dna study proves Darwin and evolution wrong

Related:
Create New Tag

7/16/2018 6:10 PM

Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, published findings sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds.

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?

"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.

"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.

That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?

And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.

"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."

The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.

https://m.phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

|

Those dudes on Vital take shit WAY too seriously. I think they think they are signed on to a "let's cure cancer" message board

7/16/2018 6:52 PM

Think of earth as an ant farm for an alien species .

|

7/16/2018 7:33 PM

Shady fucker.

|

7/16/2018 7:50 PM

MR. X wrote:

Think of earth as an ant farm for an alien species .

Photo
|

"We don't rent pigs."

7/16/2018 8:01 PM

Pretty misleading thread title since that is not what the writers are concluding:

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.


Also, what "in-between" species? As I understand it, the original species usually die out following the divergence of better adapted species. That original one is the "in-between", otherwise, it is just referencing continuous evolution. If it stopped somewhere, it wouldn't be evolution. Nothing is perfect.

|

I can do anything, I'm an expert.
MotoTribology.com - Motorcycle Lubrication Education

7/17/2018 4:08 AM

The way I see plants morph to their environment even a few generations through, I think we change as a direct result of needs. You can see this even with 2nd generation mxers

|

7/17/2018 5:45 AM

Whoever came up with the title of the thread either didn't read the article or didn't understand what it actually said........

|

7/17/2018 6:36 AM

Any modern scientists who is truly working in the field of origins has rejected Darwin's theory of evolution. For a long time the scientific field fought hard to solve any problems which stood against Darwin's theory. As science has continued to "progress" these problems have now become insurmountable to any scientists who is being honest with themselves. Sadly the academic world is still clinging to the last few remaining threads of Darwin's theory. Although that I believe is soon coming to an end as well in favor of more (modern -- hip) ideas such as ancient aliens, simulation theory, and several other ideas which ultimately have just as many if not more problems than Darwin's theory.

Just so long as it is anything but _ _ _..

|

7/17/2018 7:07 AM

As it turns out Darwin was wrong in reference to the vast majority of the human race. Most stopped evolving at about 12 or 13. This has become more and more obvious with the advent social media, internet forums and Jerry Springer.

|

7/17/2018 8:05 AM
Edited Date/Time: 7/17/2018 8:06 AM

Evolution, like how most fish have evolved into single sex in a short period. Evolving to survive the depletion of their resources and numbers. Start out as males then harbor the sperm as they change to female and fertilize their own eggs.
Kind of makes you think that the huge rise in the number of gay or autistic kids in the human species may be a way the species is having less offspring because of the resources diminishing at an alarming rate.
Just a theory. It's that or the flu shot. Lol

|

I don't have to be as smart as you hope to be some day anymore. wink

7/17/2018 8:51 AM

borg wrote:

As it turns out Darwin was wrong in reference to the vast majority of the human race. Most stopped evolving at about 12 or 13. ...more

The government has done a good job at seeing through that even dumbasses live longer than they should. Warning labels on everything.

|

7/17/2018 10:57 AM
Edited Date/Time: 7/17/2018 10:58 AM

MotoTribology wrote:

Pretty misleading thread title since that is not what the writers are concluding:

"The simplest interpretation is that life ...more

Exactly, it was an article in support of evolution, not against it. Typically science is hard to read and understand for creationists dizzy

|

7/17/2018 4:54 PM

FLmxer wrote:

Evolution, like how most fish have evolved into single sex in a short period. Evolving to survive the depletion of their ...more

Then how do you explain endangered animals displaying homosexual behavior?

|

7/17/2018 5:55 PM

Sunhouse wrote:

Exactly, it was an article in support of evolution, not against it. Typically science is hard to read and understand for ...more

Typical, evolutionist are the "only intelligent humans on the planet" response. Probably supports Hillary too.....

|

7/17/2018 7:17 PM

I consider myself a Christian but have NEVER had any conflict with scientific discovery. I always just assumed that evolution was how God created/planned things. If you believe the earth is 2500 years old and devil worshippers planted fake dinosaur bones to confuse man....I hope you are enjoying your bunker, dehydrated food, guns, Fox news, and the great again America.

|

If it ain't yer's don't take it, If it ain't the truth dont say it, If it ain't right don't do it...Marcus Aurelius

7/17/2018 9:27 PM

plowboy wrote:

I consider myself a Christian but have NEVER had any conflict with scientific discovery. I always just assumed that evolution ...more

I'm with you. We have a brain, it'd be a literal AND figurative sin not to use it. Denying what we learn through science is silly, and certainly doesn't make one "more of a Christian", it just makes one stupid.

|

7/19/2018 10:20 AM

MotoTribology wrote:

Pretty misleading thread title since that is not what the writers are concluding:

"The simplest interpretation is that life ...more

Sunhouse wrote:

Exactly, it was an article in support of evolution, not against it. Typically science is hard to read and understand for ...more

The study in the article support's a type of evolution, not Darwinian evolution. Microevolution is what this article supports not Macroevolution. Nobody denies microevolution (changes within species) it is easily observed. Macro however has never been observed.

This study (while having its own problems) is damaging to the theory of evolution as the method of origins.

