I guess it would be the conclusion that so many of the species they studied were similar in how long ago their mitochondrial DNA was uniform within their species. But this similarity could have resulted from glaciation that has also been predicted to have been occurring at that time, glaciation that would have dramatically reduced population sizes similarly across many species at the same time.
Ah so.Thanks. What I don’t know about mitochondrial DNA would fill an ocean.
For me as a layman in this area, the saddest thing is the politicization of science; for my generation (dinosaurs) science was revered - naively, probably, since we were not sophisticated enough to differentiate between scientific method and the aims/agendas of some scientists. Really, what we want is: "This is what we were trying to prove, this is how we went about it, results can be replicated by anyone who follows our method "AND - be honest enough to say: “what we Did Not look for and here are the other possible alternatives to our conclusions.”
IOW, scientist as someone without a dog in the fight.
I appreciate your perspective on the state of the evidence for/against some evolution theories. Are you knowledgeable as a professional in this matter, or as a very educated observer of science?
I have a Ph.D. in biology (specifically in aquatic biology); was a university professor for 35 years (now retired), teaching various courses such as general biology, ecology, experimental population ecology, and biological science writing; and have published 70 papers on my research.
So, you’re basically just a layman like I am? 
I’m encouraged that you are here, thanks for weighing in. Perhaps I’ll keep my big mouth shut for awhile 
Thanks. I have enjoyed being here, one of the two religious forums I regularly view each day.
Nevertheless, the assertions by these researchers that new evidence “implies that the extant populations of most animal species have, like modern humans, recently passed through mitochondrial uniformity,” and, “The mitochondrial variation within the modern human population is about average when compared to the extant populations of most animal species,” are very exciting, in light of the Bible stories of Creation and of Noah’s ark.
In his Origin of Species (1859), Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not EVERYWHERE see INNUMERABLE transitional forms?” (Emphases mine.)
What concerned Darwin in 1859 is in the same vein as what these researchers are still concerned with in 2018: “The tight clustering of barcodes within species and UNFULFILLED sequence SPACE AMONG THEM are key facts of animal life that evolutionary theory must explain.” (Emphases mine.)
My interpretation of Genesis is that everything that has been created was created during the first six days of Creation Week; that there was subsequently a Fall, followed by the appearance of corruption and death in nature; and that this was eventually followed by a worldwide flood, with only a limited number of people and animals surviving to repopulate the earth.
Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), pointed out that there are competing paradigms (subjective filters) in the interpretation of evidence; and of course Darwinian macro-evolution is currently the dominant paradigm.
If the authors of this paper are saying that most species experienced a mitochondrial genetic “bottleneck” in the past, I consider that it may have been Noah’s ark.
The various chronological dating methods in the sciences were developed with certain presuppositions which are theory-based. And speaking of dating techniques, you may recall that I began this thread with consideration of soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, both the triceratops and the T. Rex. Here is quote from above:
You say the similar mitochondrial DNA variation of 90% of the species studied is very exciting in light of the Bible stories of creation. Please explain why, especially given the other species studied (about 10%) that do not follow this trend.
As they say, “Don’t sweat the small stuff.” Or, in biblical parlance, “Don’t despise the day of small beginnings” (Zech. 4:10); or perhaps, “The end of a matter is better than its beginning” (Ecc. 7:8)? 
It’s not small stuff. Any hypothesis worth its salt should be falsifiable. That is, some empirical test should exist that would lead one to declare the hypothesis false.
The authors’ observation that 10% of the species studied do not follow the pattern established by the other 90% seems to falsify the hypothesis that this variation pattern in mitochondrial DNA supports the Bible story of creation.
Out of curiosity, what is the other one? If you don’t mind me asking, that is.
It’s not one of the Zombie forums by chance? 
As one who knows a “little bit” about statistics, I second that motion.
lancia, I believe the scientific evidence supporting the biblical narrative of Creation and a worldwide flood—events that are not replicable—is ample, even overwhelming. You don’t. It depends on your paradigm.
Furthermore, for a scientist to support Intelligent Design over Darwinian macroevolution sadly seems to be academic suicide:
I’m retired, I don’t think any of my colleagues read this forum, and they surely would not know my identity through my name used here, so. . . .
1 Like
From early childhood, through high school, college, and graduate school, I was taught science exclusively through the paradigm of Darwinian macroevolution and scientific materialism. How ‘bout you?
Take the red pill…
I got very little evolution in my high school curriculum. But at college and grad school, it was a key concept. However, what convinced me of its validity was my own research and that of colleagues whose work I knew firsthand.
But I’m not a zealot. One of the reasons I developed and taught a new course (at my institution) in experimental population ecology was to teach students (and myself) more about the scientific method as applied to questions in population ecology, some of which had clear evolutionary implications. The bottom line is we questioned some evolutionarily oriented scientific papers in that class for their lack of falsifiable hypotheses. So, I have not been a blind follower.
This video illustrates blind followers! For the life of me…I can’t figure out where zombies…would fit into the scheme of evolution…as far as I know, they might be what mankind evolves into …before everything comes to a final halt!
Since this is a forum thread about evolution…let me share this appropriate Quora discussion:
Why are zombies so dumb? How can the zombie virus turn smart people into stupid zombies?
Let me quote a bit:
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, and there are genuine zombie processes in the natural world; they are called just that in the scientific literature. One of the most bizarre is a fungus that takes over ant brains and controls them in some terrible ways for the benefit of the fungus, making them quite “stupid” zombies relative to their normal behavior. Once infected, they leave the safety of their nests, they attach to the underside of leaves, and become a fungus sport farm; strange growths grow from their heads then explode, spreading more fungus spores. If there were human zombies, they’d presumably be changed by similar processes, an infection disables or changes the portions of their brains normally involved in free will and rational thought, and only behaviors that benefit the disease/pathogen (such as biting others) continue. Rabies and Syphilis are among the diseases that humans can that infect and alter the brain, making someone literally more “stupid” and stiff-walking, yet still able to bite or have sex with others to continue spreading the disease.
That is cool.
Christians can lose their faith in the goodness of God through indoctrination into macroevolution and its pain-filled explanations of the violent “ascent” of all life forms by natural selection from some hypothesized primordial unicellular organism (vs. staying within the bounds of undisputed and observable microevolution).
Here is a quote from “Charles Darwin and the Satan he saw in Nature”:
Having a bi-polar “mother nature” can either rob us of our faith in God, as it did Charles Darwin, or it can strengthen our resolve that “natural evil” is a deformation frequently caused by hostile unseen cosmic forces.
1 Like
Here’s an interesting article, from this week’s Patheos Catholic newsletter: