Creation vs. Evolution

[Rallywagon]

Of c Yeah, that is a case where human bias can creep in, as not some of our behaviors and even survival tactics don't revolve around intelligence, but other quirks we have. I've heard it said that Neanderthals might have actually been smarter than us (not sure if this well supported) but our willingness to explore, sometimes recklessly, helped us to spread further than them. I suppose that it's possible that a high intelligence could evolve without much concern for exploration, communication, record keeping, etc. That could disguise their mental capability.


No GMO's back then.

I might have not used the best words, but what I wanted to point out was that humans evolved to survive in the roughly the same place as the lions. We were so successful at it that we ended up building cities and even leaving the planet. Lions surviving as they do today isn't really an advantage that they can claim over humans.



I see where you're coming from, but I find it hard to separate cities from bird nests and ant hills. They're just more complex and built by humans. If you put humans in the wild, you will probably end up with cities. Pre civilization/history humans were still as human as we are today.


I don't think the differences are as big as you're making them out to be. Some wolves, lions, whales, etc survived (for now) but some didn't. The same goes for human relatives. Those organisms that died out certainly would have benefited from some form of technology to make up for whatever it was that caused them to die out. For that matter, Earth itself isn't static. In the long run, any given species is probably poorly suited to live on Earth. On average a species may do well for a time but then fail to keep up with their changing environment for one reason or another. The ability to change your environment, or create artificial ones could be argues as a necessity for long term evolutionary fitness.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If we involved an intellect that other animals don't have, then we're smarter. We're still smarter if we blow ourselves up using that intellect that no other organisms have. On the other hand, having cities, tools, and thumbs isn't necessarily proof that we're smarter, but I wonder consider it strong evidence. Separating intelligence from human psychology can be difficult, but at the end of the day all life is related and all life is shaped by the need to survive. Our abstract thinking has put us in a better place than any other form of life than we know of when it comes to survival. We're also the only species we know of to contemplate making ourselves extinct. Let's also be honest, people are pretty concerned over the health of the world too. No other species seems to be.

Fair enough, for a play on words, i suppose we are the most intellegent, but perhaps not the smartest...
The end there however, this brings up an interesting occurrence in colonial America. I'll try and dig up where i heard/read this, however, as i remember it, a number of early settlers and even militia types sent to hunt first nationers ended up "prisoners" or up and left their settlements and joined with tribes. Nearly all of these people ended up staying with the tribes, even those that were captured during engagements. To that, there is no record of a native at that time leaving a tribe to join in the "modern" society under their own free will.
Now whether that points to individual preferences for what is basically a more naturalistic lifestyle, or speaks to a hidden drive within the human psyche repressed by city living....

 

[Johnnypenso]

Fair enough, for a play on words, i suppose we are the most intellegent, but perhaps not the smartest...
The end there however, this brings up an interesting occurrence in colonial America. I'll try and dig up where i heard/read this, however, as i remember it, a number of early settlers and even militia types sent to hunt first nationers ended up "prisoners" or up and left their settlements and joined with tribes. Nearly all of these people ended up staying with the tribes, even those that were captured during engagements. To that, there is no record of a native at that time leaving a tribe to join in the "modern" society under their own free will.
Now whether that points to individual preferences for what is basically a more naturalistic lifestyle, or speaks to a hidden drive within the human psyche repressed by city living....

Billions of people on this planet live in small and big cubes right next to other human beings. Many of us enjoy getting away from it all once in a while but we always come crawling back. I'm not sure an anecdote from a few centuries ago trumps billions of points of data.

 

[Rallywagon]

I dont believe that was the implication. Modern society is hardly comparable to the colonial times.

 

[Imari]

Fair enough, for a play on words, i suppose we are the most intellegent, but perhaps not the smartest...
The end there however, this brings up an interesting occurrence in colonial America. I'll try and dig up where i heard/read this, however, as i remember it, a number of early settlers and even militia types sent to hunt first nationers ended up "prisoners" or up and left their settlements and joined with tribes. Nearly all of these people ended up staying with the tribes, even those that were captured during engagements. To that, there is no record of a native at that time leaving a tribe to join in the "modern" society under their own free will.
Now whether that points to individual preferences for what is basically a more naturalistic lifestyle, or speaks to a hidden drive within the human psyche repressed by city living....

