[UCANSEE2]

What empirical evidence does the author cite to support this assertion?

Maybe the author is citing the fact that they have survived for like 250 million years, unchanged. I'd say that was pretty good evidence.

[-YYZ-]

250 million years? What are you, some kind of old-earther. Don’t tell me you’ve bought this fraudulent science that claims to prove the earth is millions, yea, even billions of years old. Blasphemer. Infidel!
(/sarc, although I hope it isn’t really necessary to say so)

[Ira_Louvin]

Evidence for what?

[whattajoke]

Maybe the author is citing the fact that they have survived for like 250 million years, unchanged. I'd say that was pretty good evidence.

The author does not believe that the earth is older than 10,000 years. I know this because GGG posted the article, and GGG supports a young earth fantasy. I can't imagine that GGG would post a creationist article that disagrees with him on this incredibly important point.

Now, if you're saying that a creature who remains "the same" for such a long period of time somehow contradicts evolutionary theory, you are quite simply incorrect.

First, dragonflies have changed rather dramatically in that time (mostly morphologically) and secondly, even if they hadn't (which they most certainly have), it would still fit into evolutionary theory.

IOW, I don't understand your point - or the point you are trying to convey on the article.