A recent1 review paper proposed a controversial claimthat 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?
The main focus of Stoeckle and Thalers 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 justifiedso much so that I will summarize their arguments by liberally quoting from their paper.
About 15 years ago, DNA barcoding was first proposed as a tool for practical taxonomy.2 Taxonomy is the field of science concerned with the classification of life, and scientists thought that taking small subsets of DNA would aid in identifying and classifying species. The particular mitochondrial sequence that has become the most widely used is the 648 base pair (bp) [think of base pairs as DNA letters] segment of the gene [a subsection of DNA sequence] encoding mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI).3
With a subset of a subset of DNA, Skeptics of COI barcoding raised a number of objections about its power and/or generality as a single simple metric applicable to the entire animal kingdom, including: the small fraction of the genome (about 5% of the mitochondrial genome and less than one millionth of the total organisms genome [total DNA in an organism]) might not be sensitive or representative.4
A simple example from humans illustrates this concern. For instance, on average any two humans differ at 0.2%0.5% of their mtDNA base pairs. Theoretically, if all mtDNA differences are evenly distributed around the human mtDNA genome, you would expect 12 mtDNA differences in each individuals 648 bp COI barcode. With numbers this low, one generation of an extra mutation or two in the COI barcode sequence might throw a real classification pattern (i.e., one based on comparisons of hundreds of anatomical and physiological features) into confusion.
However, since the early days of DNA barcoding, such objections have been mostly mollified. I can attest to this from my own experience in handling thousands of mtDNA sequences. As a representative of the mtDNA diversity among species and individuals, a subset of mtDNA sequence is a good first approximation. Though subsets arent always perfect representations of the whole sequence, they are good initial data points.
Furthermore, over several decades of mtDNA barcoding, scientists have discovered a specific clustering pattern among mtDNA barcodes from individuals across diverse species: a general observation is that barcode clusters correspond best to species in well-studied animal groups, where taxonomists have mostly decided and agreed upon what species are. Thus there is good support in several major phyla, including Chordata [e.g., vertebrates and a handful of other species], Arthropoda [e.g., insects, arachnids, and crustaceans], Mollusca [e.g., shellfish, octopi], Echinodermata [e.g., starfish]. We note that these phyla are estimated to contain about 34 of named animal species.5
This fact has two major ramifications: First, the cluster structure of the animal world found in COI barcode analysis is independent of any definition(s) of species. Second, domain experts judgments of species tend to agree with barcode clusters and many apparent deviations turn out to be exceptions that prove the rule.6 In other words, the initial fears of those skeptical of DNA barcoding have not been met. Instead, barcoding has been very successful.
In light of these successes, the authors acknowledge the unexpected implications for explanations for the origin of species: At its origin DNA barcoding made no claim of contributing to evolutionary theory,7 yet the pattern of DNA barcode variance is the central fact of animal life that needs to be explained by evolutionary theory.8
Expanding our scope beyond the narrow evolutionary focus of the authors, we can generalize their statement: These mtDNA barcode patterns need to be explained by any model purporting to account for the origin of species.
The barcode patterns take a very specific form: the clustering structure of COI barcodessmall variance within species and often but not always sequence gaps among nearest neighbor species is the primary fact that a model of evolution and speciation must explain. Furthermore, the average pairwise difference among individuals (APD; equivalent to population genetics parameter ) within animal species is between 0.0% and 0.5%. The most data are available for modern humans, who have an APD of 0.1% calculated in the same way as for other animals.9
Stoeckle and Thaler recognize the sweeping potential in these patterns: The agreement of barcodes and domain experts implies that explaining the origin of the pattern of DNA barcodes would be in large part explaining the origin of species. Understanding the mechanism by which the near-universal pattern of DNA barcodes comes about would be tantamount to understanding the mechanism of speciation.10
In their evolutionary model, Stoeckle and Thaler invoke two hypotheses account for the barcode cluster patterns: Either 1) COI barcode clusters represent species-specific adaptations, OR 2) extant populations have recently passed through diversity-reducing regimes whose consequences for sequence diversity are indistinguishable from clonal bottlenecks.11
Their conclusion? Modern human mitochondria and Y chromosome [another subset of DNA, but inherited paternally] originated from conditions that imposed a single sequence on these genetic elements between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.12 In other words, to account for human CO barcode patterns, they favor the second hypothesissome sort of population dynamic (contraction) that reduced the genetic diversity of the population.