Or it could be that strange human quirk where they're hesitant to join societies that happen to be trying to hunt and kill their particular race.

I mean, given two communities where one is living in a forest, tough but fair and doesn't really care that much what you look like as long as you're competent, versus the town dwelling hierarchical BS that toddled over from ye olde Engerland with a bunch of genocidal eejits that thought sending people out to exterminate the natives was forward and progressive thinking, I'm pretty sure you'd see a definite imbalance in the direction of migration. And not necessarily anything to do with the style and location of their dwellings.

That's just observing that some cultures are generally more pleasant to live in than others, which is of no surprise to anyone. Although it probably surprises some that people would rather live with an tribe of decent people than a bunch of white psychopaths. But we still have the KKK I suppose, keeping the tradition alive.

 

[Rallywagon]

I dont doubt that there is truth to that. However, l think there may be more to it. As Johnny there so santimoniously hints at, to this day, we still venture into the great out doors and we still very much so enjoy sitting in front of a fire which fires off certain biological tell tales. Of course none of this is evidence of any sort of desire to return to tribal days, but it certainly hints at it, and given our evolutionary trail and subconscious homophily, i dont doubt a great many of us would return to the "wilds" if we could cleanly break from this current paradigm.

 

[Danoff]

Or it could be that strange human quirk where they're hesitant to join societies that happen to be trying to hunt and kill their particular race.

I mean, given two communities where one is living in a forest, tough but fair and doesn't really care that much what you look like as long as you're competent, versus the town dwelling hierarchical BS that toddled over from ye olde Engerland with a bunch of genocidal eejits that thought sending people out to exterminate the natives was forward and progressive thinking, I'm pretty sure you'd see a definite imbalance in the direction of migration. And not necessarily anything to do with the style and location of their dwellings.

That's just observing that some cultures are generally more pleasant to live in than others, which is of no surprise to anyone. Although it probably surprises some that people would rather live with an tribe of decent people than a bunch of white psychopaths. But we still have the KKK I suppose, keeping the tradition alive.

I dont doubt that there is truth to that. However, l think there may be more to it. As Johnny there so santimoniously hints at, to this day, we still venture into the great out doors and we still very much so enjoy sitting in front of a fire which fires off certain biological tell tales. Of course none of this is evidence of any sort of desire to return to tribal days, but it certainly hints at it, and given our evolutionary trail and subconscious homophily, i dont doubt a great many of us would return to the "wilds" if we could cleanly break from this current paradigm.

Even at the time, there would have been some really nice technology that you would not have wanted to give up. Muskets would have been the first (the natives did eventually start using those), hot baths, bed warmers, beds themselves, maybe a tea kettle, a cast iron pot, chairs... The natives were nomadic, so they had to pack up their entire town and hit the road regularly to follow food. That means no tolerance for a cast iron pot, a bathtub, a large bed. It also means a lot of walking and carrying. It would have been difficult at the time to decide to forgo the colonial lifestyle in favor of what was a much more difficult, and less free, lifestyle as a native. Religion and superstition were normal though, and you never know how that's going to play into early peoples' decisions. Natives were also psychopaths for sure. They believed some wild things, and slaughtered and subjugated each other also. I don't think it makes sense to idolize their existence despite Hollywood's insistence that we do so.

Colonial people also weren't that removed from nature. They sat in front of the fire, sometimes in front of their fire place. They lived in the great out doors and went hunting in it. They weren't nearly as isolated from "nature" as we consider ourselves today. They were not modern people.

The main thing that would keep people from making a clean "break" to return to the "wilds" today would be medicine. In the wild, you'd get sick crazy fast. Diseased food, parasites, bacterial infections... that stuff kills you in the wild. Try not to get a decent cut, because you won't be able to keep it clean. Longer term you're gonna have other problems, no glasses, no dental hygiene, a broken bone that wasn't set right... that stuff adds up to an early death.

One of the things that I love about the state that human beings have achieved is that we have almost no possibility of ending our lives being eaten by something else. And that's how just about everything in nature dies... by being violently eaten alive. There's no way I'm giving up my (near) removal from that fate.

