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]

PeterPrinciple: "The stated theory of abiogenesis
If you are honest and read it slowly you will admit it is the same as spontaneous generation."

No, if you are honest and read slowly, you'll soon learn they are opposites. "Spontaneous generation" referred to suggestions that life could spontaneously pop into existence out of nothing, without descent from similar organisms.

By contrast, abiogenisis requires unbroken descent with modifications from similar organic compounds.

PeterPrinciple: "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."

No, no hiding here, behind words big or little, or behind anything else.
"Spontaneous generation" requires life to arise quickly out of nothing, without descent from similar organisms.
By contrast, abiogenesis took billions of years (hence not spontaneous) and required an unbroken chain of descents with modifications from similar forms.

PeterPrinciple: "Let's say it in simple words then: LIFE COMES FROM LIFE.
Do we agree or not?"

Everything depends on your definition of "Life".
Simple organic chemistry we agree is "not life", whereas we might agree that relatively simple bacteria are living.
But what about complex molecules like viruses or the prions which cause "mad cow" disease?
Are they "life' or "not life"?

At some point between "life" and "not life" we draw an arbitrary line saying "this is but that's not life".
But regardless of where we draw the line, the same evolutionary-type processes were at work both before and afterwards.
So nothing ever "spontaneous" about abiogenisis.

[BroJoeK]

PeterPrinciple: "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."

Honestly, the only thing "spontaneous" about any of it happens when humans examining the data decide spontaneously certain chemistry can be classified as "life" and others as "not life".
Otherwise it was just all part of billions-year processes from simple organic chemistry to... everything we see today.
That's the abiogenisis hypothesis, in a nutshell.

As for time, it is the key element, without which nothing can evolve.
So time adds everything.

And, yes, it looks like exploding stars & comets played their roles, creating heavier elements and delivering compounds to the young Earth.

PeterPrinciple: "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."

Yes, which is it, organism or chemistry?
Answer: depends on definitions for exactly where we draw the lines.
But let's be honest, our little lines don't really matter to nature, do they?
Nature doesn't care if we call it "life" or "not life", nature just does what it does, regardless.

Indeed, just to emphasize the point, I'd suggest a broad range of early-Earth very complex chemistry, precursors, "semi-life", or even "faux life" which, while certainly very interesting was not yet obvious life.
It's suggested that some of the earliest evidence of "Life" on Earth my fall into such categories.

PeterPrinciple: "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?"

It's sometimes suggested that "descended" is a misnomer and "ascended" should be used instead.
The scientific answer includes that "ascended" implies a philosophical or moral value which data cannot always confirm.
What science can observe from the data is increasing complexity of organisms over geological time periods.
So, where we don't often see "ascended" used, we do see the term "complexification".
And I apologize if that word is too long for you.
Not trying to hide anything.

As for new reactions in new systems, remember first that abiogenisis is only one working hypothesis, panspermia another, and none are confirmed enough to be considered theories.
But when you imagine Darwin's "warm little pond", think of it as the entire Earth on which many different chemical reactions take place simultaneously, occasionally influencing each other.

[PeterPrinciple]

So explain to me exactly how time or randomness changes things. There is no energy or organization in time. Lets me at least a little honest in argument. Time is meaningless as is randomness. At least argue it is something within that time, that cause the event.

So there is no spontaneous event, It only LOOKS like a spontaneous event. THE EVIDENCE AS YOU STATED looks and acts like a spontaneous event but YOU REFUSE TO GO WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS YOU. You deny the evidence, what science is that?

[PeterPrinciple]

Otherwise it was just all part of billions-year processes from simple organic chemistry to... everything we see today. That's the abiogenisis hypothesis, in a nutshell. ------------------------------------ Your colleges don't agree with you. a·bi·o·gen·e·sis [ˌābīōˈjenəsəs] NOUN the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. You argue life comes form life and organic chemistry. That is not the definition. Do you accept the above as the definition of abiogenisis?

[savedbygrace]

I have never heard of that peculiar tradition.

I call BS.

[PeterPrinciple]

So nothing ever “spontaneous” about abiogenesis.

---

Again, the chemical reaction you seek either exits or doesn’t exist. There is no in between. Now the potential may exist, but it takes some sort of energy or organization to make it happen. Chemicals reactions by nature are oxidation, a lower energy state, that is the chemical reaction “goal” UNLESS energy or organization (one and the same) are introduced.

