The more things change, the more they stay the same

Each year seems to bring to light new 'living fossils' and examples of stasis. Though you'd never know it from reading the popular press, these discoveries present a huge problem for evolutionists and their defense of the Darwinian model of origins.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'An article in Science Daily claims that a certain splay-footed cricket in rock alleged to be 100 million years old “has undergone very little evolutionary change since the Early Cretaceous Period, a time of dinosaurs just before the breakup of the supercontinent Gondwana.” [2.]

- Stories like this have been frequent over the last few decades. The question evolutionists have to answer is this; why is it hundreds (I think this is conservative) of creatures never evolved, but humans supposedly did? Why is it most (all?) creatures seem never to have significantly changed, but yet humans supposedly evolved from some small Lemur like animal? This is change on a gargantuan scale.

This anomaly would seem to disprove the evolutionary story of man's descent. I wonder why Darwinists think it doesn't. i.e. if sharks, insects, fish, etc. haven't changed one bit in 100-200 million years, how is it man changed from a rodent to a human being in ten million? This makes no sense to me.

Notes;
1. Fossils by Faith Creation/Evolution Headlines 02/04/2011
'Darwin portrayed a world in flux, with natural selection continually sifting and amplifying minute changes over time. Why, then did Science Daily title an article, “Rare Insect Fossil Reveals 100 Million Years of Evolutionary Stasis”? Sure enough, the article claims that a certain splay-footed cricket in rock alleged to be 100 million years old “has undergone very little evolutionary change since the Early Cretaceous Period, a time of dinosaurs just before the breakup of the supercontinent Gondwana.” But is a phrase like evolutionary stasis an explanation, or just a term providing protection from falsification? '
2. I'm aware that e.s claim there's a line from small ape like hominids to man, but this isn't empirical science. In my opinion, this is fabrication, with bones from apes and humans mixed together in one line; a line that never existed.
3. If the grand theory of evolution were true, we wouldn't see so many examples of stasis over such huge time periods. Climate and terrain (etc.) have changed greatly over the last 200 million years. (Including the breakup of the hypothetical supercontinent.) If E. (M2M) were correct (and if natural selection were the driving wheel it's claimed to be) such stasis would be impossible. The world hasn't been standing still all that time; so how could all these animals still be standing? how could they still all fit within the shadows (outlines) of their fossil forms?
- As far as I can see, only one model makes this stasis possible, and that's a young earth, special creation, or both.
4. 'Protein remains in a fossil scorpion said to be 417 million years old stunned researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Advanced Light Source finds big surprise in Paleozoic scorpion fossil
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-advanced-source-big-paleozoic-scorpion.html
- Does anyone really believe this? Is it empirical to claim protein remains can last 400 million years? (Can anyone really imagine such a time span?) If we use the methodology of the big bang, and trace things back in time at the rate they're happening now, I think we'd soon see how impossible this claim is. It simply wouldn't measure up. These remains would 'explode' out of existence in perhaps ten? thousand years. (I'd like to see someone do the numbers.)
5. 'Scientists used a powerful microscope at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) to detect remnants of protein and chitin in the exoskeleton of a 417-million-year-old fossil of an extinct mega-scorpion, a discovery that is several hundred million years older than previously thought possible.
- what's the real science here? is it ideas on how proteins can last, or speculative dates about how old the fossils are? (As I'm tired of pointing out, these dates are based on unproved, unprovable assumptions.) There's no valid reason to believe these dates are absolute fact. Any decent philosopher could point out the impossibility of such a claim. So why do the dates trump the far more empirical knowledge we have about protein decay? (I think it's because wview issues are at stake.)
6. 'Their work upends the conventional view that organic material, such as that found in the outer portion of exoskeleton, doesn’t endure in extremely old fossils because it’s readily broken down by hungry microbes and other natural processes.
7. 'Cody believes the preservation of chitin-protein residues in extremely old fossils likely depends on the build up of fatty acids on a scaffold of chitin-protein molecules. This layer saves the remaining matrix of chitin and proteins from degradation by microorganisms even after 500 million years.
- Really? where's the evidence for such a wild claim? This isn't my field, but I don't believe it for a second. (This claim can't possibly qualify as empirical science; not unless Cody has a time machine in his lab.)