 

[TexRex]

One of the things that I love about the state that human beings have achieved is that we have almost no possibility of ending our lives being eaten by something else. And that's how just about everything in nature dies... by being violently eaten alive. There's no way I'm giving up my (near) removal from that fate.

I'm not with you there. I long to be remembered as "that schmuck who got eaten by a herd of rabid deer."

 

[Rallywagon]

Ahh, I found the text. I actually believe I read of this in a different book but this has the same info. This is from "Lies My Teacher Told Me; Everything Your American History Book Got Wrong" by James Loewen.

Take it for what you will.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Even at the time, there would have been some really nice technology that you would not have wanted to give up. Muskets would have been the first (the natives did eventually start using those), hot baths, bed warmers, beds themselves, maybe a tea kettle, a cast iron pot, chairs... The natives were nomadic, so they had to pack up their entire town and hit the road regularly to follow food. That means no tolerance for a cast iron pot, a bathtub, a large bed. It also means a lot of walking and carrying. It would have been difficult at the time to decide to forgo the colonial lifestyle in favor of what was a much more difficult, and less free, lifestyle as a native. Religion and superstition were normal though, and you never know how that's going to play into early peoples' decisions. Natives were also psychopaths for sure. They believed some wild things, and slaughtered and subjugated each other also. I don't think it makes sense to idolize their existence despite Hollywood's insistence that we do so.

I find that a flawed view overall - you could counter it by pointing out that native Americans were skilled metalworkers and that carrying metal items still isn't a problem for nomadic societies today (horses remain as essential to those societies as they were to native Americans). Their religion was no more/less kooky than Holy Roman christianity but their medicine was significantly more advanced. It's likely that their conditions were somewhat less squalid and fetid than those of even rich Europeans, particularly those Europeans who lived/worked in cramped city conditions. Only the very richest Europeans lived out in country houses and even then their hygiene/health was pretty appalling.

 

[Danoff]

I find that a flawed view overall - you could counter it by pointing out that native Americans were skilled metalworkers and that carrying metal items still isn't a problem for nomadic societies today (horses remain as essential to those societies as they were to native Americans).

I'm not sure that is actually a counter to what I said.

Their religion was no more/less kooky than Holy Roman christianity but their medicine was significantly more advanced.

I don't remember saying their beliefs were less wild than Christianity. But their beliefs did actually have a lot to do with their medicine, which involved a lot of prayer and religious ceremony as the basis for healing. I'd need a source to show that it was more effective as a whole.

It's likely that their conditions were somewhat less squalid and fetid than those of even rich Europeans, particularly those Europeans who lived/worked in cramped city conditions. Only the very richest Europeans lived out in country houses and even then their hygiene/health was pretty appalling.

You'll have to cite a source for that as well, as it was my understanding that it was poor people who lived in the countryside during the early days of America. The poorest of them heading west to homestead and prospect for a better life. The rich members of society had what they needed in the cities and didn't need to risk their lives with natives and brutal winters.

 

[Rallywagon]

I dont think that was the case until the 17-18th century with the advent of the suburb. Suburbs back then were far different than todays. The main reasons being as TenEightyOne said. http://www.theusaonline.com/people/urbanization.htm
Before then it would have been the plantation owners and the alike before industrialization took place. I dont believe Ten was talking about into the wilderness, but rather to "country" usually within a few miles around any given city.

 

[Danoff]

I dont think that was the case until the 17-18th century with the advent of the suburb. Suburbs back then were far different than todays. The main reasons being as TenEightyOne said. http://www.theusaonline.com/people/urbanization.htm
Before then it would have been the plantation owners and the alike before industrialization took place. I dont believe Ten was talking about into the wilderness, but rather to "country" usually within a few miles around any given city.

I was talking about into the wilderness, homesteading, pushing the occupied territory westward... and I was talking about 17-18th century.

 

[Rallywagon]

I was talking about into the wilderness, homesteading, pushing the occupied territory westward... and I was talking about 17-18th century.

