DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Everena]

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.

Trust biologists only then. Watch and see what the future holds.

[Amarok]

Trust biologists only then. Watch and see what the future holds.

Nope

[Everena]

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

---

 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

I did and none of them refute anything. One of them is completely off topic and the other three confirm what I said. 

[Amarok]

I did and none of them refute anything. One of them is completely off topic and the other three confirm what I said. 

You clearly didn't . They were all on topic . All of them refute your propaganda .

[Everena]

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 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.

[Amarok]

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.

Too bad that's not happening and yes will stay atheist because god has not been proved in the slightest

[Everena]

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

So what is your take on these recent findings?


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]

After having your ass kicked by Jorm you then leap to an already refuted argument . None of that challenges evolution as i already showed.

[Angrboda]

The whole pattern can be explained much more easily by saying that a lot of new species evolved over the last few hundred thousand years. That would not be surprising, because most species are indeed fairly young.

We don't know for sure how long the average species lasts, partly because the fossil record is imperfect and partly because we don't have a firm definition of what a species is anyway. But it's been estimated that species typically last somewhere between 500,000 and 10 million years. It follows that a lot of species on Earth must have originated in the last few hundred thousand years. For instance, polar bears have been estimated to be about 400,000 years old as a species.

Stoeckle and Thaler's findings would have us believe that 90 per cent of species are less than 200,000 years old. I don't think their mitochondrial DNA data is enough to show that, and studies of whole genomes and fossils will give us more reliable dates that I would expect to be older. But they won't be that much older. Given that the planet has been in and out of glacial periods over the last 2.5 million years, plus all the upheavals caused by humans and our extinct relatives, the finding that most species alive today are fairly young shouldn't surprise us.

(Forbes)

[Everena]

After having your ass kicked by Jorm you then leap to an already refuted argument . None of that challenges evolution as i already showed.

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.

---

The whole pattern can be explained much more easily by saying that a lot of new species evolved over the last few hundred thousand years. That would not be surprising, because most species are indeed fairly young.

We don't know for sure how long the average species lasts, partly because the fossil record is imperfect and partly because we don't have a firm definition of what a species is anyway. But it's been estimated that species typically last somewhere between 500,000 and 10 million years. It follows that a lot of species on Earth must have originated in the last few hundred thousand years. For instance, polar bears have been estimated to be about 400,000 years old as a species.

Stoeckle and Thaler's findings would have us believe that 90 per cent of species are less than 200,000 years old. I don't think their mitochondrial DNA data is enough to show that, and studies of whole genomes and fossils will give us more reliable dates that I would expect to be older. But they won't be that much older. Given that the planet has been in and out of glacial periods over the last 2.5 million years, plus all the upheavals caused by humans and our extinct relatives, the finding that most species alive today are fairly young shouldn't surprise us.

(Forbes)

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.