Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

phys.org ^ | May 28, 2018 | Marlowe Hood

[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.

[null and void]

The Genesis account is so vague it can include most everything

Yes. At the time if was the age appropriate answer to the question that is cosmic/spiritual equivalent of 'where do babies come from?'...

[null and void]

Yes! The devil really is in the details, billions of ancestors, hundreds of fossils. A lot of intermediate forms simply weren’t preserved. Some had some slight edge, or just the luck, to pass on their genes.

I don’t favor the hopeful monster theory, we’re all hopeful monsters!

What little we can glean from the fossil record seems to say that punctuated equilibrium rules not the day, but the aeon. Vast stretches of time pass with little changes in species. Then there is a burst of diversity.

To me this makes sense, most of the time the environment is stable, and there is no need to adapt to an environment you’re already well adapted to.

Then something changes, sea level drops enough to expose a dry path between continents allowing the mutual invasions of critters from one land mass to another, a meteor hits, volcanoes erupt, ice sheets grow, or?

Now the old rules don’t apply. Some populations have enough diversity to allow better adapted members to survive and further adapt.

Some don’t.

All of mine did...

[sargon]

The first chapter of the Gospel of John is probably my favorite in the entire Bible.

The Apostle John—beautifully and profoundly—skips over the sentimental details and gets right to the core of who Jesus Christ is and why He came.

The first several verses are simply mind-blowing—and so very poetic. You can sense the unshakeable faith and supreme certainty in the writer that what he is conveying is transcendent Truth...

[sargon]

What little we can glean from the fossil record seems to say that punctuated equilibrium rules not the day, but the aeon. Vast stretches of time pass with little changes in species. Then there is a burst of diversity.

This is not my field at all, but of course the skeptics would say that PE is a very convenient way of rationalizing away the distinct lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

You raise an interesting point though with respect to environmental stability. It would seem logical that if some researcher could convincingly prove a direct relation between sudden or extreme environmental change and the periods when the "equilibrium" is "punctuated", then they might be "cooking with oil" on the likely validity of PE.

Has such a correspondence ever been demonstrated? Your comments seemed to imply that it hasn't. If so, then the skeptics still have some good points to make about the lack of transitional fossils.

That's just my "agnostic" layman's view (in these fields) of the current debate regarding PE...

[Mrs. Don-o]

Punkt Eek!

So did mine.

[Joshua]

If you’d like to ‘see’ evolution, this is a good experiment: link *************************************************
Here’s an even better one
Genesis 1:1

[YogicCowboy]

Thanks for the laugh!

[Elsie]

Ice ages cause a rather dramatic environmental impact on species. Life of today is composed of those species which somehow managed to survive the last Ice Age. HEat wave!!

That's what kills off everything; haven't you read the papers??

[Elsie]

Get off your ass and spend time in the field.

I'll leave it to the 'experts' to do the leg work.

I'll await the massage of actual DATA so that it will support their notion of How Things Work.

[Elsie]

It is easiest to observe in plants but it takes work and time in the field

So; which type of 'life' was the first to appear; plants or animals?

---

Now that we have a starting point how did one evolve into the other?

[Elsie]

All of mine did...

...so far...

[bert]

First of all, that is not exactly what happened.

Again, If you truly seek to know the answer, an insight lies in the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies. Fortunately, after the discovery of these oldest of fossils, they were studied over decades. Gould's book Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History is the story of the men who made the studies and what they accomplished. It is an extremely interesting endeavor requiring years and years of dedication. Many here don't like stephen gould but this book is not his research. He is writing about the Burgess Shale scholar's efforts and then describes what was discovered.

As a teaser for you, one of the fossils is the first known chordate..... backbone. that would be our early ancestor. I think that since the initial discoveries, there might be one or two fossils that predate that ancestor.

There is an opportunity for a road trip to the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller Alberta. The location is in the middle of the most fertile dinosaur fossil producing strata on earth and has lots and lots of full dinosaur skeletons. The answer to your evolutionary questions can largely be answered by a visit to this truly world class museum.

[SunkenCiv]

Talk about Bait and switch...

[Bellflower]

Only about 94 thousand years off, nothing in a believer of the therory of evolution’s mind set.

[Elsie]

First of all, that is not exactly what happened.

Well; A for effort!

Nice segue into an answer to a question I did not ask.

---

Which appeared first on our planet?

Oxygen for animals to breathe or CO² for plants to inhale?

[Elsie]

I see what you did here!

[Elsie]

The answer to your evolutionary questions can largely be answered by a visit to this truly world class museum.

I'd MUCH rather sit in front of my terminal and try to get answers from True Believers.

[bert]

I know, I know, but your efforts are in vain.

I know you are capable, but resistant to my efforts at enlightenment.