Fascinating Study on Origin of Modern Species

1. 60

   Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

   Just read this fascinating study.
   
   https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/06/0 … y-declares
   
   In a nutshell, it claims that 9 out of 10 species on earth came into being almost simultaneously, in the grand scheme of things. At first glance, God comes to mind. But, for you atheists, take that out of the equation and you realize how precious and fragile our current ecosystem, as well as our species, is.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Very interesting! 90 percent of species evolved within the last 100-200 thousand years. I don't know what to make of something like that.

      replyreport
   2. 73

      mrpopoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Wait, why would you need God to explain this?
      
      More than 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. It makes sense that the ones still around today are the ones that evolved most recently.
      
      Edit: Maybe I'm missing something but I also don't see how this points to our ecosystem/species being fragile. Many major evolutions (like mammals) happened after mass extinction events, and these would have occurred in the same time-frame.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         The God comment was the point that a believer usually firsts thinks of God's influence.
         
         But, I don't think either of you grasps the implications. Almost all species. The currently held belief that species spread across the globe and become more diverse is wrong. What is, is. Species have clear genetic boundaries prohibiting 'in-between' species.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            "The currently held belief that species spread across the globe and become more diverse is wrong."
            
            Is that not nearly the definition of the word "evolution", and exactly what is being described: species became more diverse. 
            
            The problem with the complaint that there are no "in between" species is that there are, but as soon as they are found then the two on either side is suddenly the concern for they are missing.  We will never, ever have fossil records of every mutation of every animal.  At best we find ancestors (whereupon the 'in-between' is always and forever missing), and that's exactly what we have.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               They don't disperse across the globe and become diverse, according to this study of DNA. Could you read the article? It isn't a slow progression of tiny mutations which eventually completely change the population into something different, depending on global location.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  If a species mutates, creating a new attribute that survives alongside the old ones, then it is more diverse by definition.
                  
                  How do you know it isn't a slow progression of tiny mutations/changes?  Because we didn't find every 'in-between' step?  Do you think the article is claiming a horse came directly from a bacteria in one step?  Or from dust?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     I think the article was quite clear in its interpretation of the findings. Slow mutational changes are not indicative of the progression of life. Quick bursts create new species which are unique and that uniqueness is unchanging, during the existence of that species.
                     
                     The article isn't disputing the idea of evolution, it is pointing out that it does not work the way you believe. It isn't a slow progression of change and a slow progression does not create new species. Not from the DNA evidence reviewed. And this was a very large study of DNA from a wide range of species.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Uniqueness is unchanging?  And yet we see changes all the time, including in the Human species!
                        
                        But for sure evolution can happen in big bursts.  Not from an ant to an elephant, but certainly from one species to another, similar but far from identical one.  Consider how long it took from the death of dinosaurs to thousands of mammal and bird species.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Uniqueness is not 'unchanging' in all ways. Adaptation to the environment is an element of evolution but it is not indicative of a species changing into another form which becomes a unique species in its own right.  We have no verifiable or observed evidence of that.
                           
                           I don't really understand what your beef is with the findings in the article, or why you don't find this amazing. Almost all species are the same age, genetically speaking. That is huge. I'll add some quotes, since I get the impression you didn't tap on the link.
                           
                           Furthermore, the pair’s study turns on its head the long-held notion that species with large populations spread over the globe — again, humans, for example — will become more genetically diverse over time, AFP said.
                           But Stoeckle told the outlet that’s not the case, noting that animal genetic diversity is generally “about the same.”
                           
                           What they saw was a lack of variation in so-called “neutral” mutations, which are the slight changes in DNA across generations that neither help nor hurt an individual’s chances of survival.
                           
                           In other words, they were irrelevant in terms of the natural and sexual drivers of evolution.
                           
                           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? 
                           
                           The author of the study admits he fought against accepting the findings because they were so completely at odds with current belief on the process of evolution.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              But I don't have a beef with the article: I said it doesn't surprise me.  I do have some beef with the amazement that it is likely true, though, for I can think of no reason it should not be true. 
                              
                              I do think there is some...manipulation, if you will...with the terminology of "species".  For instance, you say there is no evidence of animals evolving into a different species, but that is patently false.  It hasn't happened in my lifetime (that I know of) but it has certainly happened in the last 10,000 years.

                              replyreport
                           2. 73

                              mrpopoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              "Adaptation to the environment is an element of evolution but it is not indicative of a species changing into another form which becomes a unique species in its own right.  We have no verifiable or observed evidence of that."
                              
