June flashback: Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At Same Time

Tech Times ^ | June 10 2018

[NYer]

Landmark new research that involves analyzing millions of DNA barcodes has debunked much about what we know today about the evolution of species.

In a massive genetic study, senior research associate at the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University Mark Stoeckle and University of Basel geneticist David Thaler discovered that virtually 90 percent of all animals on Earth appeared at right around the same time.

More specifically, they found out that 9 out of 10 animal species on the planet came to being at the same time as humans did some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

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

What Is DNA Barcoding?

Over the last decade, hundreds of scientists collected around 5 million DNA barcodes from 100,000 animal species in different parts of the globe. Stoeckle and Thaler looked through these 5 million genetic imprints to find one of the most surprising discoveries about evolution to date.

There are two types of DNA. Most people know nuclear DNA. This is the DNA containing the genetic blueprint for each single individual. It is passed down from the parents to the offspring. The genome is made from kinds types of molecules arranged in pairs. There are 3 billion of these pairs, which are then used to form thousands of genes.

The other, less familiar type of DNA is one found in the mitochondria of cells. The mitochondria generate energy for the cell and contains 37 genes. One of these is the COI gene, which is used to create DNA barcodes. All species have a very similar mitochondrial DNA, but their DNA is also different enough so we can distinguish between species.

Paul Hebert, biologist and director of the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, developed a new way to identify species by studying the COI gene.

Born Around The Same Time

In analyzing the COI of 100,000 species, Stoeckle and Thaler arrived at the conclusion that most animals appeared simultaneously. They found that the neutral mutation across species were not as varied as expected. Neutral mutation refers to the slight DNA changes that occur across generations. They can be compared to tree rings because they can tell how old a certain specie or individual is.

As to how that could have happened, it's unclear. A likely possibility is the occurrence of a sudden event that caused large-scale environmental trauma and wiped out majority of the Earth's species.

"Viruses, ice ages, successful new competitors, loss of prey — all these may cause periods when the population of an animal drops sharply," explains Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment.

Such times give rise to sweeping genetic changes across the planet, causing new species to appear. However, the last time such an occurrence took place was 65 million years ago, when an asteroid hit the Earth and killed off the dinosaurs and half of all other species on the planet.

The study is published in the journal Human Evolution.

[blackpacific]

Maybe someone can post a link to the original paper so we can read it for ourselves and not have some interpreter tell us what it means?

[aquila48]

Thanks for posting that rebuttal. Good to hear both sides.

I’m sure most Freepers will either not read it or dismiss it.

[zeestephen]

Thanks for the helpful summary, Dave.

Somehow, I completely missed this research when it came out in June.

[blackpacific]

All the links to the “Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf” are not working or have been taken down.

I’m all for letting the data speak for itself. If the DNA is telling us things that make the absurd idea that chaos/nothing is the cause of everything, then maybe we should listen?

[Georgia Girl 2]

Imagine that.

[DennisR]

As they say, you can observe a lot just by watching.
Ha!

[Gritty]

Say, I've got a great theory.

One day there was this huge explosion and out of that vast heat and chaos 100,000 species magically appeared.

It's quit simple, really!

[PIF]

Educate yourself and this is the second time at least this c...p has been posted.

[Openurmind]

I read and understand it. You put it into proper context...

[BroJoeK]

Moonman62 quoting: "What Stoeckle and Thaler have potentially discovered, by examining the variation of a single gene in the mtDNA, is that most species experienced a mitochondrial genetic 'bottleneck' between 100 and 200 thousand years ago."

Let me suggest an even simpler explanation.
If we use DNA changes to define the difference between "breeds", "sub-species", "species", "genera", etc., then we must draw lines to say so much difference -- let's call it "X" -- makes a new breed, then, say, 2X makes a sub-species, 3X a new species, etc.
So the only thing this report tells us is that in 90% of cases it takes 100,000 to 200,000 for a population to accumulate "3X" changes in their DNAs and so by our definitions be classified a new species.

It doesn't mean "species" suddenly appeared 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, only that what existed earlier we defined as a different species.

Clear?

[bray]

You atheists refuse to admit God exists and has the power to create his creation any way he wants. You worship science and believe you are smarter than God is.

This should put a stake in the heart of Darwinism, but pride won’t allow it.

