture: The apparatus used for Miller's "second," initially unpublished experiment. Boiled water (1) creates airflow, driving steam and gases through a spark (2). A tapering of the glass apparatus (inlay) creates a spigot effect, increasing air flow. A cooling condenser (3) turns some steam back into liquid water, which drips down into the trap (4), where chemical products also settle.

The original experiments, performed by Stanley Miller at the University of Chicago in 1953 and 1954 (Miller died in 2007), were the first to demonstrate that the basic molecules of life could be synthesized by subjecting hydrogen-rich gases (such as methane and ammonia) to an electric spark, simulating lightning in the primordial atmosphere. Scientists no longer think that the primordial atmosphere as a whole had the make-up assumed by Miller's experiments, but the clouds of gases emitted during volcanic eruptions do have a hydrogen-rich composition. Volcanic eruptions may have been very common during the planet's hot, early stages.

"It turns out that some of the experiments Miller performed simulated the steam from volcanic eruptions, in addition to the more famous experiments that simulated a hydrogen-rich atmosphere," says H. James Cleaves, of the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, one of the paper's co-authors and Miller's last graduate student. "And when we analyzed samples left over from these volcanic experiments, they contained the most varied mixture of compounds."

Cleaves points out that lighting is very commonly associated with volcanic clouds, and could have been an abundant source of energy to convert simple compounds into organic molecules. 

Comments:  The proposal that the prebiotic material originated not from chemical reactions within the atmosphere but from early volcanic eruptions is not new. Importanly, according to John W. Delano et.al. the [MM1] emissions of the volcanoes 3.9 billion years ago and those happening nowadays were exactly alike, namely consisting mainly of water, carbon dioxide, and sulfur oxide. This means two things: 1. in Muller’s experiment the conditions were not pertinent to the volcanic environment of the early earth, and 2. just as nowadays it is not likely that pre-biotic materials are generated in volcanic eruptions, similarly, it was not likely at the time of the early earth.

Accepting directionless chance to be the origin of life obviously leaves many things unexplained, like, first of all, the generation of amino acids, which are the building blocks of life, and moreover, the appearance of meaningful genetic code for building proteins. 

The Darwin theory says that in the ancestral chain, each previous ancestor had less particular adaptation. For example, bats might have evolved their wings and sonar from their ancestors that lived on the ground. Although this is a well reasoned hypothesis, it is not always clear where scientists put a border between their imagined theory and reality. A far out hypothesis undergoes continuous acceptance and rejection as there are contradictory evidences or no evidences at all. But let's see what is new about the bats.  

 In the article of Scientific American, "Taking Wing: Uncovering the Evolutionary Origins of Bats" written by Nancy B. Simmon, the concluding paragraph runs as follows:

   Despite many new discoveries about the rise of bats, mysteries remain.  Bat ancestors must have existed prior to the Eocene, but we have no fossil record of them.  Likewise, the identity of the closest relatives of bats is still unknown.  Investigators are also eager to learn when the bat lineage first became distinct from that of the other laurasiatheres and how much of early bat evolution and diversification took place in the northern continents versus the southern continents.  We therefore need fossils that lie even closer to the beginning of bats than Onychonycteris does.  With luck, paleontologists will find such specimens, and they will help solve these and other riddles about the origins of these fascinating animals.[1]

How much fossil records are missing to proof the evolution of bats, Simons explained in her article to Nature in 2005. "Our molecular dates suggest that there are large gaps in the fossil record for most bat lineages,"

 On average, the fossil record underestimates the origin of 58 bat lineages by 73%.  The four major microbat lineages are missing on average 56 to 86% of fossil history, with the Gondwanan clade (noctilionoids) missing the most.  Megabat lineages are missing a sum total of 98% of their fossil history (table S5).  The terminal and internal branches are missing on average 58 and 88% of fossil history, respectively.  With well over half of the Cenozoic history missing for microbat lineages and nearly all of the fossil history missing for megabat lineages, it is not surprising that Paleocene bat ancestors having transitional morphological adaptations for flight and echo-location have never been discovered. [2]

 Although the evolution hypothesis of bats supposedly goes back to Onychonycteris, in her new article Simmons admitted that "their ascension was hardly a foregone conclusion: no other mammal has conquered the air." The "many new discoveries" will have to fill up the huge gaps and dissipate the mystery of bats evolution. However, the echolocation found in 85% of these "superb fliers" puts additional anatomical constraints on the skull, mouth, ears and throat.

The ability for powered flight depends on many suitably developed organs, and "the most primitive bat ever discovered" is the Onychonycteris finneyi in Wyoming. Although with shorter forelimbs and longer hindlimbs than extant bats, it was still fully capable of flight. Regarding this, the main question Simons addressed was: what evolved first, the sonar, the ability to fly or maybe both simultaneously.

Previous studies already reveal some amazing sonar ability of bats. For example, the bat Eptesicus fuscus can process two million overlapping echoes a second and perceive these echoes with a resolution of only 0.3 millimeters (1/80th of an inch).[3] The echolocation of fishing bats is able to detect a minnow's fin, as fine as a human hair, extending only 2 mm above the water surface.[4]

So, earlier fossils did not help in filling the gap and this means there is space for imagination.