Time and randomness have neither. For the love of logic and science, take time and randomness out of your equation and propose something that makes sense.

Now instead of looking at a simple chemical reaction that you think you understand, put that in the complexity of system after system and the amount of energy and organization required.

And a further thought regarding randomness. Randomness is anti science. It means you can’t replicate anything to get to the truth. Everything is random, every time you add two chemicals together you get a different reaction. Do you believe that? Or do you believe there is a design that you get the same response so you can get closer to the truth.

NOW THE PROPER QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE ENERGY AND ORGANIZATION THAT BROUGHT ABOUT THIS REACTION and it sure as hell is not time and randomness. (pardon my French)

Science with out philosophy and logic is derelict. Your abiogenesis by definition is the same as spontaneous generation and when taken IN ISOLATION sounds good to the ears, but when placed in the realm of known scientific truth it FAILS.

[BroJoeK]

PeterPrinciple: "So explain to me exactly how time or randomness changes things."

Sorry, I don't "get" what your problem is with time.
Time is required for every chemical reaction, and if your reaction chamber is the entire Earth, then much more time is required for the products of one reaction to react to the products of some others.
Why, exactly, is that a problem for you?

PeterPrinciple: "There is no energy or organization in time."

Maybe, but there are energy sources which produce reactions in time -- the Sun, molten lava, lightning strikes, plate tectonics, storms, etc., etc.
Why exactly can't you see that?

PeterPrinciple: "Lets me at least a little honest in argument.
Time is meaningless as is randomness.
At least argue it is something within that time, that cause the event."

Is that then your straw man -- the argument you're attempting to foist on me?
You want me to claim that time alone produces chemical reactions so you can proudly announce: no, it's not just time, it's also other factors?
And for good measure you throw in "randomness" wishing me to argue that "randomness" and "time" alone produce reactions?
Why?

PeterPrinciple: "So there is no spontaneous event, It only LOOKS like a spontaneous event. "

Now for several posts I've repeatedly argued there's nothing "spontaneous" about abiogenesis, but you totally ignore what I said, so powerful is your wish to claim I'm defending "spontaneous generation", right?

PeterPrinciple: "THE EVIDENCE AS YOU STATED looks and acts like a spontaneous event but YOU REFUSE TO GO WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS YOU.
You deny the evidence, what science is that?"

Sorry, but there's no evidence -- none, zero, nada, zip evidence -- not a shred of confirmed evidence for what was called "spontaneous generation".
By contrast there are literal mountains of evidence confirming evolution theory.

[BroJoeK]

PeterPrinciple: "Your colleges don't agree with you.

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis [ˌābīōˈjenəsəs] NOUN the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

You argue life comes form life and organic chemistry.
That is not the definition.
Do you accept the above as the definition of abiogenisis? "

Here's the beginning of my working definition:

"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][note 1] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8]
The transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event but a gradual process of increasing complexity.[9][10][11][12]"

Note the key qualifier: "gradual process of increasing complexity".

And your problem with this definition is what, exactly?

[usconservative]

Only 90-percent of animals fell into this category. The other 10-percent did NOT come from that era. So the question ought to be which animals fell into the ‘modern’ era and which extend beyond that era.

It could also be science hasn't figured out the remaining 10%'s barcode to figure out how to categorize it, or there wasn't enough / a good enough DNA sample for that 10% to barcode. We may not know for sometime.

Still, 90% is overwhelming evidence for Genesis 1:25 which says on the sixth day "God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

[BroJoeK]

PeterPrinciple: "Again, the chemical reaction you seek either exits or doesn’t exist.
There is no in between."

No, such reactions can exist in one place under one set of conditions, but not in other places having different conditions.
So your problem with that is what, exactly?

PeterPrinciple: "Now the potential may exist, but it takes some sort of energy or organization to make it happen.
Chemicals reactions by nature are oxidation, a lower energy state, that is the chemical reaction “goal” UNLESS energy or organization (one and the same) are introduced."

So now you fantasize I need a basic chemistry lesson, why?

PeterPrinciple: "Time and randomness have neither.
For the love of logic and science, take time and randomness out of your equation and propose something that makes sense"

For the love of logic and science, why are you babbling incoherently?
"Time and randomness" play some role in virtually every chemical reaction.
Why even dispute that?

