Posts
1097
Joined
10/29/2006
Location
GA
US
Edited Date/Time
7/30/2018 7:54pm
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.ht…
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.ht…
"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.
The Shop
Just so long as it is anything but _ _ _..
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
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?
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.
Pit Row
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.
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.
This study pointed out that lack of genetic diversity that would've supported the Darwinian theory of evolution. That's one of the beauties of science when done correctly. Theories remain theories until proven otherwise and opinion and faith don't factor into the equation.
Post a reply to: dna study proves Darwin and evolution wrong