“Consensus” theory of evolution of the species falls apart


darkbeaver
#1
(Natural News) A surprising new study is casting serious doubt on the popular theory that modern animals are the result of millions of years of evolution. After looking at the mitochondrial DNA of thousands of animal species, including humans, researchers reached the stunning conclusion that nearly every species dates back just 100,000 to 200,000 years.
The study was carried out by the University of Basel ’s David S. Thaler and The Rockefeller University ’s Mark Young Stoeckle. According to the conventional narrative of evolution involving adaption based on genetic mutations and survival of the fittest, one would expect older species and those with big populations spread across the planet to have greater genetic variation. However, the researchers actually found that 90 percent of the animal species have mitochondrial DNA variation that is similarly low.
 
Cliffy
+1
#2  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

(Natural News) A surprising new study is casting serious doubt on the popular theory that modern animals are the result of millions of years of evolution. After looking at the mitochondrial DNA of thousands of animal species, including humans, researchers reached the stunning conclusion that nearly every species dates back just 100,000 to 200,000 years.
The study was carried out by the University of Basel ’s David S. Thaler and The Rockefeller University ’s Mark Young Stoeckle. According to the conventional narrative of evolution involving adaption based on genetic mutations and survival of the fittest, one would expect older species and those with big populations spread across the planet to have greater genetic variation. However, the researchers actually found that 90 percent of the animal species have mitochondrial DNA variation that is similarly low.

Reality as we know it is a colossal lie. Rockefeller is one of the major investors in perpetrating that lie. Evolution does not happen on the physical plane. We are now in a state of devolution as witnessed by the right wing evangelical movement that inflates Trump's ego.
 
darkbeaver
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Reality as we know it is a colossal lie. Rockefeller is one of the major investors in perpetrating that lie. Evolution does not happen on the physical plane. We are now in a state of devolution as witnessed by the right wing evangelical movement that inflates Trump's ego.


I,ll smoke with that. The Catholic Corporation of Earth long time ago made sure history was corrected for market stability. Another butchering burning fukkin Empire what needs to receed.


100 to 200 thousand years? They,re talking creation first and then evolution instead of Darwins half wit idea, which he was lucky to get away with. I look at megalithic stone works all the time, circumglobaly they share technique and technology, geometry and execution, right down to weaving of fabrics and the written word. At times very great floods obtained, sometimes it was very warm sometimes it was very cold and sometimes it was just right. There are rock works all over this planet ruins and still standing that exibit CNC construction. Chunks of unimaginable weight and size, machined for sure. Reverse engineering proves this without doubt. You can,t have this if you don,t have that. Poured stone in molds, any kind you like as well. Napoleon tried to eradicate the evidence of Eygptian tech, he faild, he couldn,t even begin to undo or hide ancient Eygpt. Academic archeology of today are little else than a club of bald faced liars and worthless dog fukkers of the lowest orders. They will tell you with a straight face that Cheops was built by loin clothed slaves weilding bronze chisels and you better not put anything else but that on your exam or you aint going to move ahead, so they help with the retardation of humanity and get paid for it.
Last edited by darkbeaver; Jun 12th, 2018 at 08:44 PM..
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

(Natural News) A surprising new study is casting serious doubt on the popular theory that modern animals are the result of millions of years of evolution. After looking at the mitochondrial DNA of thousands of animal species, including humans, researchers reached the stunning conclusion that nearly every species dates back just 100,000 to 200,000 years.
The study was carried out by the University of Basel ’s David S. Thaler and The Rockefeller University ’s Mark Young Stoeckle. According to the conventional narrative of evolution involving adaption based on genetic mutations and survival of the fittest, one would expect older species and those with big populations spread across the planet to have greater genetic variation. However, the researchers actually found that 90 percent of the animal species have mitochondrial DNA variation that is similarly low.

Sure like to know what ecological catastrophy occurred between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago to drive the appearance of do many new species. It may have also required something like exceptionally vigorous solar activity to irradiate the planet and generate a wide range of mutations, some of which would have ended up as viable species.

A massive nuclear war could have done that, too.
 
Cliffy
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Sure like to know what ecological catastrophy occurred between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago to drive the appearance of do many new species. It may have also required something like exceptionally vigorous solar activity to irradiate the planet and generate a wide range of mutations, some of which would have ended up as viable species.

A massive nuclear war could have done that, too.

According to the Vedas there was a nuclear war many thousands of years ago between Vishnu and some sky gods.
 
petros
#6
Malarkey!
 
Bar Sinister
#7
I don't see anything in that study to contradict evolution. All the study says is that evolution occurred more rapidly than previously thought. Of course, it will be subjected to peer review just as all new theories are and it is entirely possible that flaws maybe found in the study. And in any case it definitely does not support creationism.
 
Curious Cdn
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

I don't see anything in that study to contradict evolution. All the study says is that evolution occurred more rapidly than previously thought. Of course, it will be subjected to peer review just as all new theories are and it is entirely possible that flaws maybe found in the study. And in any case it definitely does not support creationism.

Increased environmental pressure should increase the rate of species adaptation. A period of deep drought or, say, an ice advance should increase !ortality and opportunity for mutations to gain footholds.

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Malarkey!

That's Irish, not Vedic.
 
darkbeaver
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Sure like to know what ecological catastrophy occurred between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago to drive the appearance of do many new species. It may have also required something like exceptionally vigorous solar activity to irradiate the planet and generate a wide range of mutations, some of which would have ended up as viable species.

A massive nuclear war could have done that, too.


Well there is the old "let there be light", which certainly did occur. You and I both being creations certainly must have been created. What could have been mutated if the mitocondrial DNA has that 200,000 suggested year of origin? Could Noah and cargo have been from some other planet? Keep in mind my previous post about the technicle perfection of stone blocks of 1400 tons and more at Balbek for instance.










Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

I don't see anything in that study to contradict evolution. All the study says is that evolution occurred more rapidly than previously thought. Of course, it will be subjected to peer review just as all new theories are and it is entirely possible that flaws maybe found in the study. And in any case it definitely does not support creationism.


You can,t accept any novelty can you? Of course you know what that means. How many millions of times faster do you think evolution occured. If only you could become educated about the mistaken idea of settled science. Perhaps your evolution has ceased.
 
Hoid
#10
So does this study speculate that the species that appeared 100- 200,000 years ago simply appeared fully formed and had no antecedents?

That seems rather difficult to believe.
 
spaminator
+1
#11
 
Cliffy
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminator View Post

We are the aliens, at least alien DNA is what we have in common, not the "out of Africa" nonsense.
 
Torch light
#13
New species still appear every now and then, in many areas .. in many countries; this observation is denied by many rigid minded, but worth to be studied and investigated.

The Way in Which Some Animals and Man Were Created
http://www.quran-ayat.com/retort/ind...h_My_Own_Eyes_
quran-ayat.com/retort/index.htm#I_Saw_with_My_Own_Eyes_

One of my friends said he too saw some of such creation-place near a river .. in a place where a dog had dug a place for it in a hill of sand or soil near a river.

He said his older brother told him: Yes, it is here created.
His mother also affirmed this: Yes, my son; such mice or rats are created near the river. [i.e. they are familiar with such observations]

A farmer from Samarra in Iraq said he also had seen a similar observation.

In addition, every now and then we hear about the appearance of some weird animal in a region where it is not familiar .. like the snakes or others

A kind of blue or grey poisonous snakes appeared in a region (of idolaters: those enthusiastic about the imams) and started to bite them causing the death of some of them; and inserting great fear among them, like this kind of snakes:

Last edited by Torch light; Jun 13th, 2018 at 05:46 PM..
 
taxslave
#14
I know a lady lives on Gabriola Island that is convinced that area has a high rate of alien spacecraft coming and going. Having seen many of the inhabitants of some of the islands in the area I can not totally dismiss her claim.
 
darkbeaver
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

So does this study speculate that the species that appeared 100- 200,000 years ago simply appeared fully formed and had no antecedents?

