Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time

Tech Times ^ | 30 May 2018, | Nicole Arce

[GonzoII]

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."

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it's not science. "

raiderboy: "How do you know?
Empirical data or anti God propaganda?"

By US law, scientists define what is or is not science.
Scientists tell us that evolution is a key element of modern natural-science.
Yes, many of those scientists are atheists but many others are not, and their explanations of fossil records are not dependent on their acceptance of any particular religion.

Indeed, the majority of Christians in the world belong to denominations which accept something called "theistic evolutionism", meaning, basically: whatever natural explanations science develops, we believe God planned & executed it for His purposes and our benefit.

I'd put it simply this way: what atheists call "natural-science" we'd call "God's natural science."
We don't try to change the science, but we acknowledge its Creator.

[BroJoeK]

HarleyD: "But if one thinks they are going to scientifically prove the existence of God, I think they are sorely mistaken."

It's extraordinarily important to understand that science, by definition, can neither "prove" nor "disprove" God.
By definition science assumes it will only deal with natural explanations for natural processes.
Anything else -- including religion, miracles or philosophy -- is simply outside the realm of science and science can say nothing valid about them.

So you cannot look to science for information on God, though I personally have no difficulty seeing God's hand at work in planning, creating & maintaining all of nature, regardless of natural-science explanations.

[raiderboy]

I rest my case. Thank you.

[garjog]

[bray]

Man, horse, dog, cat, elephant...

[bray]

So you think posting a nice picture of some fake animals makes your case? You going to post the Disney film next?

[BroJoeK]

raiderboy: "I rest my case. Thank you."

I doubt that, but we'll see.

[PeterPrinciple]

Spontaneous Generation is back on the table , boys...………...

[PeterPrinciple]

The theory of evolution does not claim that man evolved from apes,

---

Yes it has and does...…………………………………..

[BroJoeK]

bray: "So you think posting a nice picture of some fake animals makes your case?"

Sure, the "nice picture" shows how wings changed over 100+ million years, from Sinosauropteryx to modern crows.
As for "fake animals", no, they are from real fossils and the pictures reasonable estimates of what they looked like in life.

Do they trouble you?

Sinosaureopteryx fossil from circa 100 million years ago:

[srmorton]

I have a MA degree in Biology and have been teaching it for almost 35 years. The theory states that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor which is NOT the same thing as saying man evolved from apes!

[BroJoeK]

PeterPrinciple: "Spontaneous Generation is back on the table , boys...………..."

If you refer to abiogenesis, nothing is "spontaneous" about chemical processes which took billions of years.
If you refer to this particular report, well... careful reading of the actual document shows it did not say what this reporter (Nicole Arce Tech Times) claimed.

Note Zulu's post #115.

[PeterPrinciple]

I have a MA degree in Biology and have been teaching it for almost 35 years. The theory states that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor which is NOT the same thing as saying man evolved from apes!

---

That may be what you think but that is NOT what is presented in text books...……………...

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "Science and evolution my opinions are almost polar opposites.
Science works from empiricity, while evolution my opinion creates the answer first, and tries to stuff unrelated data in around it.
The empirical evidence follows the creation evolution model very nicely."

Fixed it for you.
The "creationists' model" begins and ends with the Bible, then carefully selects or misrepresents data to fit their "model".
There is no confirmed scientific data which does not support the evolution model.

[PeterPrinciple]

If you refer to abiogenesis, nothing is “spontaneous” about chemical processes which took billions of years.

---

Oh...…………….you meant sloooowwwww spontaneous generation. Well some of your colleges have proposed fast spontaneous generation.

Either way I don’t care what you call it, it is spontaneous generation...………………………

Your abiogenesis is the essence of spontaneous generation.

[PeterPrinciple]

Spontaneous Generation: a now discredited notion that living organisms spontaneously originate directly from nonliving matter

Abiogenesis: the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter

[bray]

You backed your fake pictures up with fake fossils, how scientific.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/

https://creation.com/feathered-dinosaurs-not-feathers

Sorry, I just don’t have enough faith to believe in your myth. I will stick to the Bible and Genesis.

