New study: 90% of species on Earth today originated 100,000 to 200,000 years ago

Christianity and the progress of science
Christianity and the progress of science

Well, it’s Friday, so I thought we would all benefit from reading about a brand new peer-reviewed study that should be the final nail in the coffin of naturalistic evolution. At least for those with an open mind who are not wedded to the philosophical assumption of naturalism. (which is committed dogmatically to fully naturalistic evolution) reports:

Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who together published findings last week sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds.

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?

“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.

For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity “is about the same,” he told AFP.

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?

Oh, oh. Pick me, pick me. I know the answer. The answer is that the biological information in living systems was put there by an intelligent agent. You know, the same way that information in books is put there by intelligent agents. And the same way that information in computer code is put there by intelligent agents. And the same way that information in blog posts is put there by intelligent agents. We know what introduces information from our own experience.

Well, what about mutation and selection? Couldn’t they create all this information in a couple hundred thousand years? Well, no. You see, mutation and selection have been tested in the lab to see how much information they can produce over generations and generations. And the conclusion is clear: it is impossible for blind forces to create the amount of information we see in living systems in the short time that is available. In fact, the whole history of the universe is not enough time for evolutionary mechanisms to create the information we have in front of us.

Before we leave the paper reported by, here is something about whether we see the gradual emergence of complexity via lots of transitional forms in nature.

Not so much:

[…][A]nother 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.

Indeed. So perplexing.

The evidence we gain from the progress of science is always perplexing to people who assume naturalism, and then try to shoehorn reality to match their religious assumptions. I have an idea. Why don’t we just make science the search for truth, no holds barred? Wouldn’t that be a much better way to do science? Let’s just do science honestly, and stop trying to make it prove things that are comfortable for us.

If the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, the origin of the first living system, and the sudden origin of body plans in the Cambrian explosion are impossible to account for on naturalism, then maybe we need to jettison the philosophical assumption of naturalism, and just go where the evidence leads? What’s wrong with that?

8 thoughts on “New study: 90% of species on Earth today originated 100,000 to 200,000 years ago”

  1. I would accept an honest start of materialism to study their views on the way they study things they oppose. Use thr same naturalist scrutiny standard for looking at the Bible, as to study origins.

    They won’t because if they admit the frail evidence of their origin theory by chance it weakens their needed claim of it can just happen.

    I agree just go with science and toss out the unknown parts.

    People question claims of microevolution due to skepticism of the over claims of macro evolution.

    The days where they can control all presses and supress information forever are gone, and overpaying your view beyond the NF the evidence only weakens it.

    If they would start by admitting, we beleive it transitioned this way in fossils but we have no actual fossils, it would be a start to let people make their own informed decision

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’m afraid I’m a little confused. I thought most species originated in the Cambrian Explosion, @560 million years ago, an event one could call the Biological Big Bang, since it happened over only about 5 million years.

    Of course, this is completely inexplicable under neo-Darwinism. I also believe the evidence shows that modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) are all descended from one man and one woman, approximately 100-200,000 years ago, and specially created by God. I just didn’t think that the origin of ALL species could be that recent, only modern humans.
    Maybe I’m just misunderstanding the studies findings.


  3. I’m curious as to your opinion of the find in Jebel Irhoud, or the skull in Morrocco that was dated at 300,000 years old. What is your opinion of the age of humanity? Also, how does radiometric dating of Neanderthal and Denisovan fossils factor in? I would assume that they would be considered just another part of humanity since they have passed genetic information to us.


  4. I loved the part about allowing science to just search for the truth. Then we could all discuss these matters without being ridiculed, derided and scorned for not being totally on board with Darwinian theory.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s