Continuing her presentation, Simmons described the diversity of living bats. According to genetic analysis, bats are not at all related to other gliding mammals. The closest ancestors, "an ancient lineage known as Laurasiatheria" consists of "such diverse beasts as carnivores, hoofed mammals, whales, scaly anteaters, shrews, hedgehogs and moles," but none of them are fliers. 

Simons comments:

Primitive laurasiatheres, however, were probably mouse- or squirrel-size creatures that walked on all fours and ate insects.  Laurasiatheres are thought to have evolved on the ancient supercontinent of Laurasia, which comprised what is now North America, Europe and Asia, probably in the late Cretaceous period, some 65 million to 70 million years ago.  The exact position of bats within this group is uncertain, but clearly a considerable amount of evolutionary change separates Onychonycteris and other bats from their terrestrial forebears.
    Some of this change from land dweller to flier may have occurred surprisingly quickly, if recent discoveries in the field of developmental genetics are any indication.  Though short by bat standards, the fingers of Onychonycteris are greatly elongated as compared with those of other mammals.  How could this elongation have evolved?

Her answer to this last, important question was 'bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs).

It is therefore possible that a small change in the genes regulating BMPs underlies both the developmental and evolutionary elongation of bat wing digits.  If so, that might explain the absence in the fossil record of creatures intermediate between short-fingered, nonflying mammals and long-fingered bats such as Onychonycteris and Icaronycteris: the evolutionary shift may have been very rapid, and few or no transitional forms may have existed.

 Simmons’ arguments come down to this: If one imagines gradual changes in gene expression of BMPs, then one can imagine the transitional forms of bats too. Thus, evolution is proven.

 To Darwin’s great happiness, we can conclude: Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution proven by imaginary transitional forms. Or do we need more than imaginations to fill up the huge gaps in the evolution theory?

Some interesting facts about bats

 References :

In his recent article to Nature magazine Steve Jones[1] wrote: "Many biologists, by contrast, insist that what look like palaeontological leaps can be explained by simple Darwinism." This statement refers to the punctuated equilibrium theory of Jaya Gould that he came up due to the large gaps in the fossil records. His view was that after long periods of stasis a there are periods of quick evolutionary developments. Further, Jones explained the reason for Gould's theory saying:  "To them, an instant in geology may represent almost an infinity in biology, leaving plenty of time for evolution by natural selection to do its normal job." One can just wonder, was this theory born out of luck of evidence for evolution and a great creativity of the mind. And additionally, just as at the time of Gould, nowadays too, there are still many gaps in the fossil records.  

1. That in the past there were cicada predators and parasites that became extinct though a lack of the insects.  "is a bold assumption," says Markus.  An ancient wasp is one hypothetical parasite . . . . But the idea is highly speculative, as fossil records of the wasp have never been found.[2]

The conch and the Sudarshana Chakra are unmistakable. Although the figures do not match popular images of Kirshna sporting a peacock feather, archaeologists are convinced that the coins are of Krishna.

"These square coins, dating back to 180- BC, with Krishna on one side and Balram on the other, were unearthed recently in Al Khanoun in Afghanistan and are the earliest proof that Krishna was venerated as a god, and that the worship had spread beyond the Mathura region," says T K V Rajan, archaeologist and founder-director, Indian Science Monitor, who is holding a five-day exhibition, In search of Lord Krishna,' in the city from Saturday.

Having done extensive research in Brindavan, Rajan is convinced that a lot of the spiritual history of ancient India lies buried. "Close to 10,000 Greeks, who came in the wake of Alexander the Great, were Krishna's devotees. There is an inscription by Heliodorus, the Greek ambassador at Takshila , which reads Deva, deva, Vasudeva. Krishna is my god and I have installed this Garuda Pillar at Bes Nagar (now in Bihar),'" says Rajan.

According to him the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has unearthed many sites that throw fresh light on the era of Krishna. "ASI is expected to release the full findings next year. Many of the unearthed artifact have a close resemblance to materials of what is believed to be the Harappan civilisation. The findings may show that Krishna's life was the dividing line between India's spiritual history and the society's gradual shift towards a materialistic one," says Rajan.

Interestingly, a lot of what has been uncovered closely resemble the narration in the texts of Mahabharatha and the Bhagavatham," he adds. Both the spiritual works are revered by the Hindus as their holy books.

It has been over five years since the discoveries were made at Tholavira near Dwaraka, close to Kutch. Much progress has been made due to the application of thermoluminous study (TL) in ascertaining the age of artifact. "It is possible to get the diffusion of atomic particles in the clay pottery unearthed and arrive at an accurate date," points out Rajan. Tholavira itself is believed to be the capital city as detailed in the opening chapters of Bhagavatham. Rajan points to an image of a plough, made of wood, which is mentioned in the Bhagavatham.

The findings could lay a trail to understanding Krishna's life (said to be 5,000 years ago) and times, as a historical fact, says Rajan. The exhibition will be open till December 31 at Sri Parvathy Gallery, Eldams Road.