Suppose the fossil record shows that a species has been around for times longer than humans but according to the researcher's assumptions for this article of how genes should change, the genetic analysis indicates the species has been around for only about as long as humans! Should we then conclude the physical evidence in the fossil record is wrong absurd! It seems obvious to me we should conclude the latter.
That is why I said the fossil record should be regarded as a much more reliable indicator of a species age than any mere genetic analysis alone although genetic analysis might still be useful to give us clues to the species's age when the species's age isn't clear from the fossil record due to a rarity of fossilization of that species. That k modern animal species, as well as humans having basically the same or similar DNA material, which indicates that their existences began within a relatively shorter timeframe than we were led to believe, is obviously a source of confusion and possible irritation to the many who are exclusively loyal to Darwinism.
I don't blame you for reacting to the article and the news that runs counter to what you and so many others had been taught and learned to accept as unequivocal fact. But it still is YOUR choice to accept the results or not accept. Darwin loyalists - take heart. Modern animal species could not have thrived and flourished in the world as it was 66Ma.
However, if there had been similar species who somehow survived the dinosaur age, they would have had to adapt to the conditions or die off. Species do evolve to adapt to changes in conditions. Given the best circumstances, at least some of them might have survived all the way up to modern times.
That k modern animal species, as well as humans having basically the same or similar DNA material, which indicates that their existences began within a relatively shorter timeframe than we were led to believe, No, it doesn't indicate that. It seems that the researchers were able to come up with the k - k figures as the beginning or starting point of their age timelines only because of current DNA technology.
Perhaps the researchers were far more interested in the current species of today and whether or not those species were derived from animals with close similarities who had existed millions of years ago but were now extinct, OR they realized that today's life forms, including man, could not have changed so drastically within the timeframes when they allegedly had evolved from an ancestral melting-pot of environmentally or climate-generated changes to their cells.
But such possible changes, depending on their severity good or bad should not have been too drastic. Cats did not become dogs and vice-versa even though they share a certain percentage of DNA. Cats remained as cats, in spite of evolving in size and other cellular changes. Incidentally, the Creator of whose existence you and others perpetually challenge, just happens to BE a Scientist, and the Original One at that.
The Creator experiments with life forms that He created, and then allows to evolve. The Earth evolves also and all that is in it. I will give the researchers a chance and see what else they come up with that I can agree with. The research paper is reviewing a contentious area [ https: First, obviously non-evolutionists and panspermists will find no support in this paper as it is based on and confirm evolution and reject other claims.
It is for example limited to animals. Second, basing sweeping generalisations about species and eukaryote species on a medium long barcode - biased to provide a convenient amount of recent variation - region on a single adaptive gene in non-germ, multiple lineage replicating mitochondria is difficult. I was on a symposium yesterday where the suggestion was to use the core gene set of all sufficiently clean sequence material, in which case important differentiation do not map well to taxonomy such as "species", it happens at different distances from the leaves in the phylogenetic tree of sequences.
But at the same time they make their claim solely based on parsimony. Which we use only when we have insufficient data or model. It is true that the human mitochondrial coalescent is kyrs old [ https: But we know the species is at least 1. The site saturation problem that metingunduz mentions is a possibility, it happens in general and has to be accounted for.
- azubi speed dating mönchengladbach 2013.
- dating jacksonville fl.
- dating someone in med school long distance.
- lesbian dating apps singapore.
I am sorry I cannot be more helpful. My tip would be to discuss the paper if you have the means to do so. But to stay away from drawing other conclusions in an open area. I don't know where the hell you got that from! You need to study just a bit about the science before commenting on it. You may get started with these two links explaining how fossils are normally dated; https: That is because fossils aren't normally if ever dated that way! And the reason why they share most of their DNA is because they share a common ancestor, NOT that one evolved from the other.
They evolved from that common ancestor. You clearly have complete ignorance on evolution theory. Again, You really need to study just a bit about the science before commenting on it else all you will be doing is exposing you complete ignorance and that will certainly NOT convincing us of your religion! Please bother to actually STUDY the theory you criticize before commenting on it so at least you know what that theory is.