Stoeckle and Thaler then extrapolate their conclusions to controversial heights. To justify their extrapolation, they caution that one should not as a first impulse seek a complex and multifaceted explanation for one of the clearest, most data rich and general facts in all of evolution. Then they draw a parallel: The simple hypothesis is that the same explanation offered for the sequence variation found among modern humans applies equally to the modern populations of essentially all other animal species. Namely that the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 200,000 years.13 In other words, based on mtDNA barcodes, Stoeckle and Thaler claim that the vast majority of species have originated contemporary with modern humans.
Though Stoeckle and Thaler dont perform this step, lets revisit their data and take their results to the next logical conclusion. We can do this because creationists have no problems with the observations that Stoeckle and Thaler describe. Ive already mentioned that my own experience with mtDNA matches theirsbarcodes are a useful first approximation and should be treated as such. Yet this first approximation has revealed a consistent patternlow numbers of mtDNA differences within species and higher numbers of mtDNA differences between species.
Furthermore, since Stoeckle and Thaler explore the origin of individual speciesrather than the origin of whole classification groups, like mammalstheir reasoning applies almost seamlessly to the creationist explanation for the origin of species. Their claim that species arose recently is one that focuses on species within kindsnot one that explores changes from one kind into another. In other words, for Stoeckle and Thalers particular question, evolutionists and creationists agree on the question of common ancestry.
Nevertheless, they differ sharply on the question of timewhen these individual species arose. Unlike Stoeckle and Thaler, creationists invoke not two, but three potential explanations for low numbers of mtDNA sequence differences within species: (1) species-specific adaptations; (2) changing population sizes or past bottlenecks (see especially the discussion of American bison (Bison bison) mtDNA and African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) mtDNA in this paper; (3) time recent origin (e.g., within the last 4,5006,000 years).
We now have two decades worth of direct measurements of the rate at which human mtDNA mutates, and it matches exactly the 6,000-year timescale and rejects the evolutionary timescale (see Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve and references therein). Thus, taking Stoeckle and Thalers results to their logical conclusion, we can revise their statement to Modern human [mitochondrial DNA] originated from conditions that imposed a single sequence on these genetic elements14 about 6,000 years ago.
Lets now re-extrapolate these results to other species. The simple hypothesis is that the same explanation offered for the sequence variation found among modern humans applies equally to the modern populations of essentially all other animal species. Namely that the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 6,000 years.
We can refine this conclusion even more, with more spectacular implications for the creationist model: In the last two decades, the mtDNA mutation rate in a handful of invertebrate species has also been directly measured, and these rates14 are around 10 times higher (or more!) than the human mtDNA mutation rate (again, see this article and references therein). This would imply that multiple species within a genus (or perhaps even a family) have originated within the last 6,000 years.
In other words, these broad mtDNA barcode results suggest that, in general, the predictions15 I made for mtDNA mutation rates in diverse species are likely to be fulfilled. This is good evidence that Darwins ideas are well on their way to being replaced.
As this article was going to press, the theistic evolutionary organization BioLogos posted a critique of Stoeckle and Thalers paper. More specifically, BioLogos posted a critique of creationist responses to Stoeckle and Thaler. BioLogos took strong exception to the type of thesis that I advanced above. For example, consider the following quote from BioLogos: "Did Stoeckel [sic] and Thaler conclude that 90% of animal species appeared at same time as humans? The answer is No [emphasis theirs].
Did I miss a key element of the Stoeckle and Thaler paper?
Lets take a look at the BioLogos article, which was written by PhD biologist and professor Joel Duff. Duff clearly desired to minimize the implications of Stoeckle and Thalers paper. For example, Duff characterized the journal in which it was published as a low-profile Italian journal. He also downplayed the impact, saying that the extended press release didnt generate much reaction inside or outside of the scientific community. More strongly, Duff denounced claims like the one I made above as mischaracterization of the original research. He said it was an incorrect claim that most species originated about the same time.
Why?
To support his assertion, Duff proposed an examination of the original intent of the authors of this paper. Since an authors intent is invisible unless the author clearly states it, Duffs suggested methodology to justify his strong critique is a creative way to tackle a scientific controversy.
