(November 28, 2018 at 1:40 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 3:32 am)CDF47 Wrote: Great article.  Thanks for sharing.

You're welcome. This latest discovery from just this year is even better. 


And who would have thought to trawl through five million of these gene snapshots—called "DNA barcodes"—collected from 100,000 animal species by hundreds of researchers around the world and deposited in the US government-run GenBank database?
That would be Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who together published findings last week sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds.

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.
For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.

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.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?
Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean
To understand the answer, one has to understand DNA barcoding. Animals have two kinds of DNA.
The one we are most familiar with, nuclear DNA, is passed down in most animals by male and female parents and contains the genetic blueprint for each individual.
The genome—made up of DNA—is constructed with four types of molecules arranged in pairs. In humans, there are three billion of these pairs, grouped into about 20,000 genes.
But all animals also have DNA in their mitochondria, which are the tiny structures inside each cell that convert energy from food into a form that cells can use.
Mitochondria contain 37 genes, and one of them, known as COI, is used to do DNA barcoding.
Unlike the genes in nuclear DNA, which can differ greatly from species to species, all animals have the same set of mitochondrial DNA, providing a common basis for comparison.
Mitochondrial DNA is also a lot simpler, and cheaper, to isolate.
Around 2002, Canadian molecular biologist Paul Hebert—who coined the term "DNA barcode"—figured out a way to identify species by analysing the COI gene.

"The mitochondrial sequence has proved perfect for this all-animal approach because it has just the right balance of two conflicting properties," said Thaler.

In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans.

How similar or not these "neutral" mutations are to each other is like tree rings—they reveal the approximate age of a species.


Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?


And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.

"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.


https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Stoeckl...0final.pdf

http://www.pontecorboli.com/digital1/hum...e-species/


https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-surve...ution.html

https://www.news.com.au/technology/scien...50bd7bd7f0

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/humans...-same-age/


Like I said, it looks like the Theory of Evolution with regards to macroevolution is on it's way out. 

No one would give two shits what an ignorant troll says who mischaracterizes everything she reads.
There is NOTHING you can point to in those articles that says anything about what you claimed.
Sucks to be a Valley Girl who is *that* stupid*.

I spell fungi 'E-V-E-R-E-N-A'.

(November 28, 2018 at 1:54 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 1:40 pm)Everena Wrote: You're welcome. This latest discovery from just this year is even better. 


And who would have thought to trawl through five million of these gene snapshots—called "DNA barcodes"—collected from 100,000 animal species by hundreds of researchers around the world and deposited in the US government-run GenBank database?
That would be Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who together published findings last week sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds.

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.
For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.

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.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?
Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean
To understand the answer, one has to understand DNA barcoding. Animals have two kinds of DNA.
The one we are most familiar with, nuclear DNA, is passed down in most animals by male and female parents and contains the genetic blueprint for each individual.
The genome—made up of DNA—is constructed with four types of molecules arranged in pairs. In humans, there are three billion of these pairs, grouped into about 20,000 genes.
But all animals also have DNA in their mitochondria, which are the tiny structures inside each cell that convert energy from food into a form that cells can use.
Mitochondria contain 37 genes, and one of them, known as COI, is used to do DNA barcoding.
Unlike the genes in nuclear DNA, which can differ greatly from species to species, all animals have the same set of mitochondrial DNA, providing a common basis for comparison.
Mitochondrial DNA is also a lot simpler, and cheaper, to isolate.
Around 2002, Canadian molecular biologist Paul Hebert—who coined the term "DNA barcode"—figured out a way to identify species by analysing the COI gene.

"The mitochondrial sequence has proved perfect for this all-animal approach because it has just the right balance of two conflicting properties," said Thaler.

In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans.

How similar or not these "neutral" mutations are to each other is like tree rings—they reveal the approximate age of a species.


Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?


And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.

