DNA Research Supports Creation Timeline
Creationists have said many times that there is no such thing as Darwinist evidence and our evidence. Facts are facts, and the fretting commences with the nterpretation of said evidence. Some researchers wrote a paper on mitochondrial DNA, and excitement ensued in the evolutionary ranks because the results flew in the face of Darwinian dogma.
Some years ago, scientists realized that classifications of organisms would be streamlined with the use of DNA barcoding. (I like it, as it makes purchases faster at the DNA superstore when they can scan each item and give you a total...maybe I'm thinking of something else.) Several objections to DNA barcoding were raised, which turned out to be unfounded.
Although written with an evolutionary framework in mind, the researchers found that most species originated about the time that humans appeared on the scene. Interesting how that fits creationary models. Taking the research to the next logical conclusion is strong evidence for recent creation.
Interestingly, the owlhoots at Biologos tried to defend evolutionism against evolutionists. Not only did they fail miserably, but apparently did not read (or understand) the material they were criticizing. Must be tough putting a saddle stamped "Christian" on atheistic philosophies and expecting to be able to ride.
 |
| Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann |
Although written with an evolutionary framework in mind, the researchers found that most species originated about the time that humans appeared on the scene. Interesting how that fits creationary models. Taking the research to the next logical conclusion is strong evidence for recent creation.
Interestingly, the owlhoots at Biologos tried to defend evolutionism against evolutionists. Not only did they fail miserably, but apparently did not read (or understand) the material they were criticizing. Must be tough putting a saddle stamped "Christian" on atheistic philosophies and expecting to be able to ride.
A recent review paper proposed a controversial claim—that the vast majority of animal species arose contemporary with modern humans. Not surprisingly, this claim was met with backlash from the evolutionary community. On what basis did the authors make this wide-reaching claim? Is their assertion true? Furthermore, what ramifications do their data have for the creationist explanation of the origin of species from the originally created min or “kinds”?To read the rest, click on "Hundreds of Thousands of Species in a Few Thousand Years?"
The main focus of Stoeckle and Thaler’s paper is genetics. Specifically, they focus on a subset of DNA in human and animal cells, termed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Their analysis of mtDNA is clear, straightforward, and carefully justified—so much so that I will summarize their arguments by liberally quoting from their paper.