After examining Stoeckle and Thalers intent to Duffs satisfaction, Duffs journalism gets more questionable. Weve already examined his emphatic assertion: Did Stoeckel [sic] and Thaler conclude that 90% of animal species appeared at same time as humans? The answer is No. Duff justifies his forceful condemnation with a quote from Stoeckle and Thalers paper: the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 200,000 years.16 In light of this quote, Duff concludes, In other words, the genetic diversity observed in mitochondrial genomes of most species alive today can be attributed to the accumulation of mutations from an ancestral genome within the past 200,000 years, and Duff asserts that the authors never claim that most species came into existence within the past 200,000 years.
For a critique that began with a proposal to examine intent, Duff seems to have missed the actual intent of the authors. The title of their paper is, Why should mitochondria define species? After discussing and justifying at length the observation that mtDNA differences do, in fact, delineate species, the authors then make a startling statement: The pattern of DNA barcode variance is the central fact of animal life that needs to be explained by evolutionary theory17 [emphasis theirs]. In case the intent of their statement wasnt transparent, the authors make it explicit: The agreement of barcodes and domain experts implies that explaining the origin of the pattern of DNA barcodes would be in large part explaining the origin of species. Understanding the mechanism by which the near-universal pattern of DNA barcodes comes about would be tantamount to understanding the mechanism of speciation.18 They then spend the next chunk of their paper discussing what mtDNA barcodes imply about the mechanism of speciation. Clearly, Stoeckle and Thaler are concerned with much more than just the accumulation of mutations from an ancestral genome within the past 200,000 years. Instead, they have a strong focus on the origin of species.
But did the authors never claim that most species came into existence within the past 200,000 years? In one sense, if we split hairs, Duff is technically correct: In their paper, Stoeckle and Thaler never say so explicitly. Yet as weve just observed, the conclusion about the timing of the origin of species is implied. Furthermore, Thaler makes the conclusion explicit in the press releasethe very one that Duff cited:
Our paper strengthens the argument that the low variation in the mitochondrial DNA of modern humans also explains the similar low variation found in over 90% of living animal specieswe all likely originated by similar processes and most animal species are likely young19. [emphasis added]
How did Biologos miss this?
Duff advances a second argument in his critique of the implications of Stoeckle and Thalers paper. He says that the mtDNA results at best, [tell] us the minimum age of the species. It tells us little to nothing about the maximum age of a species [emphasis his]. For the maximum age, Duff thinks the fossil record is essential. Furthermore, he states that an examination of the mitochondrial genome of any species will only tell us when the common ancestor of all modern members of this species existed, which will almost invariably occur after the evolutionary origin of the species.
But how does Duff know that this is true? Ive already documented that fossils do not directly record genealogical relationships; only DNA does. Why would Duff defer the genealogical question of ancestry (a.k.a. the question of the origin of species) to an indirect field of science (paleontology) when a direct field (geneticsmtDNA) gives a clear answer?
Ive also documented that the process of speciation involves several stepsat a minimum, (1) the formation of one or more distinct individuals, (2) the multiplication of these distinct individuals into a population, and (3) the isolation of this distinct population from the parent species. How does Duff know that the supposed ancestors (recorded by fossils) of modern species were isolated enough from the other populations alive at the time to be called a new species? Duff is trying to win a scientific argument, not by data and by experimentation, but by assertion. This is not a scientific way to resolve the controversy.
BioLogos response is sad, if not ironic. Weve already documented the fact that our evolutionary opponents dont read our literature (Duff included , despite BioLogos professed commitment to dialogue with those who hold other views); yet they call us liars. Sometimes I wonder if they carefully read even the evolutionary literature. Either way, BioLogos main critique (of the implications of Stoeckle and Thalers paper) amounts to misrepresentation and speculation even approaching outright denial. If this is the best that the evolutionary community can do, then perhaps my scientific conclusions (above) are even stronger than they first appear.
See more here:
Hundreds of Thousands of Species in a Few Thousand Years?