"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.


https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Stoeckl...0final.pdf

http://www.pontecorboli.com/digital1/hum...e-species/


https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-surve...ution.html

https://www.news.com.au/technology/scien...50bd7bd7f0

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/humans...-same-age/


Like I said, it looks like the Theory of Evolution with regards to macroevolution is on it's way out. 

No one would give two shits what an ignorant troll says who mischaracterizes everything she reads.
There is NOTHING you can point to in those articles that says anything about what you claimed.
Sucks to be a Valley Girl who is *that* stupid*.

The poison of the internet decent science it picked up by the incredulous to support their nonsense

(November 28, 2018 at 8:31 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 1:13 am)Everena Wrote: Hey CDF47. Here is another great article from a world famous chemist 
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...evolution/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. [/color]


On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

Apparently, if I'm reading Tour's statement correctly, he doesn't understand that evolution does not include abiogenesis.. 

It is his understanding of molecular chemistry. He is saying no scientist understands how macroevolution could possibly ever happen. 


"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “No,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it."


I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”



And this is from his website:

I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (sometimes called “ID”) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments and I find some of them intriguing, but I prefer to be free of that intelligent design label. As a modern-day scientist, I do not know how to prove intelligent design using my most sophisticated analytical tools— the canonical tools are, by their own admission, inadequate to answer the intelligent design question. I cannot lay the issue at the doorstep of a benevolent creator or even an impersonal intelligent designer. All I can presently say is that my chemical tools do not permit my assessment of intelligent design.

I have written a long article on the origin of life: . It is clear, chemists and biologists are clueless. I wrote, “Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory. The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.” Note that since the time of my submission of that commentary cited above, articles continue to be published on prebiotic chemistry, so I will link to my short critiques of a few of those newer articles so that the interested reader can get an ongoing synthetic chemist’s assessment of the proposals: [/url].

---

(November 28, 2018 at 1:54 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 1:40 pm)Everena Wrote: You're welcome. This latest discovery from just this year is even better. 


And who would have thought to trawl through five million of these gene snapshots—called "DNA barcodes"—collected from 100,000 animal [url=https://phys.org/tags/species/]species by hundreds of researchers around the world and deposited in the US government-run GenBank database?
That would be Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who together published findings last week sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds.

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.
For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.

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.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?
Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean
To understand the answer, one has to understand DNA barcoding. Animals have two kinds of DNA.
The one we are most familiar with, nuclear DNA, is passed down in most animals by male and female parents and contains the genetic blueprint for each individual.
The genome—made up of DNA—is constructed with four types of molecules arranged in pairs. In humans, there are three billion of these pairs, grouped into about 20,000 genes.
But all animals also have DNA in their mitochondria, which are the tiny structures inside each cell that convert energy from food into a form that cells can use.
Mitochondria contain 37 genes, and one of them, known as COI, is used to do DNA barcoding.
Unlike the genes in nuclear DNA, which can differ greatly from species to species, all animals have the same set of mitochondrial DNA, providing a common basis for comparison.
Mitochondrial DNA is also a lot simpler, and cheaper, to isolate.
Around 2002, Canadian molecular biologist Paul Hebert—who coined the term "DNA barcode"—figured out a way to identify species by analysing the COI gene.

"The mitochondrial sequence has proved perfect for this all-animal approach because it has just the right balance of two conflicting properties," said Thaler.

In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans.

How similar or not these "neutral" mutations are to each other is like tree rings—they reveal the approximate age of a species.


Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?


And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.

"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.


https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Stoeckl...0final.pdf

http://www.pontecorboli.com/digital1/hum...e-species/


https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-surve...ution.html

https://www.news.com.au/technology/scien...50bd7bd7f0

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/humans...-same-age/


Like I said, it looks like the Theory of Evolution with regards to macroevolution is on it's way out. 

No one would give two shits what an ignorant troll says who mischaracterizes everything she reads.
There is NOTHING you can point to in those articles that says anything about what you claimed.
Sucks to be a Valley Girl who is *that* stupid*.