That's cool. Perhaps say what you mean then? Countryside is not synonymous with wilderness. As for dates, i never said anything about what time period you intended, i was giving time periods for the info i was giving. At best the time intended in this discussion would be about 1500 to late 1800's, so i wanted to define when suburbs first began showing up. These would have been considered the countryside, the exact word you used.
Now, as for the medicines part. I missed that. Below are a list of publications you can check out. Needless to say, when eurooean settlers first started colonizing America it was noted that natives had better medicines and "procedures." The could set broken bones better, had lower incidents with infections and dealt with far less infectious diseases.
I guess while i am also addressing those, ill cut back to the wilderness thing. European settlers where about as far removed as they could be from nature. The decimated bison herds, clear cut the woods around them and eventually across most of America and pretty much did the best they could to fence out the wilderness. This is a huge difference than with native Americans, who understood conservation, knew of the balance of natural sustainability, built their communties within their surroundings rather than flattening the earth and building on top of the destroyed land.
I gotta say, if sitting by a fire and hunting were the main prerequisites of being "wild" most people in my state, as well as a large portion of the US population would be native "psychopaths."
Man. Honestly that right there, that was probably one of the most ignorant things ive read on this forum to date. Calling Native Americans psychopaths based off what appears to be some serious misinformation.

Oh, right. Those sources:
Porterfield, K.M.
& Keoke, E.D. (2002).
Encyclopedia of American Indian
Contributions to the World. New York, NY:
Facts on File Inc.

Porterfield, K.M.
& Keoke, E.D. (2005).
Medicine and Health. New York, NY: Facts on
File Inc.

Weatherford, J. (1988). Indian Givers: How
the Indians of the Americas Transformed the
World. New York, NY: Fawcett Books.

Weatherford, J. (1991). Native Roots: How
the Indians Enriched America. New York, NY:
Fawcett Books.

 

[Danoff]

That's cool. Perhaps say what you mean then? Countryside is not synonymous with wilderness.

Or you know... it also falls within your "suburbs" as well... so... let's focus on what matters in this conversation.

As for dates, i never said anything about what time period you intended, i was giving time periods for the info i was giving. At best the time intended in this discussion would be about 1500 to late 1800's, so i wanted to define when suburbs first began showing up. These would have been considered the countryside, the exact word you used.

So... same time period then?

Now, as for the medicines part. I missed that. Below are a list of publications you can check out. Needless to say, when eurooean settlers first started colonizing America it was noted that natives had better medicines and "procedures." The could set broken bones better, had lower incidents with infections and dealt with far less infectious diseases.

Source needed.

I guess while i am also addressing those, ill cut back to the wilderness thing. European settlers where about as far removed as they could be from nature. The decimated bison herds, clear cut the woods around them and eventually across most of America and pretty much did the best they could to fence out the wilderness.

They'd need to have ventured into the wilderness to do that. I'm not talking about "spiritual" removal from nature. I'm talking about physically interacting with nature.

This is a huge difference than with native Americans, who understood conservation, knew of the balance of natural sustainability, built their communties within their surroundings rather than flattening the earth and building on top of the destroyed land.

Yes yes... one with the land. Also a lifestyle that left them unable to develop more advanced technology.

I gotta say, if sitting by a fire and hunting were the main prerequisites of being "wild" most people in my state, as well as a large portion of the US population would be native "psychopaths." Man. Honestly that right there, that was probably one of the most ignorant things ive read on this forum to date. Calling Native Americans psychopaths based off what appears to be some serious misinformation.

I think you misunderstood me. I did not say they were psychopaths because they sat by the fire and hunted. It was in reference to @Imari's reference to the white man being psychopaths. I'm merely pointing out that the natives were every bit the psychopaths that the "white man" was.

 

[Rallywagon]

Or you know... it also falls within your "suburbs" as well... so... let's focus on what matters in this conversation.

wilderness does not fall into countryside or suburb. The latter two back in the 1600, 1700s would have been farm lands and plantations. The former is just as the name suggest. Wild, untamed lands. An important distinction if you are trying to say rich people didn't live in the countryside, but only the cities. That is false, especially as rail began being laid.

Source needed.

Added, should be able to find them in a good library.

They'd need to have ventured into the wilderness to do that. I'm not talking about "spiritual" removal from nature. I'm talking about physically interacting with nature.