- Mating Study Unlocks the Genetic Code of Attraction - Neuroscience News - March 18th, 2024
- Mindfulness in your DNA? Capacity to be present is partly a function of genetics, study finds - PsyPost - March 18th, 2024
- Genetic testing scam targets Medicare recipients, including those in Spokane - KXLY Spokane - March 18th, 2024
- Some people are genetically predisposed to gain weight. These 5 tips can help - CNN - March 18th, 2024
- SOPHiA GENETICS and The French Kidney Cancer Research Network (UroCCR) Publish Results from Multiyear ... - PR Newswire - March 18th, 2024
- Tissue samples show the deep genetic and cellular impacts of smoking - Medical Xpress - March 18th, 2024
- The regulatory landscape of chromatin accessibility - Nature.com - March 18th, 2024
- Genome assemblies of 11 bamboo species highlight diversification induced by dynamic subgenome dominance - Nature.com - March 18th, 2024
- Research reveals the genetic code behind non-identical twins - Medical Xpress - March 18th, 2024
- How genetic therapies transformed the lives of sickle cell patients - KPVI News 6 - March 18th, 2024
- The Next Wave of Privacy Litigation: The Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act - Perkins Coie - March 18th, 2024
- State initiates study on genetic cancers, Lynch Syndrome - The Times of India - March 18th, 2024
- How genetic therapies transformed the lives of sickle cell patients - Citizentribune - March 18th, 2024
- Dr Plichta on Areas of Interest for Genetic Testing Research in Breast Cancer - OncLive - March 18th, 2024
- The Genetic History of the Jews Mosaic - Mosaic - March 18th, 2024
- New insights into genetic mechanisms could improve treatment of liver fibrosis - Medical Xpress - March 18th, 2024
- 5 Questions To Ask About The Ethics Of Genetic Data - Forbes - March 18th, 2024
- Couple raising money to fix sons club feet caused by rare genetic condition - 21 Alive News - February 18th, 2024
- What can bulls tell us about men? Genetic discovery could translate to human fertility research - Medical Xpress - February 18th, 2024
- Legislation seeks to bar life insurance companies from purchasing recreational genetic testing data - Delaware First Media - February 18th, 2024
- Family-based study identifies potential new genetic factors linked to Alzheimer's risk in people with African ancestry - National Institute on Aging - February 18th, 2024
- Genetic determinants of micronucleus formation in vivo - Nature.com - February 18th, 2024
- Near-gapless and haplotype-resolved apple genomes provide insights into the genetic basis of rootstock-induced ... - Nature.com - February 18th, 2024
- Accurate and sensitive mutational signature analysis with MuSiCal - Nature.com - February 18th, 2024
- CRISPR, the Genetic Revolution of the 21st Century | OpenMind - BBVA OpenMind - February 18th, 2024
- Genetic control of thermomorphogenesis in tomato inflorescences - Nature.com - February 18th, 2024
- Natural selection and genetic diversity maintenance in a parasitic wasp during continuous biological control application - Nature.com - February 18th, 2024
- Understanding how natural genetic variation contributes to adaptive responses to low oxygen - News-Medical.Net - February 18th, 2024
- Division of Epidemiology and Genetics - Epidemiology and Genetics - University of Southern California - February 18th, 2024
- Genetic study clarifies the link between birth weight and adult morbidity - Medical Xpress - February 18th, 2024
- AI and genetics underpin project to speed up CVD diagnosis and personalise treatment - Hospital Healthcare - February 18th, 2024
- Study Reveals Complex Interaction Between Genetics and Environment in Brain Functioning - Medriva - February 18th, 2024
- Unraveling the Impact of Genetics and Socioeconomic Status on Behavioral and Psychiatric Traits - Medriva - February 18th, 2024
- Genetic Investigation Reveals CETP Gene Variants Linked to Cardiovascular Resilience in Genome-Wide Association ... - Physician's Weekly - December 30th, 2023
- Raha Kapoor's blue eyes remind fans of her great-grandfather, Raj Kapoor; here's what genetics says - IndiaTimes - December 30th, 2023
- Genetic clue to pericarditis inflammation points to promising new treatments - News-Medical.Net - December 30th, 2023
- Certain genetic predispositions may increase risk of atrial fibrillation among those with high alcohol consumption - 2 Minute Medicine - December 30th, 2023
- Understanding the genetic basis of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer - News-Medical.Net - December 30th, 2023
- Genetic engineering was meant to save chestnut trees. Then there was a mistake. - The Washington Post - December 30th, 2023
- Unraveling the mystery of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer - EurekAlert - December 30th, 2023
- What is Genetics? | AMNH - American Museum of Natural History - December 22nd, 2023
