Posted on 05/29/2018 6:31:56 PM PDT by CondorFlight
Who would have suspected that a handheld genetic test used to unmask sushi bars pawning off tilapia for tuna could deliver deep insights into evolution, including how new species emerge?
-------
The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
On the contrary. They were selected out.
Too late for Hawking. He now knows the truth.
Swear to empedocles...khaldoon(sp?)...wallace..hutton...lyell..lysenko...lamarck....erasmus or charles darwin? You mean most of present species and families are of recent origin? I want my slow imperceptible evolutionary model back!
Nothin from nothin leaves nothin....
Ya gotta have somethin’
If you wanna...
Billy Preston
LOL-
Yup. Actually another nail in the coffin of evolution
One of the commenters had this to say (part 2 of 2):
“Second part : The FLAW in this study is caused by :
A- Mutation rate is different in each and every bp (base pair) of the COI gene and this mutation rate is SAME in every animal species in other words number 325 bp (base pairs mutation rate ) in a given generation time period has only 4 choices ( A\T\C\G ) and this changes REPEATEDLY - .
B- Conserved mutations preserved for ` optimum function of COI gene certain base pairs has to be the same- and fixed- ( meaning no coding variability allowed because that variability is NOT COMPATIBLE WITH FUNCTION OF THAT GENE and life meaning lethal- C- COI gene has total, 255 variable sites and 403 conserved sites .
So we have only 255 variable sites changing in between ( A\T\C\G ) REPEATEDLY IN ANY SPECIES OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS like a `Cycle of a clock` so you can `NOT` determine the beginning or end of any species as a life form period .”
[[I mean that if an organelle lacks, say, one component out of 1,000, it doesn’t merely work 1/1,000th less efficiently: it doesn’t work at all.]]
He should have worded that a little more carefully because evolutionists make the silly argument that it could lose a NON ESSENTIAL component and still function- Behe of course did NOT mean that losing a non essential part would result in failure- He meant that losing one IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX and necessary part would result in something being non functional. The evolutionist’s counter claims were very disingenuous because they knew exactly what he meant but misrepresented his statement
a handheld genetic test used to unmask sushi bars pawning off tilapia for tuna could deliver deep insights into evolution, including how new species... The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
If you knew sushi, like we know sushi.
Thanks CondorFlight.
Dead link now, but the archive has probably been moved.Evolution in Your FaceLake Victoria, Africa's largest lake, is home to more than 300 species of cichlids. These fish, which are popular in aquariums, are deep-bodied and have one nostril, rather than the usual two, on each side of the head. Seismic profiles and cores of the lake taken by a team headed by Thomas C. Johnson of the University of Minnesota, reveal that the lake dried up completely about 12,400 years ago. This means that the rate of speciation of cichlid fishes has been extremely rapid: something on average of one new species every 40 years!
by Patrick Huyghe
Omni
That will be tough since he died last month.
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."
The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
Oh yeah. I completely forgot.
The idea that most species alive today evolved relatively recently should not be surprising at all. Just look at the climate pattern: Most everything (life) has been repeatedly pruned back by repeated bouts of truly harsh climate (extensive periods of glaciation and drought).
There is also the need to standardize an exact definition of “species”. Do these Cichlid fish breed amongst each other? Can they interbreed? Is there an actual major genetic difference among the cichlids or are they actually sub-species.
It was even shown that although Darwin’s Finches did not like interbreeding with the other finch “species”, they were able to when reproductively isolated and produced variants mid way between the parent finches.
This is a very loose definition of species and can be used to prove almost anything in evolutionary terms.
“Has anyone ever seen evolution?” Shut up. No questions allowed.
I DO so wish they would make up their minds!!
Not yet; I'd think.
If Evolution EVER worked; then it is STILL working today.
So just WHERE are all of these ‘mutated changes’ that should be all about us?
We’ve been told that most of these changes do NOT advance a specie; so where are today’s bad ones?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.