PeterPrinciple: "Now instead of looking at a simple chemical reaction that you think you understand, put that in the complexity of system after system and the amount of energy and organization required."

So why are you now arguing that life is too complex to have arisen "spontaneously" when you are the only one on this thread to have ever claimed "spontaneous generation"?

PeterPrinciple: "And a further thought regarding randomness. Randomness is anti science.
It means you can’t replicate anything to get to the truth. Everything is random, every time you add two chemicals together you get a different reaction.
Do you believe that?
Or do you believe there is a design that you get the same response so you can get closer to the truth."

So it's not enough for you to babble mindlessly about "spontaneous" generation, now you wish to throw in mumbo-jumbo about "randomness"?
Why?

The simple fact is that in chemistry, as in much else, small differences in input can sometimes produce huge differences in output.
That's the role of "randomness".

PeterPrinciple: "NOW THE PROPER QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE ENERGY AND ORGANIZATION THAT BROUGHT ABOUT THIS REACTION and it sure as hell is not time and randomness. (pardon my French)"

I can easily pardon French or any other language, but I have zero tolerance for babbling nonsense, which is what you're posting.
First you set up a ridiculous straw-man and now you're flogging it to death -- why?

PeterPrinciple: "Science with out philosophy and logic is derelict."

Science is all about logic, but "philosophy" not so much.
By definition the word "science" is only concerned with the observations and explanations of the material realm.
And "derelict" or not, it's produced what we see in the modern world.

PeterPrinciple: "Your abiogenesis by definition is the same as spontaneous generation and when taken IN ISOLATION sounds good to the ears, but when placed in the realm of known scientific truth it FAILS."

And that is a total lie, which should shame you to tell, if you were even capable of shame, which it seems you're not.

Why?

[PeterPrinciple]

PeterPrinciple: “Your abiogenesis by definition is the same as spontaneous generation and when taken IN ISOLATION sounds good to the ears, but when placed in the realm of known scientific truth it FAILS.”

---

I have shown you again and again, the common definition of spontanatious generation and abiogenesis are the same. Address that issue.

I have asked what time and randomness bring into the equation. Address the issue. Counter my argument with science.

I have even tried to lead you to the answer, it is some event that brings in energy and organization. BUT NOT TIME.

TIME AND RANDOMNESS BRING NOTHING TO THE EQUATION. They distract you from true science.

At least the article brings some evidence and a good questions. But you go right to time and randomness because you don’t like the evidence.

[BroJoeK]

PeterPrinciple: "Your abiogenesis by definition is the same as spontaneous generation and when taken IN ISOLATION sounds good to the ears, but when placed in the realm of known scientific truth it FAILS."

That was ridiculous nonsense the first time you posted it and remains so regardless of how often you repeat it, FRiend.

PeterPrinciple: "I have shown you again and again, the common definition of spontanatious generation and abiogenesis are the same.
Address that issue."

And I have shown you again and again that your opinion on this is ridiculously false.
Address that issue.

PeterPrinciple: "I have asked what time and randomness bring into the equation.
Address the issue.
Counter my argument with science."

"Time and randomness" seem to be just your personal hang-ups, not generally problems for science.
Address that issue.
And since you've made no coherent argument, there's nothing for me to counter, with science or any other discipline.

PeterPrinciple: "I have even tried to lead you to the answer, it is some event that brings in energy and organization.
BUT NOT TIME."

Time is just what it is, your claims here not withstanding.
So I see neither the source of your problem with it, nor your reasons for making a fuss over it.

PeterPrinciple: "TIME AND RANDOMNESS BRING NOTHING TO THE EQUATION.
They distract you from true science."

But they never distract me from "true science" or anything else, so why are they distracting you?

PeterPrinciple: "At least the article brings some evidence and a good questions.
But you go right to time and randomness because you don’t like the evidence."

Nonsense, I've never mentioned "time and randomness", only you have carped endlessly about them.
So, are you confusing me with somebody else?
Who is it?

[SunkenCiv]

• No, Humans Are Probably Not All.Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago [Forbes]
• All humans are descended from just TWO people and a catastrophic event almost wiped out ALL species
• All humans are descended from just TWO people (truncated)