>>17026345
>AI summary
>clearly a smug undergrad redditologist
>"they are ancestors of none, trust us"
it would be a comparably easy thing to check looking at their genetics. Biology has misattributed relationships all the damn time but for live species things are usually reasonably doable to resolve looking at the data enough.

AI spammer and retarded take goes hand in hand.

>>17026358
>it would be a comparably easy thing to check looking at their genetics

dont you understand their genes show they are ancestors of other insects but biologists themselves cant accept this because

"uh we cant be sure if these genes came from convergent evolution during tens of millions of years"

"if we accept neuroptera are ancestors of metamorphosing insects, our other models go bonkers"

>>17026345
>dragonflies are the ancestors of all other insects
Literally nobody says this
>neuroptera just happen to evolve to look like others, they are ancestors of none, trust us
They don’t look particularly close to dragonflies or any of the others mentioned though. You could have at least used megaloptera as an example

>>17026378
>dont you understand their genes show they are ancestors of other insects but biologists themselves cant accept this because
source? So far you only talked about phenotype, you did not make any claims about genotype. Show me the sequence analysis you are referencing, since your only source so far is an AI summary.

>>17026380
>They don’t look particularly close to dragonflies

owlfly looks identical to dragonfly but has butterfly antennae

owlfly larva however doesnt as it looks identical to larvae of predatory beetle and is not an aquatic larva

When they have the same microbiology, they already have shared information.