In this phylogenetic tree, we can see that the ancestor of bears "split" into the raccoon branch and the bear branch about 31 million years ago, and so forth. This speciation is a distinct mechanism from population bottlenecks.
Posted on 07/03/2018 6:19:07 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
In this phylogenetic tree, we can see that the ancestor of bears "split" into the raccoon branch and the bear branch about 31 million years ago, and so forth. This speciation is a distinct mechanism from population bottlenecks.
Not to mention you can have cases like the recent one in SA where the old bull was sterile and was killing any of the young bulls who could have bred the does.
It maintains but even over time the herd shows almost no improvement and what there is is of the land race variety.
Give the same bunch of animals to a farmer and in a quarter of the time you gave the wild ones he will have turned them into fine stock.
Animals just do not behave as he said they do.
First of all, a scrub male might get to mate with one female by chance, and then be chased off or worse. And second, directed mating by a farmer is not a ‘natural’ model. For the vast majority of harem animal matings in the wild, the dominant males are the sperm providers.
I thought science was always right. And never biased or corrupt!!
But you know, he was a city boy and could not be expected to know those kind of things. :)
Miss Marmelstein —
disclosure: educated years ago in physiology, genetics, general life sciences.
Please note that “species” is an important word. In general terms the ‘boundary’ of a species is what species A can sexually reproduce with and produce fertile offspring. Cats cannot mate with dogs, and get pregnant ... because they are different species. Simple.
Darwin correctly noted that WITHIN a species, natural selection does cause the most viable members of a species’ population in a given environment to produce the most viable, surviving offspring, generation over generation — because the offspring won the genetic lottery over time/generations, and had the longest necks, best eyes, longest fur, etc. But even these seemingly unique offspring could still mate with and produce fertile offspring with other members of the SAME species who has short necks, weak eyes, and short hair. Darwin MISSED it when trying to demonstrate the evolution of new SPECIES due to environmental pressures on a population. Even modern science/genetics ‘knows’ that environmental stress does NOT cause species A to give birth to Species B.
Look at it this way: Darwin observed the phenotype and reached conclusions about the genotype. WHAT??? He looked at feathers, beaks, tails, colors and decided these were new species unique to Galapagos. Nope; not in genetics. The weird birds of Galapagos could still have mated with their peers no the mainland. *IF* one were to apply Darwin’s metrics and criteria for identifying and segregating species to humans, then a tall blonde swede with blue eyes would be a different species than a dark-skinned, short, black-haired, brown-eyed Amazon pygmy. Nope — all humans.
I’d suggest you read Darwin ‘knowing’ that he was wrong, and he even doubted he was right.
*IF* you are a genetic nerd or deeply interested in this topic, I suggest you read. “The Language of God” by Dr. Francis Collins. He is a triple PHD who was raised atheist, led the project to decode the human genome (successfully to a narrow depth), and exited the project understanding that what he had previously believed about the origins of life and species was all wrong.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NY12E6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
exactly
Which is why over time the scrubs will mate with more females then the "superior" male.
And I never said the farmer doing directed mating was natural. That is the point.
In farming the scrubs are sterilized and the superior is carefully kept and pampered.
Not the case in the wild.
As I understand the Phys.org article poster 41 above has is about right. The mitochondrial DNA barcode for each species is like a genetic clock that diverges over time as mutations accumulate. All the article is suggesting is that there was a global event 100,000 to 200,000 years ago similar to one that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago but less dramatic. It could have been a new virus or ice age or something that killed off most of the world’s species. The small number of survivors became the ancestors to all the current living species including us and essentially reset the mitDNA clock for all species to about the same zero hour. This probably has happened many time in the billions of years of evolution and further confirms the validity of evolutionary theory rather than refutes it.
“...nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago...”
of course most of the thread responders are reading that statement and disregarding the word ‘today’...
The eruption of the Toba supervolcano 75,000 years ago has been estimated to have dropped the human population to around 10,000 globally. So I do agree that there can be lesser events than super-extinctions such as the Permian that can bottleneck species. However, that does not mean the species emerged at the point, just that an event came along that diminished the species to a few individuals. That is the drawback to such genetic studies - they pay no attention to the fossil record.
Unsettled science unsettles scientists again.
Nancy Pelosi favorite verse.. I doubt she really understands it. Jesus was there at creation.
Species do improve over time. After mass extinctions, mostly smaller species are the ones who remain. A few million years later, vastly larger species emerge. That is a function of dominant males driving reproduction.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/SameerIndricotherium-56a2544f5f9b58b7d0c91bc0.jpg)
It’s funny how every time science comes up with the newest theory of the history of life, the old theories are discarded like yesterdays trash, the new ones are held up as absolute truth, and anyone who disputes the new theory is ignorant. And despite the best efforts of scientists, the theories get closer and closer to the Story of Genesis.
Both are true
Creation and evolution
The only species that doesn’t evolve are liberals
Absolutely agree.
The question for me is NOT if God created the universe, everything in it, and all creatures and creation. He did.
Science doesn't have to explain this part of it. It is the ULTIMATE truth.
Now as to how, that is an entirely DIFFERENT question.
One of the fundamental truths about the Christian God, versus the Islamic "God", Allah, is that the Christian God, or the actual God, is not capricious, quick to anger, and is very deliberate and slow to action. God lets things play out in HIS time, not necessarily ours.
For example, look at His relationship with Israel. Are the Jews still His people? He said they would be forever. He means it. Yet, the Jews kept getting pummeled throughout history, doesn't mean He has rejected them, just that He is correcting them, and this is even now still playing out. He works in His own time.
Allah, of course is not this God. Allah is VERY capricious. He changes his mind frequently, orders his followers to quickly kill others; even every Muslim believes Allah can just one day decide to kill them, so they better not do anything against the Koran, any time. But even so, Inshallah... Or God-willing, which is the Muslim prayer, to will Allah into seeing things their way.
God however, works things in a logical way, and never tries to trick us nor give us false information. He says what He says and it is Truth.
God influenced a Hebrew scribe not HOW He created something but rather that He did. For that matter even if He had (Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.) doesn't mean that was THE way, as even this leaves out how each molecule was changed, and so much more. I see such a quote as one in line with a primitive man's thinking; NOT God's.
Feel free to disagree with me on this part. It is my opinion only, after all.
The fact that almost all current species are only a 100-200K years old is because before they were the current species, they were another very similar, but not the exact same species. Like wolves becoming dogs.
There's a huge difference in the requirements for an animal to endure a global Ice Age. The Ice Age didn't just cover the northern and southern extremes of the Earth with ice, it also severely dried out the Earth. This absolutely affected almost every animal. The changes are still with us today.
Hence why the Evolution has long been a THEORY, not a fact!
If life is only 200,000 years old, the Genesis chronology is every bit as incorrect as it would be if life has been here for a billion years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.