When DNA is the Matchmaker | Fortune
I wish they allow more time to correct errors. Relative dating is used to determine a fossils approximate age by comparing it to similar rocks and fossils of known ages.
Absolute dating is used to determine a precise age of Stars wouldn't form, explode and become Black Holes. As I said about Religionists who don't believe in Evolution, etc. Your desire to negate any possibility of an outside Force that arrived at this planet to create a PROGRAM that could collect a certain amount of required chemicals that were advantageous to the beginning of motile life is understandable. Your indoctrination and freedom not to accept any alternative ideology as to the Beginning of Life in this planet is noted. While I don't pretend to be an expert in Evolution I do agree that it has happened and is continuing.
Darwin's doing - he only came to its realisation. I hope to continue to stay on this topic and possibly learn more from the researchers. Religions are all man-made and thus Religions are fallible and subject to the whims of men and their desires whether good or evil. Homosexuality and paedophilia within the Roman Catholic Church nauseates me and my family just as any form of hypocrisy.
Rate variation is a problem
As it is also practised within many other Religions, I choose not to attend such blasphemous structures. I have no quarrel with atheists and agnostics as long as they are not harmful to others. They can say all that they wish to say about "belief in the Creator" but that is THEIR choice and they will know the consequences one day. Nevertheless, they may not be the ancestors of present-day living animals, including H. I have discussed this conundrum with others, and there is a possibility that the huge majority of land animals who were alive in the dinosaur age were also extinguished during or after the asteroid hit at Chicxulub.
If may have taken until k - kya to create NEW species to replace that which had died off. That would leave several million years in which there may have only been some plant life until conditions on Earth required the creation of new life Do you get it now? Perhaps I am just a Purist and expect far too much from Science methods.
I will need to give much more leeway toward inaccuracy, whether deliberate or not, in the Dating process. For me, it is the vast difference between my childhood telescope and the HST. That would be silly of me, wouldn't it. But I was attempting to bring the idea that, as mammalian species died in the dinosaur age, many more were CREATED to replace those species who did not survive.
A "created" specie could have had far more superior genetics than its similar predecessor. Creation does not require birth.
Dating branches on the Tree of Life using DNA
I was attempting to bring the idea that, as mammalian species died in the dinosaur age, many more were CREATED to replace those species who did not survive. There is no evidence for this. There isn't even evidence there is a 'god' to make it even possible. But there is evidence for evolution. Given that evidence for evolution and absence of evidence for the existence of a 'god', by far the simplest least assumptive explination is that they simply evolved. There is even evidence in the fossil record of certain lizard species example; Procynosuchus that are almost certainly the either the direct ancestor of or a close relative of the ancestor of all mammals including ourselves.
If you don't believe me, read for yourself; https: What difference would that make to you?
Ancient DNA
Would that change any of your beliefs? And exactly what percentage would be just sufficient to satisfy you and why that specific figure rather than some other specific figure? Going through the comments, there are 15 mostly leaning towards creationism and 19 pro-evolution. Can you guess which side in that debate uses ad hominem argument?
You are here
Species can be created just as well as the first cells in the waters of Earth were created millions of years ago. Life is not static. It adapts, changes and hopefully progresses. I spoke about "the Creator". Gods are a manmade projection of the human mind to allay mens' fears of the unknown. The Creator Himself is an autonomous Being who does not need humans in order to exist. He does not require the mind of men to conjure Him up. He exists and has always existed. While the life forms of Earth were continuing to evolve, those who died out were recreated in the distant future, i.
As Homo ergaster, Homo erectus and all the other Homo experimental models died out unfit to become the dominant specie , after conditions were better for life to be created and evolve, the Creator again created a new experimental model, the Homo Sapiens specie. The skeletons of all the Homo species are available for your perusal.
Have a good look. For me it would make a huge difference in that it would alleviate any doubt I would have about the accuracy, methods, performance and dedication of the researchers, not to mention their honesty. I have come by my beliefs after long deliberation employing logic, reason and the knowledge that mistakes in writing can be made through miscomprehension of timeframes and events. He exists and has always existed..