• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Almost all modern species came into being same time

exchemist

Veteran Member
90% of modern species, including humans, evolved within the last 100-200 thousand years.

Almost all species on Earth today came into being at about the same time, scientific study declares

Scientists are surprised to discover this,and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Thermos Aquaticus will be the man for this, I think.

While we wait for him to pitch up, I should think all it means is that the predecessors of most species alive today were under similar degrees of evolutionary pressure. There are well known species like cockroaches and crocodiles that have not changed much (apparently, though I don't know if this can be shown genetically), but evidently most species have been in a rather similar state of flux to ourselves as emerging humans. I suppose that is on the face of it surprising, especially if it applies across the whole animal kingdom i.e. not just say mammals but insects as well.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Before genetic analysis became common (back when dinosaurs were young, and I ruled the Earth), it was estimated that the "average" lifetime of a species is about 2 million years--within a plus-or-minus range of some value I don't recall. This estimate was based on morphological differences between fossils.

I haven't looked to see if there are updated estimates for average species lifetime based on genetic studies. However, genetic changes often appear to at different rates than morphology from the fossil record.

But let's say that this 100,000 to 200,000 year timeframe is the average lifetime for species...we would not be surprised to find that some species became identifiable from ancestral species an order of magnitude more recently (that is, ten times more recently, or 10 to 20 thousand years ago), and others became identifiable 1 to 2 million years ago (that is, an order of magnitude less recently).
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
"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."
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
90% of modern species, including humans, evolved within the last 100-200 thousand years.

Almost all species on Earth today came into being at about the same time, scientific study declares

Scientists are surprised to discover this,and I'm not sure what to make of it.

They looked exclusively at mtDNA, and only a fraction of the mitochondrial genome, which will be sensitive to lineage collapse. Although population genetics isn't my strong suit, I do think it is entirely possible for a largish continuous population to produce these observations without a bottleneck or expansion at any point.

A bit of background. The method they are using is called time to coalescence. They use the mitochondrial DNA mutation rate, generation time, and sequence variation to calculate how long ago these different mtDNA sequences shared a common ancestor.

The important bit to keep in mind is that mtDNA is only passed on through maternal lineages (from mother to daughter to granddaughter). If a female organism only has male offspring then that mtDNA lineage goes extinct. There is also the inevitable situation where organisms mate with their distant cousins which causes some mtDNA to become more dominant. Hence, you have this situation:

631px-MtDNA-MRCA-generations-Evolution.svg.png

in case the picture doesn't appear:
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia

Overtime, one lineage comes to dominate even in the absence of a population bottleneck. I think this is what is happening with their data. After speciation there is a lineage that comes to dominate the modern population through chance, and perhaps selection in some instances. This is exactly what the authors of the study offer as their explanation:

"Either of two evolutionary mechanisms might account for the facts: a) species-specific selection, or b) demographic processes acting independently of phenotype. "
https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf

In science speak (from the article above):

"Several convergent lines of evidence show that mitochondrial diversity in modern humans follows from sequence uniformity followed by the accumulation of largely neutral diversity during a population expansion that began approximately 100,000 years ago. A straightforward hypothesis is that the extant populations of almost all animal species have arrived at a similar result consequent to a similar process of expansion from mitochondrial uniformity within the last one to several hundred thousand years."

Like the picture above, you start with a lot of variation and then lose that variation as mtDNA lineages die off.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
"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."

That's exactly what you should see after a speciation event. Each lineage will start accumulating different mutations after a speciation event which produces two separate mtDNA populations. The "in-between" species would have been the ones from the past who were in-between the modern population and the common ancestral population.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
That's exactly what you should see after a speciation event. Each lineage will start accumulating different mutations after a speciation event which produces two separate mtDNA populations. The "in-between" species would have been the ones from the past who were in-between the modern population and the common ancestral population.

Exactly, so where are they? a vast number of intermediates that neither survived nor left any record of ever existing- that's the problem they are touching on,
punctuated equilibrium at least now accepts this record is not a complete illusion
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Exactly, so where are they?

They're dead. The in-betweens were the great-great-great-great- . . . grandparents of the modern populations.

The authors only sequenced modern populations. They weren't surveying mtDNA from 50-200,000 years ago.

a vast number of intermediates that neither survived nor left any record of ever existing- that's the problem they are touching on,

That's what happens when females do not beget females. Their mitochondrial lineage goes extinct.

They also offered two solutions:

"Either of two evolutionary mechanisms might account for the facts: a) species-specific selection, or b) demographic processes acting independently of phenotype. "
https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf

punctuated equilibrium at least now accepts this record is not a complete illusion

Punctuated equilibrium is evolution.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Taking their mtDNA with them. The paper under discussion is studying mtDNA from modern organisms. not ancient DNA nor fossils.

I get that, and they reference Darwin who was obviously not looking at DNA, - but they confirm his more superficial observation, there is much less in the way of 'in between' than expected from the theory,

and likewise for the fossil record-

I realize it's a separate question; but what happened to all the fossils?
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
I get that, and they reference Darwin who was obviously not looking at DNA, - but they confirm his more superficial observation, there is much less in the way of 'in between' than expected from the theory,

Found them for you:

toskulls2.jpg


I don't know why you continue to talk about in-between fossils when you refuse to accept them when presented.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Found them for you:

toskulls2.jpg


I don't know why you continue to talk about in-between fossils when you refuse to accept them when presented.

As Raup, curator of the Chicago Field Museum said, we have even fewer examples of transitions than in Darwin's day, Punctuated equilibrium acknowledges that the history is far more staccato than once believed, it's hardly a very controversial observation these days- that the record did not pan out to be nearly as smooth or gradual as predicted, just wondering if you had a personal view on why this is?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
HERE is the study. Now someone please point out where it says

"species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."
or any words to that effect.

.

 
Top