[BroJoeK]

bray: "You atheists refuse to admit God exists and has the power to create his creation any way he wants."

Complete nonsense, mere braying of a jack***

I believe exactly that God exists and has the power to create his creation any way he wants.
The scientific project is simply to discover how much of God's work can be explained naturally.
Doesn't mean God didn't do it, or that no miracles were involved, only that God often employs His natural realm to do His work for him.

bray: "This should put a stake in the heart of Darwinism, but pride won’t allow it."

More nonsense since the report merely puts a clock on the rate of DNA changes needed to manifest new sub-species, species, genera, etc.

[blackpacific]

I don’t need “simple” explanations. Where is the original paper?

[bray]

More dismissive namecalling tactics from a secular humanist.

If as you now say since it does no longer take billions of years but thousands where are all those millions of transitional species. Give us one example of a fossil found that was a transitional animal.

I expect more name calling since there is no fossil, only bullying tactics all you Darwinists use. How dare anyone question science!

[bray]

The old adaptation equals changed species tactic. You Darwinists are so predictable. Show us a dog/horse or a fish/mammal and then we may believe.

What next, viruses becoming immune to anti-virus is a new species? Name one fossil that was a transitory animal since there would need to be millions there should be a fossil record everywhere just like Darwin claimed there would be.

Even he said if there is no fossil record then the theory has to be false. The DNA trail is proving it to be a fake theory except for the most foolish.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It's interesting that I can find no such paper published in the Journal of Evolution in April or May. Searching on the author's names gives no results.

Then there's this from Forbes.

[faucetman]

NO WAY,..... YAH WEH!

[BroJoeK]

bray: "More dismissive namecalling tactics from a secular humanist."

"bray" is your name and when you make false accusations you "bray" like a jack***.
Don't like being called out for it?
Then stick to the truth, pal.

bray: "If as you now say since it does no longer take billions of years but thousands where are all those millions of transitional species."

Obviously you mistake me for somebody else, since I've posted no such thing and now two posts in a row you've made false accusations against me.
What's up with that bray?

bray: "Give us one example of a fossil found that was a transitional animal."

I don't know why you suppose that's such a clever argument when just a little reflection shows every individual, without exception, is "transitional" between its ancestors and it's descendants, if any.
Studies show that every individual is conceived with a small number of mostly harmless mutations which get passed along to their descendants.
Such mutations accumulate from generation to generation, sometimes acted on by natural selection, over many generations become the source for discernments between breeds, sub-species, species, genera, etc.

In the past 150+ years collectors have found, identified & stored billions of individual fossils representing hundreds of thousands of species.
Every one, without exception, is "transitional".

Here's a summary of some of the better known.

[Tudorfly]

Rexthecat, don’t take my word for it. Take God’s Word. Works correctly 100% of the time, all of the time, every time. Or you can take the words of Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Moses, Abraham, Samuel, Joshua, Noah, Ruth, Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, Mike Pence, Donald Trump, George W. Bush, Robert Morgan...it’s a very long list.

[BroJoeK]

bray: "The old adaptation equals changed species tactic.
You Darwinists are so predictable.
Show us a dog/horse or a fish/mammal and then we may believe."

Words like "variety", "breed", "sub-species", "species", "genus", "family", etc. are all matters of scientific definitions.
When genetic differences accumulate between populations of common ancestry, they may be classified as one or another depending on how much difference there is.

As for a "dog/horse" or "fish/mammal", that's just your fantasy.

bray: "What next, viruses becoming immune to anti-virus is a new species?
Name one fossil that was a transitory animal since there would need to be millions there should be a fossil record everywhere just like Darwin claimed there would be."

Here's my source for billions of individual fossils in hundreds of thousands of species.
All are "transitional" between their ancestors and descendants, if any.

Again, words like "breed", "sub-species", "species", "genus", "family", "order", etc., all are matters of scientific definition and all have many sub-categories between them.

bray: "Even he said if there is no fossil record then the theory has to be false.
The DNA trail is proving it to be a fake theory except for the most foolish."

In fact there's a huge & growing fossil record.
And DNA comparisons show not only how closely related individuals are, but also how long ago their common ancestors lived.

So what exactly are you, ah, braying about, FRiend?