That seems rather difficult to believe.


It does dosn,t it. Unless our history is not perfectly accurate, not settled science perhaps. There is DNA that gets very little attention however and some weird bones and some strange mumified bodies poping up in caves and crypts, all shoved aside because they do not meet concensus. The important thing to keep in mind is that we did get here and we persist.
 
Curious Cdn
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Torch light View Post

New species still appear every now and then, in many areas .. in many countries; this observation is denied by many rigid minded, but worth to be studied and investigated.

The Way in Which Some Animals and Man Were Created
http://www.quran-ayat.com/retort/ind...h_My_Own_Eyes_
quran-ayat.com/retort/index.htm#I_Saw_with_My_Own_Eyes_

One of my friends said he too saw some of such creation-place near a river .. in a place where a dog had dug a place for it in a hill of sand or soil near a river.

He said his older brother told him: Yes, it is here created.
His mother also affirmed this: Yes, my son; such mice or rats are created near the river. [i.e. they are familiar with such observations]

A farmer from Samarra in Iraq said he also had seen a similar observation.

In addition, every now and then we hear about the appearance of some weird animal in a region where it is not familiar .. like the snakes or others

A kind of blue or grey poisonous snakes appeared in a region (of idolaters: those enthusiastic about the imams) and started to bite them causing the death of some of them; and inserting great fear among them, like this kind of snakes:

When did all of that "wolverine" enter your genome?
 
Bar Sinister
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Well there is the old "let there be light", which certainly did occur. You and I both being creations certainly must have been created. What could have been mutated if the mitocondrial DNA has that 200,000 suggested year of origin? Could Noah and cargo have been from some other planet? Keep in mind my previous post about the technicle perfection of stone blocks of 1400 tons and more at Balbek for instance.







You can,t accept any novelty can you? Of course you know what that means. How many millions of times faster do you think evolution occured. If only you could become educated about the mistaken idea of settled science. Perhaps your evolution has ceased.


Let me see. from you post I conclude that you are a creationist and someone who thinks ancient people were incapable of carving stone. I think that disqualifies you on two counts. Reply to me when you read up on evolution and archeology.
 
Torch light
#18
The atheist or disbeliever chooses to believe in the 'natural selection' while he did not see it for certain and in reality; only he desires to cling to such theories and explanations... and he speaks loudly as if it is a fact and as if he saw it with his eyes.. and even he challenges others to deny it.

While the believer or what is called the 'creationist' sees all God's marvels and he believes and his belief increases in spite of the denial of atheists .. so this is the testing or checking or examining of either the faith or disbelief.

The atheist does not see and he in spite of this accepts such concepts .. and the believer sees the marvels and he believes.
 
Bar Sinister
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Torch light View Post

The atheist or disbeliever chooses to believe in the 'natural selection' while he did not see it for certain and in reality; only he desires to cling to such theories and explanations... and he speaks loudly as if it is a fact and as if he saw it with his eyes.. and even he challenges others to deny it.

While the believer or what is called the 'creationist' sees all God's marvels and he believes and his belief increases in spite of the denial of atheists .. so this is the testing or checking or examining of either the faith or disbelief.

The atheist does not see and he in spite of this accepts such concepts .. and the believer sees the marvels and he believes.




This dumb crap belongs in the spirituality forum, not in one that is supposed to be scientific.
 
Torch light
#20
It is neither dumb nor crap; the "scientific" is not restricted to your atheism or your assertions.
Last edited by Torch light; Jun 15th, 2018 at 06:11 AM..
 
Cliffy
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Torch light View Post

It is neither dumb nor crap; the "scientific" is not restricted to your atheism or your crap.

It is almost time for you to threaten to kill someone so you can get banned and then come back in a little while as someone else, isn't it eanassir?
 
Torch light
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

It is almost time for you to threaten to kill someone so you can get banned and then come back in a little while as someone else, isn't it eanassir?

