All humans are descended from just TWO people , scientists claim

mhafeez

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
All humans are descended from just TWO people and a catastrophic event almost wiped out ALL species 100,000 years ago, scientists claim
  • Genetic 'bar codes' of five million animals from different species were surveyed
  • The research deduced that humans and animals sprang from single pair
  • This happened after a catastrophic event a long time after the last ice age
By Leigh Mcmanus For Mailonline

Published: 15:01 GMT, 24 November 2018 | Updated: 22:16 GMT, 24 November 2018

All modern humans descended from a solitary pair who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, scientists say.

Scientists surveyed the genetic 'bar codes' of five million animals - including humans - from 100,000 different species and deduced that we sprang from a single pair of adults after a catastrophic event almost wiped out the human race.

These bar codes, or snippets of DNA that reside outside the nuclei of living cells, suggest that it's not just people who came from a single pair of beings, but nine out of every 10 animal species, too

Stoeckle and Thaler, the scientists who headed the study, concluded that ninety percent of all animal species alive today come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than 250 thousand years ago - throwing into doubt the patterns of human evolution.
05B2C952000007D0-6424407-image-a-26_1543070386868.jpg

Scientists surveyed the genetic 'bar codes' of five million animals and 100,000 different species



'This conclusion is very surprising,' Thaler admitted, 'and I fought against it as hard as I could.'

The new report from experts at the Rockefeller University along with from the University of Basel published the extraordinary findings in Human Evolution.

The research was led by Senior Research Associate Mark Stoeckle and Research Associate David Thaler of the University of Basel, Switzerland.
They mined 'big data' insights from the world's fast-growing genetic databases and reviewed a large literature in evolutionary theory, including Darwin.


Dr Stoeckle said: 'At a time when humans place so much emphasis on individual and group differences, maybe we should spend more time on the ways in which we resemble one another and the rest of the animal kingdom.'

The conclusions throw up considerable mystery as to why the need for human life to start again was needed such a relatively short time ago, especially since the last known extinction we know of was during the time of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

This opens up the possibility of an inbuilt human evolutionary process wherein we break down and die out, leaving the need to start from scratch.
6590068-6424407-image-a-45_1543072000877.jpg
6590066-6424407-David_Thaler_of_Basil_University-a-1_1543097527840.jpg


Mark Stoeckle (left) of Rockefeller University made findings with David Thaler of Basil Uni

0630DCA3000007D0-6424407-image-a-38_1543071637778.jpg

The research deduced that humans and animals sprang from single pair - as did animals
We're also surprisingly similar to not just every other human, but every other species.


'If a Martian landed on Earth and met a flock of pigeons and a crowd of humans, one would not seem more diverse than the other according to the basic measure of mitochondrial DNA,' said Jesse Ausubel, Director of the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University.

'Culture, life experience and other things can make people very different but in terms of basic biology, we're like the birds,' Dr Stoeckle added.

The 'mitochondrial DNA' examined in the research is that which mothers pass down from generation to generation and it showed the 'absence of human exceptionalism.'

'One might have thought that, due to their high population numbers and wide geographic distribution, humans might have led to greater genetic diversity than other animal species,' added Stoeckle.

'At least for mitochondrial DNA, humans turn out to be low to average in genetic diversity.'

The study has been misunderstood by some religious parties who thought it meant that we all came into being in some seminal Big Bang-typed event 100,000 ago, but this isn't what the findings actually suggest.

What Stoeckle and Thaler's findings point to is that our species has to revamp far more often than we thought, and we do so in unison with all animals.

Source
 

Liberal 000

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
تو کیا ڈارون کی تھیوری غلط ثابت ہوگئی؟؟

This is a claim by two scientists and not an accepted scientific theory. Their claim is based on DNA testing.

Now more scientists will study living beings genetics in this angle. If it were turn out to be true then it will become a theory

A study by two three four or five scientists is often viewed with suspicion because few scientist often try to manipulate scientific studies according to their religious views. May be these two were influenced by Bible!
 

Tenacious Khan

Councller (250+ posts)
This is a claim by two scientists and not an accepted scientific theory. Their claim is based on DNA testing.

