Not sure why this isn't making bigger news:

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22...-same-time.htm

Landmark new research that involves analyzing millions of DNA barcodes has debunked much about what we know today about the evolution of species.

In a massive genetic study, senior research associate at the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University Mark Stoeckle and University of Basel geneticist David Thaler discovered that virtually 90 percent of all animals on Earth appeared at right around the same time.

More specifically, they found out that 9 out of 10 animal species on the planet came to being at the same time as humans did some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

"This conclusion is very surprising," says Thaler, "and I fought against it as hard as I could."

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-s...evolution.html

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.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-s...ution.html#jCp

when he says "appeared at the same time" I am assuming he doesnt mean, appeared out of nowhere. They evolved from previously existing species

evolution sure is cool, eh?

Cambrian explosion or go home tho

I'd be interested in whether this is true or similarly true for other points in time i.e. if we did a genetic study of creatures on Earth 2m years ago, would we find that 90% of them had only been around for x years.

What a poorly-written article. It's the opposite of, "paragraphs are your friends."

Stoeckle seems to think that's the case, but the article doesn't expand beyond saying, ""It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

ever read a book on evolution? they can't agree on anything at all.

I'm not sure that's the argument you want to make. I'm pretty sure there are fewer evolutionary sects than religious sects, and the disagreements are on fine details, not the fundamental issues.

Um, not even close to being true.

Let's take a really basic question like how many gods there are. Some religions say hundreds of thousands, others say only one.

I think you mean to say "evolved", not "appeared". Well, unless you think the study is total bunk.

And at the "same time" is a time-span of a 100 000 years.

The big question is of course, if you looked at life X years ago or Y years from now... would you find something similar?

So if a random new species of spider evolves, I'm assuming they count, yet the article says 90% new animals. Just sounds misleading. Nonetheless, Earth is a very dynamic place and life does everything it can to adapt it. To illustrate, the Sahara was a tropical place 6000 years ago, and Earth came out of a mini ice age 20k years ago. Given how environmentally unstable Earth really is over 10s of thousands of years, it's not that surprising to learn about so much new life in a span of 100s of thousands of years.

It didn’t make the news because anything that supports creation is suppressed...

More like 100% of animals appeared at the same time intelligently designed and created!

Research transitory fossils.. Darwin literally says we would find them and we never did. There’s no proof of any animal evolving there’s no intermediary steps aka no proof!

Thus science is a belief system.. dare I say religion

Of course cus it’s a theory and not proven

Adaptation does not equal evolution.. adaptation is used as proof but adaptation doesn’t mean evolution.

We didn’t come from monkeys and we certainly don’t live on a spinning ball

assertion does not equal fact/proof

True

Do your own research and wake up

Given that this study was given a lot of press, the conspiracy theories are silly.

And no, it doesn't debunk or hurt evolution, it is after all a study based on evolution. That would be like saying general relativity debunked gravity.

The central issue is if given a specific time period on earth, would it look any different or likely look any different. If it doesn't, then this actually has hard-hitting ramifications for our species. As such it is certainly an issue worthy of more research.

An important debate that shouldn't be side-tracked by religious propaganda.

And Obama turned the frogs gay.

Try to go one day without trolling

Try to go one day without obsessively following me. Creepy stalker dude.

Trust me, I don't follow you. You just happen to show up in a lot of threads trolling people and it gets real old real quick.

What calculation did they use to ascertain the 100,000 years ?

The first thing they do is to presume that evolution will do its thing, and that while it might be random across individual evolutionary events it will when you look at it as a whole be fairly statistically even.

An analogy could be looking at a shower... you might not be able to predict exactly where a drop will be going, but it will be fairly easy to predict how wet your bathroom will be at a given point in time after having turned it on.

Then they look at the genetic fingerprints of a specific type of DNA and then they compare how different they are. If we continue with our shower analogy, right after you turn it on you'd expect to see a fairly centered dispersal pattern with only a few outliers... but the longer it has been turned on, the more random splashes would be landing further away from the initial pattern. Thus by looking at the pattern, you could make a fairly educated guess as to how long your shower has been running.

And these people are reporting a less diverse collection of fingerprints than expected. This basically points to a large scale extinction event having taken place, something that made a lot of species go extinct and left a more equal set of genetic fingerprints behind (presumably more similar species share some traits that make them more resistant to that specific event). To continue with the analogy... we are certain the shower was turned on half an hour ago, but these guys showed us that the main dispersion of water (except a few wet spots here and there) points to it only having run for 2 seconds... thus we presume something happened to most of the previous water before those 2 seconds started.

There are of course caveats to their method. If we continue with our analogy, you would be supposing a very specific type of showerhead, a very specific pressure of water, a specific layout of your bathroom and so forth. It wouldn't fit if any of those presumptions were wrong. This is of course why they use language such as "suggests that" and "requires more research". It is not "this is exactly what happened", it's more "this is worth looking into more closely".

Thanx

By the way that's some spigot they've got, wouldn't mind having one in my home .