Where were you hiding monkey-face?
Don't you fear one may box you and shutter your ugly teeth?
Last edited by Torch light; Jun 15th, 2018 at 06:17 AM..
 
Danbones
#23
Neanderthals bred with humans in the mid east from 120,000 years ago till about 30,000 years ago.

there you have it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...years-ago.html

Have a nice day ape men.

LOL, Aliens and angels eh..?
( Yeah, really? Neil Armstrong was what when he stepped on the moon?)
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Torch light View Post

Where were you hiding monkey-face?
Don't you fear one may box you and shutter your ugly teeth?

Ohhhh! He's going to "jihad" you!
 
Danbones
#25
Yeah, like Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan...
 
Torch light
#26
Cliffy is a Zionist.
He provokes against me.
But he is a loser anyway
 
Danbones
#27
let the meme wars begin


 
Bar Sinister
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Torch light View Post

It is neither dumb nor crap; the "scientific" is not restricted to your atheism or your assertions.




Hey, nut case. I deliberately stay out of the Spirituality forum because I have a very low tolerance for utter nonsense. This is the Science and Environment Forum. If you show up here with addlepated religious nonsense be prepared to get stomped on.
 
darkbeaver
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Sure like to know what ecological catastrophy occurred between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago to drive the appearance of do many new species. It may have also required something like exceptionally vigorous solar activity to irradiate the planet and generate a wide range of mutations, some of which would have ended up as viable species.

A massive nuclear war could have done that, too.


Solar activity. God for sure. We are mere mutations? Mutate or join the fossile record.
 
Jinentonix
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

(Natural News) A surprising new study is casting serious doubt on the popular theory that modern animals are the result of millions of years of evolution. After looking at the mitochondrial DNA of thousands of animal species, including humans, researchers reached the stunning conclusion that nearly every species dates back just 100,000 to 200,000 years.
The study was carried out by the University of Basel ’s David S. Thaler and The Rockefeller University ’s Mark Young Stoeckle. According to the conventional narrative of evolution involving adaption based on genetic mutations and survival of the fittest, one would expect older species and those with big populations spread across the planet to have greater genetic variation. However, the researchers actually found that 90 percent of the animal species have mitochondrial DNA variation that is similarly low.

The lack of variation in humans is really easy to explain. Every single person on Earth is directly related to the roughly 5,000 humans who survived a catastrophic super volcano eruption around 75,000 years ago.
In fact, the theory as you describe it isn't really a consensus theory. Scientists have been arguing forever about the actual mechanics. Hence why it's still a theory and not a law of science. There have been several reboots throughout the history of life on Earth, so it's quite unlikely that modern animals are the result of millions of years of evolution.
What we DO know though is that once life first appeared on Earth, it was never fully wiped out in any of the extinction level events. The genetic code tells us this is so.

This is why it's been long thought that modern animals are the result of millions of years of evolution. Everything on the planet, living and long, long dead, is related. And sorry to burst your bubble but, from a genome perspective there is not a whole lot of difference between a modern raptor and a Jurassic raptor. Not a whole lot of difference between an emu or ostrich and a theropod either.

BUT, looking at evolution we can see repeating patterns. Giraffes are the modern mammal equivalent of sauropods. Not nearly as massive but that long neck gives it access to food it doesn't have to compete with any other species for.
Rhinos are the modern mammal equivalent of the ceratopsians with that horn on their face. Some even have two.

Now, here's the difference between Evolutionary Theory and the "consensus" on AGW. Evolution is a generally accepted fact within the scientific community. However, nobody is sitting on their fat asses proclaiming the science to be settled. They are still trying to discover the mechanism behind evolution. Just because they have generally "settled" on an explanation does not mean they have stopped looking and experimenting. Whereas the advocacy science of AGW has firmly stated the science is settled because they apparently fully understand the mechanism behind climate change. A "consensus" that was held by roughly 32% of scientists and dropping daily as more and more start to question just how much humans are actually responsible for.

But, going back to 75,000 years ago again, it's quite likely that other land-based and shallow water species fared as poorly as humans did thus reducing their variability today.