Now more scientists will study living beings genetics in this angle. If it were turn out to be true then it will become a theory

A study by two three four or five scientists is often viewed with suspicion because few scientist often try to manipulate scientific studies according to their religious views. May be these two were influenced by Bible!
Bongay scientists are trained with a transparent mindset, their own views do not matter in the research they publish. I know it is difficult for you to accept. Read it again:

"Scientists surveyed the genetic 'bar codes' of five million animals and 100,000 different species

'This conclusion is very surprising,' Thaler admitted, 'and I fought against it as hard as I could."
 

insouciant

Minister (2k+ posts)
تو کیا ڈارون کی تھیوری غلط ثابت ہوگئی؟؟

WRONG NUMBER.

1. The paper is not peer reviewed.
2. It's published in a worse than a 3rd class some italian journal. Super pathetic! https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=60978&tip=sid&clean=0
3. Just checked. Professors quoted don't have an impressive resume.
4. Evolution is a fact. As strong a fact as the theory of gravity, atomic theory or germs theory of disease etc. The day it'll be proven wrong, expect a few people getting noble prizes and worldwide coverage of it. Until then, keep calm!

A BROTHERLY REQUEST:
Please help curtail fake news by taking a moment to verify it's credibility before posting it. I can understand someone in dailymail published the catchy headline to get some clicks and feed his starving belly.
 

Liberal 000

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Bongay scientists are trained with a transparent mindset, their own views do not matter in the research they publish. I know it is difficult for you to accept. Read it again:

"Scientists surveyed the genetic 'bar codes' of five million animals and 100,000 different species

'This conclusion is very surprising,' Thaler admitted, 'and I fought against it as hard as I could."

May be these Bongas are influenced by Bible !

I have no problem in accepting if it is true. It is just a claim by two ... and statistics of 5 million is also a claim by these two ... and Christian zeloast also publish such things in news papers in support of their religious text

There are number of religious extremist Christian Cum scientists who try to mold anything and everything according to the lense of Bible

If it is true then soon it will become a theory. Indeed science already says all humans came out of Africa .
 

PakistanRoshanMustaqbil

Senator (1k+ posts)
It's called the "Theory of Evolution" but for decades it has been taught as if it's the "Law of Evolution". The Theory of Evolution is bull***t and has only one purpose; to deny the existence of The Creator.
 

insouciant

Minister (2k+ posts)
That s not theory. It is a fact. Theory can be wrong but facts cant

Brother, first of all adam and eve can never be a fact. Adam and eve story has no observable evidence and fails the test to be called a fact. On the other hand Evolution is a fact, since it's observable and supported by millions of tests and evidences. And evolution by natural selection is a theory. Second, a scientific theory is actually far superior to what a fact is. Hope this helps you educate yourself:


Look up any dictionary... Oxford/webster/encyclopedia etc. You'll find two definitions of the word theory and hence it is often used by creationists/apologists to be taken as a synonym for scientific hypothesis/postulate and misguide people especially in a society that has different systems/standards of education.
 

mhafeez

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
WRONG NUMBER.

1. The paper is not peer reviewed.
2. It's published in a worse than a 3rd class some italian journal. Super pathetic! https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=60978&tip=sid&clean=0
3. Just checked. Professors quoted don't have an impressive resume.
4. Evolution is a fact. As strong a fact as the theory of gravity, atomic theory or germs theory of disease etc. The day it'll be proven wrong, expect a few people getting noble prizes and worldwide coverage of it. Until then, keep calm!

A BROTHERLY REQUEST:
Please help curtail fake news by taking a moment to verify it's credibility before posting it. I can understand someone in dailymail published the catchy headline to get some clicks and feed his starving belly.

This news item was also published in many other newspapers including The New York Times.
 

insouciant

Minister (2k+ posts)
This news item was also published in many other newspapers including The New York Times.

Thanks for speaking your mind out. I think if you'll learn the difference between a newspaper and a scientific paper then it'll clear your confusion.

NEWSPAPER:
A newspaper is a mere medium of information. If it quotes something/someone it has no obligation to verify if that someone/something is right before publishing it. For example, if Nawaz Sharif says he doesn't own Avenfield apartments, the news outlets will publish it that this is what he said. It doesn't make him right or wrong, neither newspapers are endorsing what he said. They are just quoting him that this is what he said. No matter how many newspapers publish his quote, it doesn't make him right or wrong. Take another example of Engnr Agha Waqar who claimed to have made fuel from water. A lot of credible newspapers/channels published his claim. Did it make him right or wrong? So if something is catchy/appealing a lot of newspapers quote the thing to increase their circulation. It doesn't hurt them. Infact it helps their business by getting more viewership.