Yes yes... one with the land. Also a lifestyle that left them unable to develop more advanced technology.

If you dont understand how having a spiritual connection with the land creates a completely different interaction with nature around you, and how separated European settlers were from it then we have reached an end to this discussion.

I think you misunderstood me. I did not say they were psychopaths because they sat by the fire and hunted. It was in reference to @Imari's reference to the white man being psychopaths. I'm merely pointing out that the natives were every bit the psychopaths that the "white man" was.

Aye, but that's because i took you to mean their religions and lifestyles were the reason they were psychopaths.

 

[Danoff]

wilderness does not fall into countryside or suburb. The latter two back in the 1600, 1700s would have been farm lands and plantations. The former is just as the name suggest. Wild, untamed lands. An important distinction if you are trying to say rich people didn't live in the countryside, but only the cities. That is false, especially as rail began being laid.

Uh... what? Ok, let's back this up and focus on what's actually being discussed. I said colonial people weren't that removed from nature. Are you actually disputing this?

Added, should be able to find them in a good library.

I don't think that actually cuts it for posting sources. Give me excerpts related to the discussion. I'm not going to read 2000 pages to figure our whether your claims are substantiated.

If you dont understand how having a spiritual connection with the land creates a completely different interaction with nature around you, and how separated European settlers were from it then we have reached an end to this discussion.

I don't remember claiming that their interaction was the same.

Aye, but that's because i took you to mean their religions and lifestyles were the reason they were psychopaths.

You took wrong.

 

[Rallywagon]

Uh... what? Ok, let's back this up and focus on what's actually being discussed. I said colonial people weren't that removed from nature. Are you actually disputing this?

yes. Since the comparison was against native Americans. European settlers where very much removed from nature. Aside from perhaps trappers, they where as removed as could be. Just because you chopped down some tree outside of your little town doesnt make you a part of the forest.

I don't think that actually cuts it for posting sources. Give me excerpts related to the discussion. I'm not going to read 2000 pages to figure our whether your claims are substantiated.

sorry your not satisfied. Im sure there is something you can find on google to quench your instant gratification? Ive put in leg work on the subject, not key on repeating for an internet debate. I gave the resources to find the info.

I don't remember claiming that their interaction was the same.

Hmmmm....

I was talking about into the wilderness, homesteading, pushing the occupied territory westward

I must have misunderstood this then?

You took wrong.

And admitted as much.

 

[Danoff]

yes. Since the comparison was against native Americans. European settlers where very much removed from nature. Aside from perhaps trappers, they where as removed as could be. Just because you chopped down some tree outside of your little town doesnt make you a part of the forest.

"As removed as they could be" is not much compared to your present environment. That is my point.

sorry your not satisfied. Im sure there is something you can find on google to quench your instant gratification? Ive put in leg work on the subject, not key on repeating for an internet debate. I gave the resources to find the info.

It's not so much about instant gratification as it is providing sources in a way that can actually reasonably be used. It's not reasonable to expect me to read 4 books on the subject to understand where you're getting the basis for your claims.

Hmmmm....

I must have misunderstood this then?

I guess? I don't see how that's claiming the interaction is the same.

 

[Corsa]

I gotta say, if sitting by a fire and hunting were the main prerequisites of being "wild" most people in my state, as well as a large portion of the US population would be native "psychopaths."

Well said, I suppose I could be labeled a psychopath in some cases due to my upbringing and current lifestyle that I'm teaching my son.

I'm blending what I learned from my grandfather/father with my own lessons with trying to figure out and balance the world today.

There must be knowledge instilled in our youth of the old ways.

Things like making bows and arrows from hickory, sinew, and shale are quite dated but
basic survival skills that build confidence and strength are quite important.

Such as hunting, trapping and bait casting that could feed him or building a basic lean-to that can accept fire are things every breathing human should know.

I could bore you for hours on the topic but I'm straying from the current one.

My family has no particular beliefs in creation we stand with science.
Evolution makes sense to me, it always has as I try to look for reason as to how we all arrived here and not too much about what happens when we leave.

 

[Imari]

Evolution makes sense to me, it always has as I try to look for reason as to how we all arrived here and not too much about what happens when we leave.

