It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively re

[Anguspure]

The implications for biological origins studies could be profound:

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

"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?......

In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.

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"

 

[SkyWriting]

The story is not covered by many high-brow journals at this time.

 

[pitabread]

Yeah, it was already posted here: Consider This Article

Actual study here: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf

There some suggested problems with the study itself as are outlined here: Did All Species Arise about 200,000 Years Ago?

 

[Tanj]

The story is not covered by many high-brow journals at this time.

Which high-brow journals is it being covered in? Also, what distinguishes a high-brow journal from a low-brow one?

Here's a hundred or so journals which fall under the Nature Publishing Group.
https://www.nature.com/siteindex

Perhaps you could start by classifying them.

 

[AV1611VET]

"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

Isn't this called "punctuated equilibrium"?

 

[Anguspure]

Isn't this called "punctuated equilibrium"?

Careful! PuncEq becomes a falsification of Darwins theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Careful! PuncEq becomes a falsification of Darwins theory.

Ooops! Did I blaspheme!?

 

[Shemjaza]

Careful! PuncEq becomes a falsification of Darwins theory.

It really doesn't.

PE is an explanation for some circumstances of evolution and speciation.

 

[Anguspure]

It really doesn't.

PE is an explanation for some circumstances of evolution and speciation.

PuncEq is invoked as a theory to explain of sudden appearance of novelty evident in the fossil record.

ND is falsified "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,
Darwin recognised his "theory would absolutely break down."

PuncEq recognises that certain features are not formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and so is a falsification of ND.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Careful! PuncEq becomes a falsification of Darwins theory.

PE is part of evolution theory.

 

[USincognito]

Careful! PuncEq becomes a falsification of Darwins theory.

1. No, it's no.
2. It hasn't been Darwin's theory since the 1950s.
3. PE or PunkEek are better abbreviations.

 

[USincognito]

PuncEq is invoked as a theory to explain of sudden appearance of novelty evident in the fossil record.

1. PE is not a theory.
2. No, it is not.
3. PE is used to explain why there are so few transitional fossils at the species level, yet so many above the species level.

ND is falsified "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,
Darwin recognised his "theory would absolutely break down."

1. What the heck is "ND"?
2. Quote mines aren't evidence.
3. PE has nothing to do with the appearance of "complex organs".

PuncEq recognises that certain features are not formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and so is a falsification of ND.

1. No, no no.
2. PE has nothing to do with features.
3. It has to do with transitional fossils and why we have very few at the species level, but a plethora above the species level.
4. And just want to ask again, what is "ND"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

PuncEq is invoked as a theory to explain of sudden appearance of novelty evident in the fossil record.

Not exactly.
PE explains how evolution can "accelerate" under certain conditions as well as under what kind of conditions it can "slow down".

So the "sudden appearance" is only part of it. Also note that "sudden" here, is to be understood in context of geological time. Sudden in that context does not mean "over night".

It rather means something like "500.000 years instead of 5 million".
The cambrian explosion, which is often cited as being one of those "sudden" periods (and it certainly was), lasted for a few million years for example.

ND is falsified

What do you mean by "ND"?

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,
Darwin recognised his "theory would absolutely break down."

So do you know of such an organ? If yes, then how does that demonstration go?

PuncEq recognises that certain features are not formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and so is a falsification of ND.

PE says nothing of the sort.

 

[Abraxos]

PE is part of evolution theory.

Punctuated equilibrium is a bit of a jump from gradualism displayed in the current understanding on theory of evolution. It was applied by the atheist Stephen J. Gould to account for all the missing links of fossils in the geological record.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." ~ Stephen J. Gould.

So it is claimed that there were no gradual natural processes of evolution, but by now a sudden and rapid change in speciation. The current consensus in the evolution community is gradualism, and if Stephen J. Gould was alive today Punctuated equilibria may have been something that would have been seriously looked into. But I doubt that it would gain any foothold in any real scientific investigations because there is no observable evidence to even suggest that this could happen.

I mean, have you ever seen a chicken lay a lizard egg?

Me either.

 

[Moral Orel]

1. What the heck is "ND"?

What do you mean by "ND"?

Me?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Punctuated equilibrium is a bit of a jump from gradualism displayed in the current understanding on theory of evolution.

No. The process of evolution is a gradual process.
PE is about selection pressures and the role it takes in relation to the environment.

Historically there are periods of stability (little evolutionary change) and periods of "accelerated" evolution (much evolutionary change).

The difference between those periods is NOT how evolution physically works in terms of mutations. The difference is selection pressure in relation to the environment.

