BLOOD MEAL FOUND IN FOSSIL MOSQUITO On 15th October Londons Natural History Museum issued a press release announcing the discovery of a blood meal found in the abdomen of a fossilized mosquito. An international team of scientists including NHM researcher Dr Ralph Harbach studied the fossil of the blood-engorged mosquito, which had been preserved in oil shale (a type of sedimentary rock) from the USA. The team used a scanning electron microscope and mass spectrometry to identify haem, the iron-containing compound found in haemoglobin, the red pigment in blood. Dr Harbach was reported as saying, This fossilised female mosquito is an incredibly rare find. For it to have died immediately after feeding and be preserved without disruption to its fragile distended blood-filled belly means that we have a unique opportunity to study whether complex molecules, such as haemoglobin, can survive tens of millions of years. Another researcher, Dr Dale Greenwalt, of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History added, This is the only known fossil of a blood-engorged mosquito ever found and represents the first clear evidence that some organic molecules can be preserved in a fossil of this age. We made the assumption that genetic material like DNA was not preserved. We didn’t even attempt to look at it because DNA degrades very quickly. Without question there are probably other things contained in this fossil. We just don’t know what they might be. The press release also claims, “This find extends the fossil record of blood-feeding in this family of insects by 46 million years”. The discovery of this fossil mosquito is indeed a remarkable find, but is the spin put on it by the press release correct? Is it really likely that such a fragile organic molecule as haem could have survived for so many millions of years, when other fragile organic molecules such as DNA are known to degrade very quickly? Surely what this fossil is showing us is, firstly, that it must be very young – not millions of years at all – otherwise the haem would long ago have disintegrated. And secondly it shows that the blood-feeding habit of mosquitoes existed then just as it does now – in other words, there has been no evolution. Sadly, this perfectly reasonable alternative explanation for the evidence provided by this fossil doesn’t get the slightest mention in the press release. Why? Could it be because it is yet another example of a rigorous prior commitment of evolutionists to an evolutionary paradigm no matter what evidence comes along?
Posted on: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:15:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015