Nothing "fake" about it.
Lucy was a 3.2 million years ago female of the hominin species Australopithecus afarensis, meaning: more ape-like than human but apparently of our line, not a chimpanzee ancestor.
Posted on 06/10/2018 2:20:23 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at techtimes.com ...
It does indeed.
This is exactly what the fossil record shows. An explosion of life all around the planet.
It's entirely likely that some species accumulate DNA changes faster than others and equally likely that scientists today have only a vague idea of how fast that is.
So their claim that 90% of current species originated from 100,000 to 200,000 years ago may simply mean they've assumed the same rate of change for all species and defined the new species with the same number of DNA changes.
Further, we're not told, of the remaining 10% how many were more recent than 100,000 years and how many more ancient than 200,000 years.
My guess would be equal numbers in both categories.
Again, my point is: word definitions of "species" and assumed rates of change are at the bottom of this study.
So I'd take it with a grain or two of salt.
Nonsense.
This study is based on all the assumptions, theory and data of evolution.
It's results help confirm evolutionary hypotheses.
In a few thousand years people on Mars will discover 90% of animals came ‘into existence’ around the same time ... AND that ‘all the links’ between their creatures are missing...
They all came down from the mother ship at the same time?
Nothing "fake" about it.
Lucy was a 3.2 million years ago female of the hominin species Australopithecus afarensis, meaning: more ape-like than human but apparently of our line, not a chimpanzee ancestor.
Answer: all of them, without exception.
Well, we know this much for sure - life did NOT ‘evolve’ on our planet. It was either God or it was aliens... it wasn’t ‘chance’ or evolution.
THERE ARE NO “MISSING LINKS” between ANY of the species on this planet.
“Scientists” are wrong. Darwin was wrong. There’s drift but ZERO evidence of one species turning into another...
Thanks for posting that again.
It was an eye-opener to me when I first saw it, and still a source of amazement.
I'm beginning to suspect "junk science"...?
PIF: "...they are really looking at mitochondrial DNA: Why should mitochondria define species?"
I'd assume mitochondrial DNA is easier to work with than nuclear DNA, thus quicker to accumulate a database on 100,000 species.
My guess is that others are doing similar, but more detailed full-DNA studies, which will perhaps give more granularity to these very vague conclusions.
Nonsense.
Every piece of evidence we have, without exception, suggests that every species we see today descended from previous species and those from earlier species, genera, families, orders, etc.
Of course you are free to close your eyes and proclaim: "I see nothing", if that's your choice.
Nevertheless, the evidence remains.
____________________
In which direction?
;-)
Yes a chimp ancestor. Please give us one fossil piece of evidence of a transitory species.
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/x0714_lucy_fails_test.html
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/a-look-at-lucys-legacy/
Earth is about 6000 years old
________________
From your mouth to no one's ears.
From God’s Word to my brain
Once again evidence proving Darwinists wrong just like Marxists. Pushing a false god to enslave people to man’s laws.
Rush is not the only one who makes this mistake! I teach General Biology, among other things, at our local community college. Although I really emphasize in lecture that it is not an accurate statement, you would be surprised at how many of my students pick it in a multiple choice question as the best summary of the theory of evolution.
Variation within species is one thing.
Evolution is another entirely.
Taking observed variation within species and extrapolating evolution out of it is presumptuous at best and not supported by actual evidence.
To make it easy, just focus on the human being. Show me any evidence anywhere that a change in the normal number of chromosomes in a human being has ever had either a positive or neutral effect instead of being deleterious.
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.