In periods of ecological and geological stability, selection pressures will favour the status quo.
In periods of ecological or geological instability (like events or phenomena with disruptive effect on eco systems) selection pressures will change.

It's not that there are more mutations taking place. It's just that the status quo is no longer favoured by natural selection. At that point, evolutionary change will rapidly accumulate.

And again note, words like "rapid" here are to be taken not in context of a human life time, but in context of geological time. ie, hundreds of thousands of years!

We're still talking many generations for it to unfold.
We're still talking the gradual accumulation of micro-changes over generations.

PE is about selection pressures / natural selection.

It is NOT about the physical bio-chemical processes that bring about the initial change(s).
Or how these changes achieve fixation in genomes. Which, PE or not, always happens gradually by accumulation micro changes over generations.

So it is claimed that there were no gradual natural processes of evolution, but by now a sudden and rapid change in speciation.

As I just explained, that is utterly incorrect.
It's "sudden/rapid" in context of geological time. It is still gradual. It is still a matter of accumulating micro-changes over many generations.

PE is about selection pressures.

The current consensus in the evolution community is gradualism, and if Stephen J. Gould was alive today Punctuated equilibria may have been something that would have been seriously looked into.

You think PE has been discarded? Lol?

But I doubt that it would gain any foothold in any real scientific investigations because there is no observable evidence to even suggest that this could happen.

I mean, have you ever seen a chicken lay a lizard egg?

Me either.

Not what PE is about.
I don't think I can explain it any simpler then I already did.

Upto you what you do with it....
Either you learn from your mistake and correct your errors in understanding…

Or you continue to repeat false creationist propaganda.

Upto you...

 

[USincognito]

Punctuated equilibrium is a bit of a jump from gradualism displayed in the current understanding on theory of evolution. It was applied by the atheist Stephen J. Gould to account for all the missing links of fossils in the geological record.

Why do you think it was important to call him "atheist Stephen J. Gould"? And no, PE was meant to explain the paucity of fossils at the species level in contrast with the relative abundance above the species level.

{snip quote mine and speculation}

I mean, have you ever seen a chicken lay a lizard egg?

Me either.

Good thing. Because if we observed such a straw man in real life it would falsify evolution. And if you seriously think that PE was predicated on chickens laying lizard eggs, I can see why thought that quote mine was so compelling.

 

[Anguspure]

1. PE is not a theory.
2. No, it is not.
3. PE is used to explain why there are so few transitional fossils at the species level, yet so many above the species level.



1. What the heck is "ND"?
2. Quote mines aren't evidence.
3. PE has nothing to do with the appearance of "complex organs".



1. No, no no.
2. PE has nothing to do with features.
3. It has to do with transitional fossils and why we have very few at the species level, but a plethora above the species level.
4. And just want to ask again, what is "ND"?

ND = Neo-Darwinism

So in your view fossils do not exhibit features?

The pentadactyl limb is a feature that appears in the fossil record with no antecedant, and there is no reason nor plausible path, on natural selection acting on random mutation, by which it could have appeared with numerous slight modifications.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So it is claimed that there were no gradual natural processes of evolution, but by now a sudden and rapid change in speciation.

That's a (common) misunderstanding of PE. PE simply refers to rapid gradualism, the accelerated evolution of populations under extreme selective pressures.

The concept you may be referring to is saltation, once called 'macromutation', suggesting that a single mutation could produce a 'hopeful monster' that would be the basis for a new species. But saltation conceptually comes in two types, one impossible, and the other quite possible, which Dawkins has called the 'Boeing 747' and 'Stretched DC-8' respectively. 'Boeing 747' saltation refers to Fred Hoyle's 'tornado in a junk yard assembling a Boeing 747', and 'Stretched DC-8' saltation refers to stretching a standard DC-8 by extending the fuselage.

The difference between the two, in evolutionary terms, is a matter of adaptive complexity - the chances of a single mutation producing novel adaptive complexity (a 747 from scratch) are effectively zero, but duplicating existing structures (duplicating DC-8 fuselage sections) is not difficult (as evidenced by the variety in numbers of body segments in segmented insects, vertebrae in snakes, etc.).

 

[Brightmoon]

ND = Neo-Darwinism

So in your view fossils do not exhibit features?

The pentadactyl limb is a feature that appears in the fossil record with no antecedant, and there is no reason nor plausible path, on natural selection acting on random mutation, by which it could have appeared with numerous slight modifications.

The limb started out as octodactylic-8digits . Early “fishopods” had more than 5 digits. The pentadactyl foot/paw/hand is reduced from that earlier one . And of course some modern amniotes ( like birds) have fewer digits