Will evolutionists admit evolution is debunked NOW? https://youtu.be/5dkwg4fKElw?

Evolution is for grownups.

Sorry, I don't watch random Youtube videos because someone I don't know posts a link in a lame attempt to prove some point. And since Youtube is not a reliable or valid source of scientific information, anyone that gets their data from there is sadly uneducated.

Sounds like a gross simplification and misconstruction of the Cambrian explosion, which did not happen all at once but over millions of years. In the grand scheme of things the Cambrian explosion seems almost instant, but it was around 20 million years I believe.

Not going to look at that nonsense.

If evolution is debunked, the person/team that does that is virtually guaranteed a Nobel Prize in Biology. Once that happens I might take a look...

1. The empirical article itself isn't titled that... that's merely the headline Tech Times used for reporting on it. The people in the video erroneously conflate the two.

2. The study claims not that all species originated at the same time, but through mitochondrial variation over a period of roughly 100,000-200,000 years (that is, it takes roughly 100,000-200,000 years for a new population to become a distinct species from its origin species). Meaning, species extant today are 90% likely to be unique from (that is, *potentially* couldn't reproduce with, or are at least notably divergent from the uniformity of) their ancestors from (at the upper end) 200,000 years ago. (to be fair, as a population expands, this would make sense... a species would shift from some uniformity of the first samples of that population, and branch outward over time).

Now, to be fair, this raises some interesting possibilities... notably, in the scope of humans, that H. sapiens today (read: us) isn't actually the same species as H. sapiens at the time we place the origin of H. sapiens (or at least, if we were to exist simultaneously through time travel or whatever, we'd be reproductively exclusive from each other). If anything, though, this actually charges evolution with jet fuel, suggesting it happens faster (and more dramatically) than our previous theories of evolution would suggest. But maybe not... regardless, it shows species have expanded from uniformity (which could potentially mean a number of things, to be fair).

It does suggest there may be some factor causing this seemingly accelerated rate (climate or otherwise - such shifts could cause species to diverge faster, theoretically), which I suppose could be co-opted by creationists. But...

The study doesn't preclude species before those currently extant (in fact, it relies on the existence of now extinct species as comparative for modern, extant species). Also, that other 10% would be older - it may be a small percent, but it means those species (populations maintaining earlier uniformity) are OLDER than 100,000-200,000 years ("at the same time" is relative to all life on Earth - billions of years - with even the upper limit, 200,000 years, being a small blip in that, thus "the same time"), which in itself debunks creationist arguments trying to co-opt this.

Basically, it's not debunking evolution... if anything, it's saying evolution happens faster than we previously thought, or at least HAS happened as such in the past 200,000 years. Specifically applied to humans, it means we're actually further diverged from early H. sapiens (albeit that difference is extremely slight, but potentially significant). But even with that, the timespan is still 100,000 years (well longer than the 6,000 or so years Young Earth Creationists claim).

A three minute you tube video doesn't debunk anything. Buffoonery at its worst.

I listened to as much of that drivel as I could stomach. It proves only that the gentleman who posted it is ignorant.

The paper in Tech Times is a misreading of the original paper in Human Evolution which you can read here https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/upload...

It does nothing to shake any part of evolutionary theory or our knowledge of how environmental change affects population genetics.

Of course creationists won't read the original paper, nor will they read any more than the Tech Times headline but will draw erroneous conclusions from the headline - just as they always do.

Well, if some slack-jawed yokel standing in a ply-wood church says it, then it must be true(!)

Praise be to mighty Jeebus! Fossils aren't real! The world is six thousand years old! The speed of light is affected by magic!

Twattery afforded by a pillock is of no value.

Do have a spiffingly wonderful day.

Atheist.