It is published science in the Scientific Journal of Human Evolution. This latest discovery just happened a few months ago. Still needs to be corroborated, then, good riddance to macroevolution.

This response does not challenge any of the criticism lodge at you

(November 28, 2018 at 2:03 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 8:31 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Apparently, if I'm reading Tour's statement correctly, he doesn't understand that evolution does not include abiogenesis.. 

It is his understanding of molecular chemistry. He is saying no scientist understands how macroevolution could possibly ever happen. 


"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “No,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it."


I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”



And this is from his website:

I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (sometimes called “ID”) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments and I find some of them intriguing, but I prefer to be free of that intelligent design label. As a modern-day scientist, I do not know how to prove intelligent design using my most sophisticated analytical tools— the canonical tools are, by their own admission, inadequate to answer the intelligent design question. I cannot lay the issue at the doorstep of a benevolent creator or even an impersonal intelligent designer. All I can presently say is that my chemical tools do not permit my assessment of intelligent design.

I have written a long article on the origin of life: . It is clear, chemists and biologists are clueless. I wrote, “Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory. The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.” Note that since the time of my submission of that commentary cited above, articles continue to be published on prebiotic chemistry, so I will link to my short critiques of a few of those newer articles so that the interested reader can get an ongoing synthetic chemist’s assessment of the proposals: [url=http://inference-review.com/article/two-experiments-in-abiogenesis][/url].

---

(November 28, 2018 at 1:54 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: No one would give two shits what an ignorant troll says who mischaracterizes everything she reads.
There is NOTHING you can point to in those articles that says anything about what you claimed.
Sucks to be a Valley Girl who is *that* stupid*.

It is published science in the Scientific Journal of Human Evolution. This latest discovery just happened a few months ago. Still needs to be corroborated, then, good riddance to macroevolution.

1. You can point to nothing in what you posted as having said anything about what you claim.
2. You are SO f'ing dumb that you can't even read an article and know what you're reading.
3. Sucks to be a bimbo on that scale.

(November 28, 2018 at 2:03 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 8:31 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Apparently, if I'm reading Tour's statement correctly, he doesn't understand that evolution does not include abiogenesis.. 

It is his understanding of molecular chemistry. He is saying no scientist understands how macroevolution could possibly ever happen. 

That's your understanding of what he is saying, and there appear to be plausible alternatives to that interpretation. If you have him actually making statements to the effect that macroevolution is not chemically possible, unambiguously, then please present them. It is no mystery how chemistry and physics supports the possibility of mutations and gene duplication, so his difficulty with macroevolution would have to lie elsewhere, which would take it out of his area of expertise.

You have your interpretation, but I trust your interpretations about as far as I can throw an Asian water buffalo.

(November 28, 2018 at 1:50 pm)Amarok Wrote: Too bad Eva argument again evolution flops 

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018...e-a-point/

https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/did-9...man-beings

https://www.realclearscience.com/quick_a...elves.html

Hell some creationists have an issue with it 

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2018/06/ar...e-age.html



And Macro evolution is fine

Macroevolution has never been fine, and one species turning into an entirely different species  has always been an unproven theory, full of tons of speculation and conjecture, and with no substantial proof. Also your first article has nothing to do with the most recent findings and your second and fourth articles are blogs that do not refute the current findings. Your third article is the same as my articles. READ

Neither Everdumb or her sidekick what's-his-name can refute ANYTHING here:

Quote:Macroevolution has never been fine, and one species turning into an entirely different species  has always been an unproven theory, full of tons of speculation and conjecture, and with no substantial proof.

Macro evolution is fine as long as you are not ignorant on it . It's a well supported theory full of evidence and sound reasoning with lots of substantial evidence behind it . Unlike ID which has always been unproven and is nothing but speculation conjecture .

See i can assert shit too

---

Quote: Also your first article has nothing to do with the most recent findings and your second and fourth articles are blogs that do not refute the current findings. Your third article is the same as my articles. READ

Actually all my articles refute your propaganda READ