DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Everena]

It is exactly what it means, but we have no observable evidence of it because it allegedly  occurs over millions of years. Therefore, all they have examples of are microevolution aka adaption.

Here's the link from CARM since you don't believe Nakara's definition:

Macroevolution is evolution on a large scale, above the species level, over a long period of time that results in new species and/or new body plans. Microevolution is evolution on a small scale, below the level of species.

The paper you posted is all about how macroevolution happens. Congratulations! You win!

Nope. You are so ridiculously ignorant, it is scary. And there is no paper or anything else that definitively proves that one species has turned into to an entirely different species. You are only fooling yourself.

---

That is left to the parents because there is a separation of church and state (at least here in the United States) but the country of Turkey and the country of Israel have both decided to stop teaching evolution in their public schools. This was the first semester without it for Turkey.

That should tell you that ID isn't science. It's religion.

No kidding. That does not mean science cannot be as a tool used to prove it is true.

---

I read the paper. It in no way addresses my question and you quite obviously cannot come up with any answer.

Do you understand complexity yet?

I understand that you are going to defer to a strawman argument instead of attempting to answer the question.

---

Stoekle and Thaler's biggest problem is probably that they aren't actually observing speciation. They're tracing a single gene (COI) in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed down solely through the maternal line. The result is that they keep bumping into "mitochondrial Eve", a statistical effect whereby a female ancestor eventually becomes the single female ancestral lineage for an entire species. Human mitochondrial Eve was alive 120,000 to 150,000 years ago, which agrees perfectly with their data. They're likely seeing the same phenomena in all the other species. No population bottlenecks or speciation events required, they just traced the last matrilineal most recent common ancestor. That's actually a bit disappointing.

Citation please?
And are you claiming to be smarter than they are? The article explains their findings well.

https://popular-archaeology.com/article/...l-kingdom/

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.


From the Scientific Journal Human Evolution:

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


News:
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/

[Amarok]

1. The authors are both clearly accept evolution and clearly have not abandoned the theory 

2. The paper is clearly using evolution (macro) as a solution 

3. This Article neither tries nor succeeds in undermining evolution

4. I already refuted it

---

What species, (that are not plants), have you observed diverging?

BAM 2 second Google search:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sci...ervations/

Also, why can't plants be used as examples? Are only they allowed to evolve but not animals?

Because in her wacky view only things that are like us count ....

---

Oh yeah, the agenda.  I don't think so.  Children should be allowed to hear the contradictory views of science and not the BS that is crammed down their throat.  I wonder why they never talk about FBI Cointelpro in high school history or CIA MK Ultra.

Nope it's agenda driven and isn't remotely about " other views "

---

All of those animals are conscious except perhaps sponges (that are basically plants too- yeah I said it). What exactly makes someone like you think they aren't?

By what definition of the term is a barnacle conscious?

And so here definition flies further off the beaten track

[Everena]

[quote='Amarok' pid='1860245' dateline='1543452712']
1. The authors are both clearly accept evolution and clearly have not abandoned the theory 
     Yes, and every scientist has to until the theory is disproven.

2. The paper is clearly using evolution (macro) as a solution 
      False
3. This Article neither tries nor succeeds in undermining evolution
    Also false
4. I already refuted it
Also False. You only confirmed it with blogs.

[CDF47]

Oh yeah, the agenda.  I don't think so.  Children should be allowed to hear the contradictory views of science and not the BS that is crammed down their throat.  I wonder why they never talk about FBI Cointelpro in high school history or CIA MK Ultra.

You want to teach YOUR children contradictory views to actual, established science, you fucking go for it.  Don't try to push your bullshit on everyone elses kids and try to call it fucking science.

ID is a CLAIM.  Not even a scientific theory.

But, once again, it's amazing how you morons play the fucking victim or claim "conspiracy" when judgements go against YOUR agenda.

Boo -fucking - hoo.  The vast majority of scientists accepts evolution because it has overwhelming supporting evidence.  It is testable, verifiable, and observable.  Whereas ID is accepted by some people who don't have qualifications in the required field and perhaps a handful of people who do.

I suppose you would support prayer or faith "healing" over modern medicine, too.

ID is science.

[Everena]

BAM 2 second Google search:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sci...ervations/

Also, why can't plants be used as examples? Are only they allowed to evolve but not animals?

Plants are not conscious life. And all your article has examples of are plants. Where's all the proof of divergence in animals that you claimed?

[Amarok]

1. The authors are both clearly accept evolution and clearly have not abandoned the theory 
     Yes, and every scientist has to until the theory is disproven.

Lol nope they believe it because it's true and your conspiracy nuttery is just that

2. The paper is clearly using evolution (macro) as a solution 
      False

True 

3. This Article neither tries nor succeeds in undermining evolution
    Also false

True

4. I already refuted it
Also False. You only confirmed it with b

True i showed you were wrong

---

Plants are not conscious life. And all your article has examples of are plants. Where's all the proof of divergence in animals that you claimed?

Still counts and no one cares if you don't like it .

[Everena]

By what definition of the term is a barnacle conscious?

Seems conscious enough:

" The sessile lifestyle of barnacles makes sexual reproduction difficult, as the organisms cannot leave their shells to mate. To facilitate genetic transfer between isolated individuals, barnacles have extraordinarily long penises⁠. Barnacles probably have the largest penis to body size ratio of the animal kingdom.[11]

Barnacles can also reproduce through a method called spermcasting, in which the male barnacle releases his sperm into the water and females pick it up and fertilise their eggs.[13]

The Rhizocephala superorder used to be considered hermaphroditic, but it turned out that its males inject themselves into the female's body, degrading to the condition of nothing more than sperm-producing cells.[14

[Amarok]

You want to teach YOUR children contradictory views to actual, established science, you fucking go for it.  Don't try to push your bullshit on everyone elses kids and try to call it fucking science.

ID is a CLAIM.  Not even a scientific theory.

But, once again, it's amazing how you morons play the fucking victim or claim "conspiracy" when judgements go against YOUR agenda.

The judge was a church-going conservative appointed by Dubya. If you can't win with that much of an advantage then you don't have much of a hope. Naturally, he got death threats for his ruling.

Yay i remember their boasting and praising of the judge and how he was going to rule in their favor then he rules against them and all of a sudden he's a demon sent directly from hell .

---

Seems conscious enough:

"  The sessile lifestyle of barnacles makes sexual reproduction difficult, as the organisms cannot leave their shells to mate. To facilitate genetic transfer between isolated individuals, barnacles have extraordinarily long penises⁠. Barnacles probably have the largest penis to body size ratio of the animal kingdom.

Barnacles can also reproduce through a method called spermcasting, in which the male barnacle releases his sperm into the water and females pick it up and fertilise their eggs.

The Rhizocephala superorder used to be considered hermaphroditic, but it turned out that its males inject themselves into the female's body, degrading to the condition of nothing more than sperm-producing cells.[14

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnacle#cite_note-14][/url]And the track becomes ever rougher

[Paleophyte]

Here's the link from CARM since you don't believe Nakara's definition:

Macroevolution is evolution on a large scale, above the species level, over a long period of time that results in new species and/or new body plans. Microevolution is evolution on a small scale, below the level of species.

The paper you posted is all about how macroevolution happens. Congratulations! You win!

Nope. You are so ridiculously ignorant, it is scary. And there is no paper or anything else that definitively proves that one species has turned into to an entirely different species. You are only fooling yourself.

Tell it to the paper about the mechanisms of speciation that you cited.

That should tell you that ID isn't science. It's religion.

No kidding. That does not mean science cannot be as a tool used to prove it is true.

Clearly you do not understand science.

Do you understand complexity yet?

I understand that you are going to defer to a strawman argument instead of attempting to answer the question.

No, I am simply making sure that you understand the words that you have used to ask the question. If you don't understand what complexity is then you may as well have asked how glomerocrysts coalesce in a trondjhemite. And if you don't understand your question then there's precious little point in wasting my time answering it is there?

Try this link instead.

Stoekle and Thaler's biggest problem is probably that they aren't actually observing speciation. They're tracing a single gene (COI) in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed down solely through the maternal line. The result is that they keep bumping into "mitochondrial Eve", a statistical effect whereby a female ancestor eventually becomes the single female ancestral lineage for an entire species. Human mitochondrial Eve was alive 120,000 to 150,000 years ago, which agrees perfectly with their data. They're likely seeing the same phenomena in all the other species. No population bottlenecks or speciation events required, they just traced the last matrilineal most recent common ancestor. That's actually a bit disappointing.

Citation please?
And are you claiming to be smarter than they are? The article explains their findings well.

Paleophyte (2018). I'm not claiming to be smarter than anybody, I'm just offering one interpretation of their data. I'm certain that you're capable of clicking on that link I posted and learning about mitochondrial Eve and how it's just a statistical effect within populations. Alternately, you could employ Google to find your own sources of information.

https://popular-archaeology.com/article/...l-kingdom/

I particularly enjoyed the section titled, "Evolutionary bottlenecks: the fresh new beginning of a species" Do you read anything that you cite?

[Everena]

1. The authors are both clearly accept evolution and clearly have not abandoned the theory 
     Yes, and every scientist has to until the theory is disproven.

Lol nope they believe it because it's true and your conspiracy nuttery is just that  

False, every scientist has to until their theory is disproven. They are working on the assumption that it is true and we all know microevolution has been proven.

2. The paper is clearly using evolution (macro) as a solution 
      False

True 
False and if you really think so, prove it.

3. This Article neither tries nor succeeds in undermining evolution
    Also false

True
False, and it says so right in the first couple lines of the article. Still needs to be corroborated though.

4. I already refuted it
Also False. You only confirmed it with blog

True i showed you were wrong
Nope, you showed I was right and that you didn't even read what you were posting.

---