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]

bray: "You atheists are so obsessed with your cult you can’t even stand anyone to believe in something else.
You even have to change the meaning of transition to make it fit your little Godless explanation."

Total nonsense because:

1. We're not atheists and science is not a "cult".
2. You're free to believe whatever you wish, so long as you don't claim your beliefs are "scientific".
3. The term "transitional species" is defined by science, not by anti-science dogmaticians like yourself.
4. Science is defined by the phrase "natural explanations for natural processes", which means that if you wish to see God in nature, you will need to use your religious & philosophical understandings.
   You may also need help from your church's minister & services.
   That's what they are there for.

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "Continued childish replies by BroJoe; how unusual... (NOT!)"

And here we see the very definition of "childish reply".

{sigh}

[bray]

If it is not a cult why do you get so emotional if people leave it? Why are you not allowed to question its Priests/Scientists? Why is it mostly based on faith rather than proof as you have shown over and over and over.

You still cannot and they cannot come up with a single transitional fossil yet you believe it w/o question. Thanks, but I will believe in God and you go about your cute little fantasy.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Obviously a reply to you is for lurkers only. Your unbelief is vividly on display constantly.

[editor-surveyor]

.
His worst fantasy is his frequent reference to “science,” of which he is devoid of understanding.
.

[MayflowerMadam]

“It might possibly have been a factor in the Flood.”

Have heard the theory that the dinosaurs disappeared immediately after the flood. The atmosphere had changed so much that their small nasal and respiratory system could not sustain them.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Problem is that the dinos have not yet disappeared; they just are not as big anymore because we have about 1/2 as much atmospheric oxygen, and they don’t live long enough to get big.

[Mark17]

Have heard the theory that the dinosaurs disappeared immediately after the flood.

I am anything but dogmatic, but I think they disappeared DURING the Flood. They didn’t get on the ark. My opinion is, these fierce ones, were the result of deliberate genetic manipulation.

[BroJoeK]

bray: "If it is not a cult why do you get so emotional if people leave it?"

But there's no "leaving" or "entering", you come & go as you wish, nobody cares so long as you don't call your religious beliefs "scientific".

bray: "Why are you not allowed to question its Priests/Scientists?"

Question whoever you want, but if you refer to someone as a "Priest/Scientist", their response is unlikely to be, ahem, polite.

bray: "Why is it mostly based on faith rather than proof as you have shown over and over and over."

Science is what it is, observations & explanations.
Both can be confirmed but "proof" is a standard reserved for mathematical theorems.
When confirmed an explanation is accepted tentatively, pending new data or better explanations.
But there's no faith, belief or religion in science, your claims here notwithstanding.

bray: "You still cannot and they cannot come up with a single transitional fossil yet you believe it w/o question."

Nonsense, several times on this thread you've been referred to long lists of well known transitional fossils, but you refuse to acknowledge them, simply claim they don't exist.
More important, every fossil is transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
So you cannot identify a single fossil which is not transitional.

bray: "Thanks, but I will believe in God and you go about your cute little fantasy."

I believe God created the Universe and everything in it, including us.
It does appear from physical evidence that God uses evolution to accomplish at least some of His creativity.

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "Obviously a reply to you is for lurkers only.
Your unbelief is vividly on display constantly."

You believe somethings quite strange, beliefs not shared by most Christians, including me.

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "His worst fantasy is his frequent reference to 'science,' of which he is devoid of understanding."

On the contrary, natural-science is defined by natural-scientists, not by anti-science dogmatists like yourself.
That definition of science is available to anyone who's willing to take a minute to look it up.
It begins here: natural explanations for natural processes only.

[MayflowerMadam]

Really interesting. Are you referring to big, creepy lizards? If so, I see your point. If not big creepy lizards, then what?

[MayflowerMadam]

“these fierce ones, were the result of deliberate genetic manipulation.”

That’s an interesting theory. We were discussing this in Sunday School class a while back. Manipulation by whom, and when?

[PeterPrinciple]

Abiogenesis is entirely descent from similar organisms or organic chemistry, as the case may be.

---

You can’t have it both ways. Your definition is your own and utter nonsense with contradictions...……….

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis

: the origin of life from nonliving matter; specifically : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth : organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances
According to the conventional hypothesis, the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution on our planet billions of years ago in a process called abiogenesis. —David Warmflash et al.

[Armscor38]

“Explain how Job wrote this 8,000 years ago:”

Job lived about 3500 years ago. True Christians know that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

[bray]

Christian hating condescension duly noted. Why do you atheists get so threatened by people believing in God if he doesn't exist? Just like libs you don't show any evidence or facts only cheap shots.

[BroJoeK]

PeterPrinciple: "You can’t have it both ways.
Your definition is your own and utter nonsense with contradictions...………."

No, but but here's what's odd... while claiming to disagree with me you posted exactly my definition of abiogenesis.
So go back to post #194 & notice the definition of "spontaneous generation":

"Spontaneous generation refers to an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

Contrast with your definition here of abiogenesis:

"earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution on our planet billions of years ago..."
And let's add: "The transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event but a gradual process of increasing complexity."

Since "chemical evolution" means 100% descent from similar organic chemistry or life, my two points remain valid:
1) Nothing "spontaneous" about a process taking billions of years.
2) Everything is descended from similar organisms.

[PeterPrinciple]

Contrast with your definition here of abiogenesis:

---

Yes your definition. Look up abiogenesis IN the popular media which I have quoted. The stated theory of abiogenesis If you are honest and read it slowly you will admit it is the same as spontaneous generation.

And yes the historical result of into the investigation into spontanatious generation is life come from life. But you want to hide in your big words and little words.

Lets say it in simple words then: LIFE COMES FROM LIFE. Do we agree or not?

[PeterPrinciple]

https://www.bing.com/search?q=abiogenesis+definition&form=EDGTCT&qs=SC&cvid=193cab9553c74ee180a98ec0f2d3f2d4&refig=5b4f375ed26c473aca3c4b3670ef61fd&cc=US&setlang=en-US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

https://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm

[PeterPrinciple]

Since “chemical evolution” means 100% descent from similar organic chemistry or life, my two points remain valid:
1) Nothing “spontaneous” about a process taking billions of years.

Lets be honest here. Somewhere in your billions of years there is that “spontanatious” event. Time adds NOTHING to the equation. It contains no energy, no organization. At least get your theory clear and state it was a comet or exploding star.

2) Everything is descended from similar organisms.

Now you jump back and forth from organism and chemistry, which is it? words have meanings. Chemistry comes from chemistry? ok throw in the word organic. all that means is what? carbon. Now you have to ignore all the other chemical interactions.

Now if it is “descended” from similar organisms or chemical reactions, how do we get new reactions in new systems. and different net reactions in system after system? or did you mean the word ascended?