- Who killed Shelley Connolly? Genetic genealogy leads authorities to a suspect and a conviction - Alaska's News Source - December 22nd, 2023
- C.S. Lewis, Atheism, and the Genetic Fallacy - Word on Fire - December 22nd, 2023
- FDA approves first genetic test to assess opioid addiction risk using DNA sample - Fox News - December 22nd, 2023
- Genetic blueprint of wild grapes could help breed better grapes - University of California, Davis - December 22nd, 2023
- Unlocking the genetic secrets of grape seedlessness - Phys.org - December 22nd, 2023
- Unlocking the genetic secrets of drought resilience in Persian walnuts - Phys.org - December 22nd, 2023
- FDA approves genetic test to assess patients risk of developing an opioid addiction - KXAN.com - December 22nd, 2023
- How researchers are CReATiNG synthetic chromosomes faster and cheaper - EurekAlert - December 22nd, 2023
- The promise of genetic therapies in sickle cell disease - The Lancet - December 22nd, 2023
- Assessment of genetic diversity, population structure and wolf-dog hybridisation in the Eastern Romanian Carpathian ... - Nature.com - December 22nd, 2023
- Genetics and Heart Disease: What you need to know - IndiaTimes - December 22nd, 2023
- How to become a geneticist - University of Sydney - December 22nd, 2023
- Study sheds light on the ancestry and genetics of Coast Salish woolly dogs | News | Vancouver Island University ... - Vancouver Island University News - December 22nd, 2023
- Human genetics | Description, Chromosomes, & Inheritance - December 13th, 2023
- BASIC GENETICS INFORMATION - Understanding Genetics - NCBI Bookshelf - December 13th, 2023
- Introduction to Genetics - Open Textbook Library - December 13th, 2023
- Clues to preventing Alzheimer's come from patient who, despite genetics, evaded disease Washington University ... - Washington University School of... - December 13th, 2023
- Environmental stress rather than genetics influenced height differences in early Neolithic people: Study - Phys.org - December 13th, 2023
- What is trisomy 18? Why the fatal genetic disorder is in the news and what it's like to get the diagnosis. - Yahoo Life - December 13th, 2023
- Spanish scientists identify the molecular mechanisms controlling the genes involved in proper formation of the heart ... - EurekAlert - December 13th, 2023
- GENEFIT, the First-Ever Fitness Technology to Integrate Personal Genetics with Wearable Tracker Data, Launches to ... - Fitt Insider - December 13th, 2023
- Genetic 'protection' against depression was no match for pandemic stress, finds study of first-year college students - Medical Xpress - December 13th, 2023
- Origin and evolution of the triploid cultivated banana genome - Nature.com - December 13th, 2023
- CellCharter reveals spatial cell niches associated with tissue remodeling and cell plasticity - Nature.com - December 13th, 2023
- How do we get our eye color? A genetics expert reveals the fascinating truth - Fox News - December 13th, 2023
- WVU Today | WVU scientists spice up genetic research through habanero peppers and AI - WVU Today - December 13th, 2023
- Genetic mutations that promote reproduction tend to shorten human lifespan, study shows - Phys.org - December 13th, 2023
- Stanford Scientists Discover Common Genetic Factor That Fends Off Alzheimer's and Parkinson's - SciTechDaily - December 13th, 2023
- Association of genetic risk and lifestyle with pancreatic cancer and their age dependency: a large prospective cohort ... - BMC Medicine - December 13th, 2023
- New bill would block American genetic data from access by companies tied to foreign adversaries - Homeland Preparedness News - December 13th, 2023
- Electric Eels Shocking Ability To Alter The Genetics Of Nearby Animals - Forbes - December 13th, 2023
- "When them genetics kick in its all over" - NBA fans send in rib-tickling reactions as LeBron James attends Zhuri James' volleyball game -... - October 16th, 2023
- David Liu, chemist: We now have the technology to correct misspellings in our DNA that cause known genetic diseases - EL PAS USA - April 7th, 2023
- World Health Day 2023: Understanding the science of Epi-genetics and how to apply it in our daily lives - Free Press Journal - April 7th, 2023
- Genetics - National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) - March 29th, 2023
- GENETICS 101 - Understanding Genetics - NCBI Bookshelf - March 29th, 2023
- People always think Im skinny because of good genetics theyre shocked when they see what I used to lo... - The US Sun - March 29th, 2023
- Forensics expert explains 'genetic genealogy' process believed to be used in Kohberger's arrest - KTVB.com - January 6th, 2023
- Idaho student murders: What is genetic genealogy, a tool reportedly used to help capture the suspect? - FOX 10 News Phoenix - January 6th, 2023