(Quote from the article)"In analysing DNA barcodes across 100,000 species, researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans"

Sounds like a familiar creation story to me?
Sunhouse do you really believe your quote that creationist are basically dumb?

|

7/19/2018 12:44 PM

hard2kill wrote:

The study in the article support's a type of evolution, not Darwinian evolution. Microevolution is what this article supports ...more

Yes, I do. Why? Because there is no such distinction of micro -and macroevolution used in science. It is a made up word by creationists. They where put in a corner where they couldn’t disprove evolution, as the changes were demonstrated to them. Then they resorted to the «have you seen a species change?» once again they were given the evidence and fossils step by step. The reply: «but you haven’t seen it happen with your eyes, i.e. It can’t happen».
And thus the pseudo-scientific nomenclature of micro/macroevolution was created by creationsists, to account for their mistake, but not the fossil record.

The point itself is rediculous, as the same people would never reject the same good evidence in a court of law in a murder case, despite not having seen the murder take place. Really, you can hardly find creationsists anywhere in the world but in the US and the muslim world. Sure there are some freaks here and there, but denial of evolution isn’t even a thing in the rest of the 1st world. It has even been taken to US courts. The last time in 2004, and the judge was a conservative christian appointed by Dubya. The verdict is a hilarious read, as it says:
- Creationism is not science, but religion.
- It is illegal to teach in science classes
- anyone who attempts to do so is breaking the law and pushing religious beliefs in the classroom.

Creationsism is pushing the same arguments over and over, continiously being disproved, jumping from one «whataboutism» to the next, until they run out of pseudo-science. Then the next time they reset and begin all over as if nothing had happened. Just like debating with a 9/11 truther: they always ask «what about building 7?!?» As if they haven’t heard and know what happened to it a 1000 times already.

|

7/19/2018 12:55 PM
Edited Date/Time: 7/19/2018 12:58 PM

Let's not forget this study examined mitochondrial dna, not nuclear dna. We all know the distinction, right? Article points to a global genetic bottleneck not a lack of evolution.

|

7/20/2018 5:09 AM

We dont know what gravity is, are stymied by quantum physics and cant unify it with General theories, cant cure the common cold or any virus for that matter and have literally millions of people all over Earth that would cut peoples heads off because they drew a cartoon picture. And somehow this same primitive critter thinks it has a clue about how and what has going on with this rock we all live on.

|

"We don't rent pigs."

7/20/2018 6:27 AM

Sunhouse wrote:

Yes, I do. Why? Because there is no such distinction of micro -and macroevolution used in science. It is a made up word by ...more

Wow ok.

|

7/20/2018 6:55 AM
Edited Date/Time: 7/20/2018 6:56 AM

plowboy wrote:

I consider myself a Christian but have NEVER had any conflict with scientific discovery. I always just assumed that evolution ...more

Congrats! You just received my first Vital thumbs up!! cool

|

7/20/2018 7:24 AM

thread about to degrade into deep state and Chemtrails in 3...2....1....

|

7/20/2018 8:24 AM

plowboy wrote:

I consider myself a Christian but have NEVER had any conflict with scientific discovery. I always just assumed that evolution ...more

I'm right there with you.

|

7/20/2018 8:28 AM

Sunhouse wrote:

Exactly, it was an article in support of evolution, not against it. Typically science is hard to read and understand for ...more

hard2kill wrote:

The study in the article support's a type of evolution, not Darwinian evolution. Microevolution is what this article supports ...more

Sunhouse wrote:

Yes, I do. Why? Because there is no such distinction of micro -and macroevolution used in science. It is a made up word by ...more

In a nutshell, that's all a bunch of ignorance.

There are many super intelligent and successful people who believe in creationism. Because you have a superiority complex believing creationists are dumb and scientists are much more intelligent, doesn't make it so.

Similar to the way you believe creation evidence is pseudo science, creationists believe scientists will try to explain anything with science that fits their agenda. It's bias and has the equal footing that creationism does.

In the end, every theory of our origins has significant question marks and no definitive answer. There is no finite science showing the creation of the earth or humans. The scientific article in the OP also lists macro evolution evidence but even in a scientific setting, a bias "scientist" won't acknowledge a fact rooted in science. Science is in no way wasted though. It's healthy to question our theories and seek out the truth. But it's never satisfactorily answered all of the questions thrown at it.

|

7/20/2018 8:52 AM

IWreckALot wrote:

In a nutshell, that's all a bunch of ignorance.

There are many super intelligent and successful people who believe in ...more

|

7/20/2018 9:32 AM

|

"We don't rent pigs."

7/20/2018 9:41 AM

JAFO92 wrote: Photo

The irony of using a quote from a pro-darwinian (to the point he is buried next to him) atheist to support creationism is peak religious ignorance.

|

7/20/2018 9:46 AM

akillerwombat wrote:

The irony of using a quote from a pro-darwinian (to the point he is buried next to him) atheist to support creationism is peak ...more

Where did I say what I was supporting?

|

"We don't rent pigs."

7/20/2018 11:08 AM

So the study concludes the following "the overwhelming majority of species in existance today emerged at about the same time" and finds no evidence of the "in-between" species. Yet there is no speculation that the Bible's literal account of creation might be true? Funny how all conclusions MUST excude creation as being a possible scenario and they call it "Science". It is also interesting that the more "science" advances, its ability to finally crush the biblical account diminishes.

Believe what you will but it takes much more "faith" to believe we are the result of time and chance than the result of a creator.

|