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."

[HarleyD]

is a sample of 100,000 valid to draw conclusions for the other 79,900,000 species?

It is possible that a sample size of 100,000 may be enough to draw a proper conclusion. It depends on the sampling criteria and methodology used. That is often why analysts will use a sampling error deviation (e.g. + or - 3%).

The problem with today's political polling methodology (and other polls) is that people deliberately skew the sampling to favor their views never reporting the bias of their own statistics. If a person polls 70% Democrats, then the polls will not be accurate (which is what happens today).

[dubyagee]

Nonsense.
Every piece of evidence we have, without exception, suggests that every species we see today WAS CREATED BY THE AUTHOR OF LIFE and THEREFORE earlier species, genera, families, orders, etc. CONTAIN SIMILAR BUILDING BLOCKS.

Of course you are free to close your eyes and proclaim: “I see nothing”, if that’s your choice.
Nevertheless, the evidence remains.

Funny how that works both ways.

[PIF]

This is the original study - don’t know if it states how they made their sampling criteria and methodology. Perhaps is is something you might be interested in reading

https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: " 'Scientific' is a term that defies reason when used to describe the arbitrary constructs of arbitrary ‘biology.’"

Your scare quotes notwithstanding, I see nothing defiant of reason or arbitrary about biological classifications.
Yes, recent DNA analyses have shown more complexity in such classifications than previously suspected, but they are still very reasonable categories for understanding the natural realm.

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "No! vast stretch job!
Naming establishes nothing but a common term of reference to provide linguistic stability.
It means absolutely nothing more.
Its basis is pure assumption."

I see nothing defiant of either reason or Bible in naming biological categories -- i.e., breed, species, genus, family, order, etc.
But perhaps you know of some Biblical verse on this matter that I've overlooked?

[BroJoeK]

bray: "Name one transitory fossil.
Otherwise you are just another lying atheist."

Sorry, I let you get away with calling me an atheist the first time, and should not have done that, my fault.
But far greater Christians than I am were called "atheists" in ancient times by polytheistic Greeks & Romans whose many gods could be seen in any temple.
Jews & Christians had only one God and He is invisible, which to their pagan neighbors was the functional equivalent of atheism.

Of course ancient Christians could not see their God, but they did see His handiworks in nature and in the lives of human beings.
Just as today we see His handiwork everywhere, in our lives and in natural-science, regardless of how much bray or atheistic scientists may deny it.

As for naming transitory fossils, there's no need, since every single one, without exception, is transitory, just as bray, you yourself are transitory between your ancestors and descendants, if any.
So I name you, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

bray: "If this article is true it is over for you atheists and will have to admit there is a God.
That will put a major dent on the Marxist atheist model."

Now bray, you are just braying insanely.
Take a deep breathe, calm yourself, pray for wisdom to overcome your own inherent stupidity.
Ask for guidance to defeat your mindless hatred of what you have no understanding.

This article may be technically true, but it does not really say what you think it says.
It really only says that by those particular scientists' definition of "species", most of today's species would be defined as something else prior to 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Regardless, it has nothing to do with your allegations of atheism or Marxism or any other mindless insult you'd care to hurl.

[bray]

Transitory means moving from one species to another like a dog becoming a horse. Quit playing word games, there are no transitory species and this article is proving the Bible correct.

There are so many major holes in the theory it is beyond a fraud and why would any Christian support it? It is simply a manmade explanation to eliminate God from the equation which is why atheists love it.

[BroJoeK]

Reily: "Here’s a list
It’s an incomplete list..."

Bray has a logical game he wishes to play with you wherein he "proves" those fossils are not really transitory.
Or, more likely, he'll simply say you can't prove they are, so they're not.

But the key point to grasp is that every individual, without exception and every fossil too, is "transitional" between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
All of us without exception have minor, mostly harmless, DNA mutations which our parents & ancestors did not have, but which our descendants will inherit, along with their own new mutations.
Multiplied times thousands of generations these accumulating mutations allow for adaptations to new physical conditions -- for examples, high altitudes or malaria or milk from livestock.

But bray will only bray at all that, making it nearly useless to attempt educating him (or her).

[BroJoeK]

raiderboy: "zero."

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it's not science.

[Armscor38]

Can you name one that isn’t.