                              How can you claim that when you're referencing an article that states 90% of all species came into being 100-200,000 years ago? Where did those species come from, if not from an ancestral species? The actual scientific article talks about speciation mechanisms itself.
                              
                              After briefly reading the actual scientific article and being elucidated by this comment on Facebook, I realized that (unsurprisingly) the headline of the media article is incorrect. Here's the comment:
                              
                              "This article's headline is hilariously, irresponsibly inaccurate. The authors of this study don't conclude anything resembling the "90% of species appeared within the past 200,000 years" nonsense that this article conjures from thin air. It is effectively concluding that most animals have had a "mitochondrial Eve" in the past 200,000 years (that is, an ancestor from whom all modern individuals of that **already extant** species have inherited their mitochondrial genomes). Don't get your science news from unreliable news sources, folks."
                              
                              I highlighted the relevant point. Most species descended from their most recent common ancestor (MRCA) in the past 100-200,000 years. But that species was already existing prior to the MRCA. Any one of today's species will likely have existed prior to 100-200,000 years ago. In other words, they are not necessarily genetically the same age.
                              
                              One other thing that caught my attention: the article talks about bottlenecks (which the authors discussed as a mechanism for "clonal" populations) and intentionally conflates it with mass-extinction events. A mass-extinction event can cause a bottleneck, but is not the only means of causing a bottleneck.
                              
                              Based on the article's penchant for taking things out of context, I'm going to assume the authors were also taken out of context and that their positions are more nuanced.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 Thanks for the link. I'll read it when I have time. I get the impression that both you and wilderness have the idea that my understanding of the article is life arose in that time frame (which is far from the case). I'm simply fascinated that life, as we know it, all appeared simultaneously. Not life. Life as we know it. And from your post, from a mitochondrial eve in each species.  Can't wait to see where this new revelation leads the search.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    No, it was always understood you know that life began long before modern species appeared.

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 73

                                    mrpopoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    I thought that might have been the case earlier when you said "Almost all species" without qualifying the species on Earth today. This is a common misunderstanding in other comments I came across.
                                    
                                    But your position is probably best summed up by this (correct me if I'm wrong):
                                    
                                    "I'm simply fascinated that life, as we know it, all appeared simultaneously."
                                    
                                    This was more or less what I thought the article was claiming earlier, but there's a difference between MRCAs appearing simultaneously, and modern species appearing simultaneously. "Life as we know it" can mean one or the other. It just goes to show how easy it is to take scientific claims out of context if we don't use precise language.
                                    
                                    I do think it's an interesting discovery but I am not equipped enough to know its implications or why the author "fought hard" against the claim.

                                    replyreport
         2. 73

            mrpopoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Almost all species on Earth today. As in, the 0.01% of species that isn't yet extinct had ancestors that appeared roughly 200,000 years ago. Maybe in a few hundred years from now most life on Earth today will not exist in their current form. I don't see what's controversial about this time-frame, although I don't have a 'proper' time-frame in mind. Like the author says:
            
            “It is more likely that — at all times in evolution — the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently.”
            
            Makes sense because it's unlikely that a species will continue to exist for millions of years without change. All it takes is another species to become better at filling the niche and that other species either goes extinct or evolves (which would also indirectly result in the ancestral species going extinct).
            
            PS: I'm not sure what you mean by "in-between" species. Typically it's a a "god of the gaps" argument used by Creationists, but it doesn't make sense to use here. In this case the "in-between" species would have existed 100-200,000 years ago i.e. the ancestor which the descendant evolved from. I imagine that clear species boundary probably refers to species on a different branch in the tree of life, and probably in a very particular context regarding mitochondrial DNA. This is also why I take it with a grain of salt whenever I read media proclaiming sensationalist scientific claims.

            replyreport
2. 95

   wildernessposted 6 years ago

   Makes sense to me.  That kind of time period is plenty to produce new species, and we've seen some pretty large local (as in continental) environmental changes during the period to drive it along.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Really? 9 out of 10 species on earth today? I find it incredible.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I don't.  How many died in the mini ice age just a few years ago?  How many died because their food source disappeared then?  How many were lost when the Sahara came into being?  How many did man wipe out in just the last 50,000 years, some of which left open niches that are now filled?
         
         Those environmental "disasters" produced a new environment, an environment which is now filled.

         replyreport