Quote:You showed nothing. If you think you did, please post any part of any of the articles you posted where this published work was supposedly refuted and include the citation. I'll be waiting.

Sorry were not playing that game . The articles are there they refute your propaganda . Get over it .

---

Quote:Yes, I read the opinion piece from Forbes magazine too. It proves nothing, it is not published science and it is just one journalists opinion. Obviously, what they have discovered still has to be corroborated. To me, the most important part of their findings was that species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. That alone speaks volumes.

Same answer here

---

Quote:Yes, I read the opinion piece from Forbes magazine too. It proves nothing, it is not published science and it is just one journalists opinion. Obviously, what they have discovered still has to be corroborated. To me, the most important part of their findings was that species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. That alone speaks volumes.

Same answer here

(November 28, 2018 at 3:38 pm)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:You showed nothing. If you think you did, please post any part of any of the articles you posted where this published work was supposedly refuted and include the citation. I'll be waiting.

Sorry were not playing that game . The articles are there they refute your propaganda . Get over it .

Everena: Playing a game? Nothing refutes it. I challenged you to find one part of any article that refutes it and you have nothing. They are published scientific discoveries.

Here is the Scientific Journal Human Evolution that it is published in. Live with it.

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



Yes, I read the opinion piece from Forbes magazine too. It proves nothing, it is not published science and it is just one journalists opinion. Obviously, what they have discovered still has to be corroborated. To me, the most important part of their findings was that species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. That alone speaks volumes.

(November 28, 2018 at 3:46 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Funnier still that her "important part is anything but "

5 billion species, and 99 % of all species that ever existed on Earth are extinct.
Why ?



Everena

Quote:I know you hate it that science is disproving macroevolution. Oh well. You can all still be atheists, so I don't see why you really care anyway.

There is no such thing  ... dumbass.
So if you're saying they're disproving something that NO SCIENTIST in the field even recognizes as a valid concept, you're making yourself look even more stupid that you imagine.
You can find NOT ONE academic article by someone working in the field that uses the word "macroevolution". That should be a leetle hint for you stupido.

(November 28, 2018 at 3:56 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: 5 billion species, and 99 % of all species that ever existed on Earth are extinct.
Why ?

---

Piss-poor design ... and no Tasty Plants     

---

Everena

Quote:I know you hate it that science is disproving macroevolution. Oh well. You can all still be atheists, so I don't see why you really care anyway.

There is no such thing  ... dumbass.
So if you're saying they're disproving something that NO SCIENTIST in the field even recognizes as a valid concept, you're making yourself look even more stupid that you imagine.
You can find NOT ONE academic article by someone working in the field that uses the word "macroevolution". That should be a leetle hint for you stupido.

Because they included mold spores, bacteria, plants, and fungi into that 5 billion species, and they are not even conscious life.

---

(November 28, 2018 at 4:04 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 3:56 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: 5 billion species, and 99 % of all species that ever existed on Earth are extinct.
Why ?

---

Piss-poor design ... and no Tasty Plants     

---

Everena

There is no such thing  ... dumbass.
So if you're saying they're disproving something that NO SCIENTIST in the field even recognizes as a valid concept, you're making yourself look even more stupid that you imagine.
You can find NOT ONE academic article by someone working in the field that uses the word "macroevolution". That should be a leetle hint for you stupido.

Because they included mold spores, bacteria, plants, and fungi into that 5 billion species, and they are not even conscious life. Totally misleading.

Also, you are totally wrong about the term macroevoltion too.  Read for yourself.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar...cle/evo_48

https://biologydictionary.net/macroevolution/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4590474/

Quote:Everena: Playing a game? Nothing refutes it. I challenged you to find one part of any article that refutes it and you have nothing. They are published scientific discoveries.


Here is the Scientific Journal Human Evolution that it is published in. Live with it.

You are playing a game . It has been refuted . Your challenge is invalid. I already refuted it . Yes published science that got wrong . 

Read the article and already posted responses that show you are wrong . Live with it

---

Macroevulation has not been refuted

(November 28, 2018 at 4:03 am)Everena Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 3:51 am)Amarok Wrote: Nope it just fine the way it is and will continue long after the Fad of ID and it's pop science books fade into nothing .

They are having to change the entire foundation due to findings in the past decade. It's on it's way out.

Nice.

(November 28, 2018 at 4:04 pm)Everena Wrote: Because they included mold spores, bacteria, plants, and fungi into that 5 billion species, and they are not even conscious life.

---

But according to YOU, your fool god went to all the trouble to design them, now didn't she ?
Still waiting for you to point to where in the articles it says what you claim.

(November 28, 2018 at 1:07 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 3:09 am)Everena Wrote: Nope. Explain, in your own words, from your own understanding of it, how the complexity of DNA could ever possibly come about without an intelligent driving force.

Sorry, but  don't feel like chewing your food for you today.

---

(November 28, 2018 at 3:12 am)CDF47 Wrote: No He did not.

What did God tell man would happen if he ate from the magical knowledgeberry bush? What did the serpent say would happen? And what actually happened?

God lied like a cheap rug.

They did end up dying as God said they would.

---

(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. 

Another great article.  Yeah, macroevolution is history.

---

(November 28, 2018 at 3:56 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: 5 billion species, and 99 % of all species that ever existed on Earth are extinct.
Why ?

---

Piss-poor design ... and no Tasty Plants     

---

Everena

Quote:I know you hate it that science is disproving macroevolution. Oh well. You can all still be atheists, so I don't see why you really care anyway.

There is no such thing  ... dumbass.
So if you're saying they're disproving something that NO SCIENTIST in the field even recognizes as a valid concept, you're making yourself look even more stupid that you imagine.
You can find NOT ONE academic article by someone working in the field that uses the word "macroevolution". That should be a leetle hint for you stupido.

https://www.google.com/search?q=macroevo...e&ie=UTF-8