[BroJoeK]

srmorton: "As a minister's daughter and a lifelong Christian, I learned early on that the Bible is not a scientific book, but it is the history of God's relationship with man."

My mother was a ministers' daughter and neither she nor her Dad had a problem with science, considered nature all God's handiwork, regardless of what theories scientists used to explain it.

[raiderboy]

How do you know? Empirical data or anti God propaganda?

[BroJoeK]

Zulu: "Nicole Arce is either
A. Pulling our leg
B. Was high on sonething when she wrote this or
C. Doesn’t know what she is talking about."

So, are you suggesting: that "journalist" invented a catchy headline as click-bait, then adjusted her article to support the headline?

A dishonest journalist?
No, heaven forfend... say it ain't so!

;-)

[BroJoeK]

HarleyD: " it is POSSIBLE for everything to have been created basically at the same time."

Of course it's possible, anything is possible, including our young-earth creationists ideas.
But modern science is based on physical evidence, and that all, without exception, points in the direction of old-earth & evolution.
For everything to have been created at the same time, our Creator would have to have left clues suggesting a much older more natural creation process.
Then we'd need to ask "why?" and no answer for that satisfies my sense of Who & What God is.

[HarleyD]

Thanks.

[Reily]

yes I know that!

[BroJoeK]

dubyagee: [Every species] "WAS CREATED BY THE AUTHOR OF LIFE
Funny how that works both ways."

No, you said the same thing, only you meant it differently.
I agree life "WAS CREATED BY THE AUTHOR OF LIFE", but the evidence suggests He used evolution as one of His tools.

I see no reason to deny the evidence.

[HarleyD]

I’m not a “young-earth” creationist as I cannot determine when exactly the universe was created. I know some use the biblical genealogy to calculate the earth formation but I think this may be erroneous. Others say that, since the scriptures states “days” this means a literal 24 hours. Perhaps. I found this article interesting but that is about it.

Where God is concerned one cannot apply “modern science” techniques to determine the earth and His existence. If God so choose to create a world tomorrow that looked 10,000 years old and placed us there, we would believe the world was 10,000 years old and we would have all the scientific evidence to support our findings-and they would be wrong. There is nothing that will scientifically explain ax heads floating, feeding 20,000 people with a few fish and loaves, walking on water, parting of the Red Sea, etc. God goes beyond nature and scientific reason at times.

Belief in God is based upon faith. This isn’t a blind faith because there is ample evidence to point us to a creator. It is written in the scriptures that are over 4,000 years old and was confirmed by miracles after miracles. God raised Christ from the dead just as he said He would 700 years earlier in Isaiah but even today we don’t wish to believe because it doesn’t fit our “scientific” explanation. Our salvation is confirmed by the many people who have come to know their true nature and the God who forgives. And all God ask is that one understand their true nature, repent, and ask Him to forgive and heal them. God makes it real easy yet people don’t wish to take God up on the offer.

But if one thinks they are going to scientifically prove the existence of God, I think they are sorely mistaken. We walk by faith and not by sight. Those of us who have been saved know the truth. We can only pray that others will find that death is not the end of their existence and come to the saving knowledge of Christ.

[BroJoeK]

bray: "Transitory means moving from one species to another like a dog becoming a horse."

That's your own personal definition, but it's not scientific.
The scientific definition begins:

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group."

Notice it says nothing about dogs becoming horses, only that transitions share common traits with ancestors and descendants.
That means you are transitional, bray, you need look no further for examples.

bray: "Quit playing word games, there are no transitory species and this article is proving the Bible correct."

You are playing the word games, since obviously there are no dogs becoming horses, therefore by your definition no "transitions".
But science does not accept your word-game definition and instead finds many transitional fossils.

Further, this article proves nothing correct or incorrect in the Bible.
It only asserts that by our definition of "species" they last about 100,000 to 200,000 years before becoming something else.
The Bible says nothing about species or how long they last.

bray: "There are so many major holes in the theory it is beyond a fraud and why would any Christian support it?
It is simply a manmade explanation to eliminate God from the equation which is why atheists love it."

There are no "holes" in evolution theory, meaning there's no confirmed evidence anywhere which falsifies it, and nothing to suggest fraud or deceit.
As for our Christian God's invisible hand, it is no more missing from science & evolution than it was in ancient times when pagans called our ancestors "atheists" because their one God was "invisible".
He wasn't really invisible then and is not now.