About 90% of all life forms on the planet today are about the same age in terms of when science says they have existed on earth. O.K., then, but from one to the other, where is “evolution”?
The study (reported on here for example) which allegedly says that, in fact, it says something quite different.
The headline claims 90% of species appeared on earth at the same time as humans 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
Anti-evolutionists immediately jumped to claim it means there was nothing before that.
Well, nothing could be further from the truth.
And let's set aside the fact that "from 100,000 to 200,000 years ago" is far from a Biblical time-frame.
The important point is to grasp what the scientists are really saying here, it's this: if we use commonly accepted assumptions about natural rates of genetic change and definitions of "new species" then we find that 90% of studied species fit those assumptions & definitions over a period of 100,000 to 200,000 years.
In other words: scientists define "new species" as what happens in evolution over a period of 100,000 to 200,000 years.
So the interesting question here is less, "what came before current species" than it is, "what's going on in those other 10%?"
I doubt if any scientist in that study would claim "90% of species appeared out of nothing 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."