IMO there will be plenty of time to worry about the afterlife when we get there. If we get there. Otherwise it just seems like worrying about where you're going to retire when you're ten. Worry about it when you're about to retire maybe, or just retire and pick somewhere you like. No sense spending your life stressing about something that will be plenty obvious when the time comes.

 

[Strittan]

The thread title is hilarious on it’s own. I can’t imagine all the stupid **** that must’ve been said in here.

Now, my take on it is simple. There’s no god and there’s no afterlife. It’s all chemistry and physics, and that to me is way more fascinating than some old fairytale.

When we die we will all be worms food, unless you choose to be cremated or whatever. When I’m dead they can ship me to cannibals in Congo for all I care.

 

[x3ra]

NEWSFLASH
---------------
Mark Stoeckle from the Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, both evolutionary scientists, published in the Journal of Human Evolution the results of their meticulous and sweeping genetic study of the DNA barcodes of more than 100,000 animal species and humans showing man and all the animals seem to have sprung to life spontaneously no more than 200,000 years ago.

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

Hope this is the correct thread.

Possibly this piece makes what they've said and done a little simpler to understand https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

 

[Rallywagon]

It was already said that home sapiens are only about 200k years old. Given many cataclysmic events that we know, and likely some we dont know about, I dont find it shocking that most fauna alive today only goes back so far as well. I could only peruse a little bit though. I'll do a better job when I have more than a spare minute. Are they saying, for instance, in the case of humans, that we began only 200k years ago, as in hominids, or just homo sapiens?

 

[x3ra]

"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."

Sprung to life seems to suggest that both could be true hominids(ape family) and homo sapiens both arose at the same time.

 

[Rallywagon]

"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."

Sprung to life seems to suggest that both could be true hominids(ape family) and homo sapiens both arose at the same time.

That's going to be interesting considering Ardipithecus kadabba, one of the original hominids, is dated back an estimated 6 million years ago...
I imagine that they are talking about current living species. I also imagine that they will face quite a lot of rebuttal.

 

[Imari]

NEWSFLASH
---------------
Mark Stoeckle from the Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, both evolutionary scientists, published in the Journal of Human Evolution the results of their meticulous and sweeping genetic study of the DNA barcodes of more than 100,000 animal species and humans showing man and all the animals seem to have sprung to life spontaneously no more than 200,000 years ago.

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

Hope this is the correct thread.

Possibly this piece makes what they've said and done a little simpler to understand https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

More than a decade of DNA barcoding encompassing about five million specimens covering 100,000 animal species supports the generalization that mitochondrial DNA clusters largely overlap with species as defined by domain experts. Most barcode clustering reflects synonymous substitutions. What evolutionary mechanisms account for synonymous clusters being largely coincident with species? The answer depends on whether variants are phenotypically neutral. To the degree that variants are selectable, purifying selection limits variation within species and neighboring species may have distinct adaptive peaks. Phenotypically neutral variants are only subject to demographic processes—drift, lineage sorting, genetic hitchhiking, and bottlenecks. The evolution of modern humans has been studied from several disciplines with detail unique among animal species. Mitochondrial barcodes provide a commensurable way to compare modern humans to other animal species. Barcode variation in the modern human population is quantitatively similar to that within other animal species. 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.

A rather more accurate summary of their paper than your hyperbolic claim that animals "sprang to life". Which would be why they used it for the abstract of their paper.

 

[TenEightyOne]

man and all the animals seem to have sprung to life spontaneously no more than 200,000 years ago.

You put that disingenously. The postulation is that at any given time the large majority of extant species are relatively recent. In today's case 1-200,000 years.

Possibly this piece makes what they've said and done a little simpler to understand

Seemingly not.

 

[Spurgy 777]

You put that disingenously. The postulation is that at any given time the large majority of extant species are relatively recent. In today's case 1-200,000 years.



Seemingly not.

Thank you for putting it in English

 

[Dotini]

Hmmm. If the research is correct, there appears have been a creation event an extreme purifying of species 100k-200k years ago from which the molecular clock was reset with a uniform mtDNA for all but about 10% of species. I wonder what happened?

 

[TexRex]

"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler.