Humans and most other animal species are same age

With a side serving of we come from a single male and female pair.

Primary study:

News articles:

My understanding is extremely low level. I think the fox claims are rather deceptive after I read the study. It clearly says that they can't tell if it's from a population size of 2 or thousands. Given that it's mDNA and the limitations from that I feel like this is just a headline grab and probably some creationist BS. But I don't understand the statistics of any of this. The claim that 9 out of 10 species are the same age (roughly) seems like the real headline here but I can't dispute it with my limited understanding. What do you guys think about this? Any merit at all? Is there an evolutionary explanation? Is this creationist crap? I figured some of you with more education and brains could dumb this down for me.

EDIT: This fox article is different from the video clip I initially saw. I mistakenly thought them the same. But this is close enough to demonstrate the type of stuff in the news.


Active Member
Fox's revision of it is just outright bollocks, as is to be expected from such a critical source of disinformation.

Nothing anywhere ever suggests that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam lived anywhere near each other, or even within tens of thousands of years of each other.

Also, if Fox wants to appeal to a guiding hand necessarily acting behind speciation events, then they need to account for all the species which didn't evolve during this period.

As is always the case, the notion that this happened 'overnight' is wholly figurative. While hundreds of thousands of years may well be a metaphorical blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, it's not in terms of a common designer popping out His designs in such a way as to generate belief in them all having a common designer.

Fox is dross, but this is a new level of idiocy. Theocratic agendas superseding science. Pathetic beyond imagination.


Active Member
Collecemall said:
Is there an evolutionary explanation?

Part statistical artifact (although I need to read again to explain why), part selection bias, but from an evolutionary perspective; part environmental upheaval, and partly due to small founding populations raising mitochondrial uniformity.

Dragan Glas

Active Member

Even from the introduction, all the paper is actually saying is that mtDNA (COI barcodes) is a good guide to what species a specimen belongs.

Equally, that mtDNA has "settled down" into the major groups or clusters concomitant with what we define as species over the past one to several hundred thousand years.

Note that this does NOT say that Life only started within the last several hundred thousand years!

Equally, it's been known for some time that "mitochondrial Eve" was the "mother" of humans (note also its discussion of her male equivalent, "Adam"). This was based on the idea that mtDNA was only transmitted through the female line. However, recent research has confirmed that it's possible for mtDNA to be transmitted through males as well.

So there's nothing for creationists except fake news.

Kindest regards,