[bray]

So you are a High Priest of evolution. The title gives you so much credibility. How many lives have you destroyed trying to prove God does not exist?

[srmorton]

Apparently, you did not read my other posts on this thread. As a life long Christian (preacher's daughter), I try to inject some "theology" into my classes by pointing out that the sequence of events described in the first chapter of Genesis corresponds to what biologist believe is the sequence of events in evolution. Remember that evolution is a THEORY, which means it does have evidence to support it, but it is not FACT. No one except God was there when the world was created! The existence of God is not questionable, in my opinion, but students who have taken a General Biology course have to have some understanding of the theory of evolution. The mechanism for evolution (natural selection) still occurs today as is indicated by the development of resistant bacteria due to the overuse of antibiotics. The bacteria that can survive in the presence of the antibiotic are the ones that end up passing their resistant genes on to the next generation of bacteria.

[BroJoeK]

bray on transitional fossils: "They don’t seem to be accepted by some of the most well known evolutionists, at least the honest ones:"

From bray's link, #1:

"#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species.
Instead, we have zero."

Of course there are millions upon millions, by one estimate several billions of fossils in museums and collections around the world.
And each one, necessarily without exception, is "transitional" between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
The link posted by Reily lists two dozen of the more well known transitional sequences, which alone must encompass millions of known fossils.

But the key fact to remember here is that every individual, without exception, is transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
The only real issue is: how many of those ancestors and descendants fossils have been found.
As of today, the answer is: approaching countless.

from bray's link, item #2:

quoting Darwin: "But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

As of today, for every one fossil Darwin knew, science now knows millions with many transitional sequences well represented.

from bray's link, item #3:

quoting Patterson: "If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Of course the key word here is "watertight", since no evidence will appear "watertight" to someone determined to sharp-shoot it.
But the fact remains that at least millions of fossils have been found which fit into dozens of well known transitional sequences.
And all fossils necessarily, are "transitional" between their ancestors and descendants, if any.

from bray's link, item #4:

quoting Gould: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Gould should have known better, but is here making an argument for his "punctuated equilibrium" theory of evolution, which simply says: if conditions change slowly, then evolution will also produce slow change, but as conditions change more "rapidly", then evolution will attempt to adapt more "rapidly", hence: punctuated.
Gould is also telling other scientists: "we need more fossils," and that will be true so long as there are scientists.

But even in Gould's lifetime many millions of fossils were collected & classified, creating many well known transition sequences.

from bray's link, #5:

quoting alleged Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University: "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

This is serious dishonesty and gaming of word definitions, since there are huge collections of transitional fossils.
So Stanley is simply hand-waving them away, closing his eyes and loudly proclaiming, "I see nothing, noooooothing!".
His key word is "convincingly" meaning simply he refuses to be convinced, regardless of evidence.

from bray's link #6:

"#6 If 'evolution' was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs.
But instead there are none."

But of course there are, in humans for examples, three partially developed features are well known:

1. two different adaptations for breathing at high altitudes, one in the Himalayas the other in the Andes.
2. adaptions to survive malaria among people living with it.
3. adaptions to prevent lactose intolerance in adults drinking milk from livestock.

And so it goes through 44 items.

from bray's link #44:

"#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself.
Do you have that much blind faith?"

But science, strictly defined, is not about "faith", blind or otherwise.
Instead it's about two things: observations & explanations.
Confirmed observations are called "facts" and confirmed explanations are called "theories" -- that's it.
All theories are accepted provisionally, pending new facts to falsify them or better explanations.
So it has nothing to do with "faith" or "belief" or alleged "religion of science", but rather with whether the facts fit the explanations and visa versa.

In the case of evolution theory, they do.

As for the origins of life referred in in #44, there are as yet no confirmed theories, only many speculative hypotheses including various types of abiogenesis and panspermia.
None are yet proved and all could be falsified eventually.
We should note there's nothing "spontaneous" or "just popped into existence" about chemical processes which took billions of years.

And none of it has any relevance to basic religious convictions that God created the Universe, the Earth and all life on it, whether by miracles or by natural processes we don't know for certain.
And it doesn't matter how He did it, what matters is, He did, so we're here, by and for Him.