Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time

[kyredneck]

"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."...."

"...In analyzing the COI of 100,000 species, Stoeckle and Thaler arrived at the conclusion that most animals appeared simultaneously...."

Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time

(check out the comments)

 

[tyndale1946]

"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."...."

"...In analyzing the COI of 100,000 species, Stoeckle and Thaler arrived at the conclusion that most animals appeared simultaneously...."

Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time

(check out the comments)

First of all I couldn't get to the comments to many ads and what does this do to the young earth theory, that scientific creationist, like myself believe?... Isn't 100,000 to 200,000 years still to long?... I believe the discovery just not the timing... Brother Glen

 

[atpollard]

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 ...

That would be 'Day 6' (Genesis 1:24-31)

 

[atpollard]

I believe the discovery just not the timing...

Be patient. They still haven't figured out that the Flood was real, so it throws their counting of 'rock layers' off.

 

[Yeshua1]

First of all I couldn't get to the comments to many ads and what does this do to the young earth theory, that scientific creationist, like myself believe?... Isn't 100,000 to 200,000 years still to long?... I believe the discovery just not the timing... Brother Glen

Compared to the time period of the Old earthier, that would still be a Young earth!

 

[tyndale1946]

Compared to the time period of the Old earthier, that would still be a Young earth!

True but only 90,000 plus years too late... I'll side with scripture and the scientific creationist but then again we weren't there... So I'll take Gods word... Brother Glen

 

[Yeshua1]

True but only 90,000 plus years too late... I'll side with scripture and the scientific creationist but then again we weren't there... So I'll take Gods word... Brother Glen

I hold with Young earth also, just not the exact date Bishup Usser came up with!

 

[atpollard]

I read the critical comments on the original article site and have been giving this some thought. Please stay with me, this is way outside my comfort zone. They were tracing maternal DNA markers for evidence of where groups of populations split off from each other to create a genetic 'tree' that can be used to estimate where they converge on a single 'original female'. Their results had two surprises.

1. Most species converged to a single female at about the same time (they expected each species to have a different age)
2. the timing of that convergence is much sooner than they had expected (the species were younger than expected)

Criticisms of their work (from geneticists) include
A. Some of their assumptions make the dating of their results suspect.
B. The article is 'junk science' because the study does not determine when the species came into existence (there are fossils alleged to be older than the DNA results) but rather simply indicate that all living females of that species are descended from a single female from that date. All other female genetic lines simply became extinct. As an example, if people refused to have children with redheaded girls, soon there would be no more redheaded girls born and the genetic line for redheaded females would become extinct.

So chewing this over for a while, I realized that if we start with "Genesis is true", then most 'kinds' of animals trace back to a single male and female on the Ark. All of the other female genetic lines would have gone extinct. If all of the wives of Noah and his sons traced back to a single woman (perhaps a common great-great grandmother), then Human female DNA would converge at about the same time the animal DNA converged (within a few generations).

So flawed assumptions may have caused them to misidentify the date, but all animals tracing to a single female at an unknown natural event (like the dinosaur killing meteor strike of '65 million' years ago) ... supports the story of Noah's Flood.

I wonder how the 10% that do not trace back to that time align with the '7 of each clean' types?

 

[Yeshua1]

I read the critical comments on the original article site and have been giving this some thought. Please stay with me, this is way outside my comfort zone. They were tracing maternal DNA markers for evidence of where groups of populations split off from each other to create a genetic 'tree' that can be used to estimate where they converge on a single 'original female'. Their results had two surprises.

1. Most species converged to a single female at about the same time (they expected each species to have a different age)
2. the timing of that convergence is much sooner than they had expected (the species were younger than expected)

Criticisms of their work (from geneticists) include
A. Some of their assumptions make the dating of their results suspect.
B. The article is 'junk science' because the study does not determine when the species came into existence (there are fossils alleged to be older than the DNA results) but rather simply indicate that all living females of that species are descended from a single female from that date. All other female genetic lines simply became extinct. As an example, if people refused to have children with redheaded girls, soon there would be no more redheaded girls born and the genetic line for redheaded females would become extinct.

So chewing this over for a while, I realized that if we start with "Genesis is true", then most 'kinds' of animals trace back to a single male and female on the Ark. All of the other female genetic lines would have gone extinct. If all of the wives of Noah and his sons traced back to a single woman (perhaps a common great-great grandmother), then Human female DNA would converge at about the same time the animal DNA converged (within a few generations).

So flawed assumptions may have caused them to misidentify the date, but all animals tracing to a single female at an unknown natural event (like the dinosaur killing meteor strike of '65 million' years ago) ... supports the story of Noah's Flood.

I wonder how the 10% that do not trace back to that time align with the '7 of each clean' types?

I have also heard that the evolutionists are very confused by the fact that we have dinosaur trails that show they migrated from one side of the earth to the other, but that there were not going back again, which would support them migrating recently, not over millions of years!

 

[tyndale1946]

I have also heard that the evolutionists are very confused by the fact that we have dinosaur trails that show they migrated from one side of the earth to the other, but that there were not going back again, which would support them migrating recently, not over millions of years!

The most interesting find to me is they have found dinosaur tracks right next to human footprints... Imagine that!... I just thought heard an evolutionists GASP!... Brother Glen

 

[Baptist Believer]

The most interesting find to me is they have found dinosaur tracks right next to human footprints... Imagine that!...

Where is that? If you are thinking of Glen Rose, Texas, then that has been disproven.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ken Ham's take on it.
Study: 90% of Species Have a Recent Origin

 

[Yeshua1]

Where is that? If you are thinking of Glen Rose, Texas, then that has been disproven.

what has not been disproven is that they have found T Rex bones with what looked like blood and fresh tissue on them!

 

[Yeshua1]

Ken Ham's take on it.
Study: 90% of Species Have a Recent Origin

Evolutionists will continue to grasp at empty straws, as they just refuse to accept the fact that there exists a God, and he is Creator and also One to whom they will one day be accountable towards!

 

[Baptist Believer]

what has not been disproven is that they have found T Rex bones with what looked like blood and fresh tissue on them!

What is that supposed to prove?

T. Rex tissue explained

"Soft Tissue" in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say?

 

[Yeshua1]

What is that supposed to prove?

T. Rex tissue explained

"Soft Tissue" in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say?

Just that Dinosaurs were contemporaries with ancient humans...

 

[Baptist Believer]

Just that Dinosaurs were contemporaries with ancient humans...

I'm sorry, how do it prove that dinosaurs lived at the same time as human beings?

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm sorry, how do it prove that dinosaurs lived at the same time as human beings?

It would prove that the Dinos were not around the ole "millions and millions" of years that Darwinist what us to believe!

 

[Baptist Believer]

It would prove that the Dinos were not around the ole "millions and millions" of years that Darwinist what us to believe!

No, actually it doesn't. I provided links that explains why (that you even reproduced in your response), so it is clear that you didn't read the links.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, actually it doesn't. I provided links that explains why (that you even reproduced in your response), so it is clear that you didn't read the links.

I do not accept the Evolutionist time scale, do you?