RE: DNA Proves Existence of a Designer
November 28, 2018 at 8:41 pm
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2018 at 8:56 pm by Everena.)
(November 28, 2018 at 8:04 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: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.(November 28, 2018 at 7:43 pm)Everena Wrote: 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!
(November 28, 2018 at 8:32 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:(November 28, 2018 at 8:27 pm)Everena Wrote: 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.
(November 28, 2018 at 8:30 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:(November 28, 2018 at 8:17 pm)Everena Wrote: 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.
(November 28, 2018 at 8:21 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: 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.
(November 28, 2018 at 6:10 pm)Everena Wrote: 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/