However there is a catch to what i have just said and i think some people get carried away with it. There is a subset of journalism called Investigative Journalism. Investigative journalists report things based on their investigation which is not something in public domain. Here the reputation of the newspaper counts. A good newspaper will never publish a false interrogation because it can be sued for it, bringing it's credibility and hence their business and circulation down. For example, WSJ would have never published news of sharifs taking bribe from Abraaj if it's editor wasn't sure that he and his team had enough evidence to support it.

Lastly, there is analytical journalism. Here people in the name of free speech publish their views/opinions on whatever they feel about something. A reader has the choice to agree or disagree with analyst because he is just expressing his views. Saleem safi et all anchors are mere analytical journalists. That's why you'd see that newspapers write disclaimers on such columns that this piece is not endorsed by editors and are personal opinions of the aurthors.

SCIENTIFIC PAPERS:

On the other hand, scientific papers don't work like newspapers. Their job is not mere reporting but discovery. The best journals vet every paper submitted to them. The papers are reviewed by a concerned team of 5-15 Phd's in the same domain of the researcher before it gets published. Hence if you get published by journals like Nature, Science, IEEE etc. it's considered a huge honor for the author. Still if at any time it's found you falsified the data which wasn't caught by the reviewers, then you become unemployable. No company/university hires you again. So you can imagine the bar is very very high.

Just as there are different newspapers with varied reputations, unfortunately, there are various categories of scientific journals with different publishing criteria. In my opinion, the journal that has published this study, should not be even called a scientific journal; Scientific fiction may be the right word for it.

I wish the world was simple, but unfortunately, it's not. Hence the people with the right education/knowledge thrive or exploit others. I hope it helps you read news with a better perspective now.
 

mhafeez

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Thanks for speaking your mind out. I think if you'll learn the difference between a newspaper and a scientific paper then it'll clear your confusion.

NEWSPAPER:
A newspaper is a mere medium of information. If it quotes something/someone it has no obligation to verify if that someone/something is right before publishing it. For example, if Nawaz Sharif says he doesn't own Avenfield apartments, the news outlets will publish it that this is what he said. It doesn't make him right or wrong, neither newspapers are endorsing what he said. They are just quoting him that this is what he said. No matter how many newspapers publish his quote, it doesn't make him right or wrong. Take another example of Engnr Agha Waqar who claimed to have made fuel from water. A lot of credible newspapers/channels published his claim. Did it make him right or wrong? So if something is catchy/appealing a lot of newspapers quote the thing to increase their circulation. It doesn't hurt them. Infact it helps their business by getting more viewership.

However there is a catch to what i have just said and i think some people get carried away with it. There is a subset of journalism called Investigative Journalism. Investigative journalists report things based on their investigation which is not something in public domain. Here the reputation of the newspaper counts. A good newspaper will never publish a false interrogation because it can be sued for it, bringing it's credibility and hence their business and circulation down. For example, WSJ would have never published news of sharifs taking bribe from Abraaj if it's editor wasn't sure that he and his team had enough evidence to support it.

Lastly, there is analytical journalism. Here people in the name of free speech publish their views/opinions on whatever they feel about something. A reader has the choice to agree or disagree with analyst because he is just expressing his views. Saleem safi et all anchors are mere analytical journalists. That's why you'd see that newspapers write disclaimers on such columns that this piece is not endorsed by editors and are personal opinions of the aurthors.

SCIENTIFIC PAPERS:

On the other hand, scientific papers don't work like newspapers. Their job is not mere reporting but discovery. The best journals vet every paper submitted to them. The papers are reviewed by a concerned team of 5-15 Phd's in the same domain of the researcher before it gets published. Hence if you get published by journals like Nature, Science, IEEE etc. it's considered a huge honor for the author. Still if at any time it's found you falsified the data which wasn't caught by the reviewers, then you become unemployable. No company/university hires you again. So you can imagine the bar is very very high.

Just as there are different newspapers with varied reputations, unfortunately, there are various categories of scientific journals with different publishing criteria. In my opinion, the journal that has published this study, should not be even called a scientific journal; Scientific fiction may be the right word for it.

I wish the world was simple, but unfortunately, it's not. Hence the people with the right education/knowledge thrive or exploit others. I hope it helps you read news with a better perspective now.

This was in responce of "worldwide coverage".
 

Back
Top