DNA Barcoding and the Inconvenient Truth

The DNA barcode is a short snippit of DNA that exists in every animal, plant and microbe, but is different for each one. It is, if you will, a fingerprint for every species. All one has to do is to analyze the DNA barcode of anything to determine what species the DNA sample came from. From a very practical perspective, this process is immensely important. For instance, an upscale sushi restaurant can distinguish the expensive yellowtale tuna from a different fish or customs inspectors can determine if an imported steak is from a protected species. In 2015 this method became economically feasible and resulted in the manufacture of a portable DNA scanner called the MinION which can be purchased for approximately $1000.1

When the MinION became available, two evolutionary scientists purchased several of them and set out to prove evolution, once and for all. They were going to do this by collecting the Barcode DNA from thousands of different species and comparing the progressive evolutionary changes from species to species. Unfortunately for the theory of evolution, these scientists were honest and their study proved precisely the opposite. Their names are M.Y. Stoeckle (Program for the human Environment The Rockefeller University, USA) and D.S. Thaler (Biozentrum, University of Basel, Switzerland). Their study is published in Human Evolution, vol 33 - n. 1-2 (1-30)- 2018.

These men theorized that since evolution teaches that all of life evolved from a common ancestor, the differences in the genetic barcode would be progressive over time. And the progressive differences in all of the barcodes would point to a common origin millions of years ago because all species are the product of millions of years of minute changes from a common ancestor (a primitive cell).

The theory of evolution paints a picture of a spray of genetic changes cast into time. These genetic changes and environmental stresses cause one kind of animal to survive to the prejudice of others. In this way all amimals eventually grouped into different phyla and then into different species within each different phyla. The further we get away from the source of the spray, the more diverse the genetic barcodes will become. The first living things were cells, then a type of water dweller, then fish, then mammals and reptiles. They become more and more diverse over time.

Therefore, if we could see all of the products of the spray we should find that as time passes the barcodes are moving further and further apart.

With the DNA Barcode scanner, the mass of hard evidence necessary to compare these genetic codes was compiled for the first time in history. Dr. Stoeckle and Dr. Thayler's study comprised not simply a snapshot of the barcodes of thousands of samples but also an analysis of genetic markers that they referred to a neutral genes. Neutral genes are genes that are present but do not effect the survival of a particular species. The Stoeckle-Thayer team used neutral genes to calculate the rate of genetic diversity over time.

When they had completed their study, they found that their evidence showed precisely the opposite of what they had expected. The study did not show that that different species became more genetically diverse over time as the theory of evolution would predict. Instead, the genetic differences between the species remained parallel. They stayed the same.

This is diametrically opposed to the theory of evolution because not only does the theory of evolution teach that the genetic differences are always changing, but it is those changes that produce new species. Without the changes that move species apart, there can be no new species.

When asked if animals became more genetically diverse over time, Dr. Stoeckle said, "The answer is no."2

More importantly, their study also showed that 90 percent of all life, including humans emerged together, not progressively over time. This again is what creationism proposes.

"...90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age..."3

"In analysing DNA barcodes across 100,000 species, researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all animals emerged about the same time as humans."4

They also found that the genetic boundaries between species are very clear; each species is clearly defined. The evolutionary "blur" between the species is not there.

" 'And yet - another unexpected finding from the study--species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much between them.' Said Thaler."5

They found no significant indication of any in-between species. The implications of this finding are profound because in-between species are the veritable hallmark of evolution. Without in-between species, there is no evolution because evolution teaches gradual change and that every species is or was an in-between species.

" 'If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies. They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space. The absence of in-between species is something that perplexed Darwin' said Thaler."6

Additionally, the study showed that 9 out of 10 species on earth, including man, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.7

Again, this conclusion is a direct contradiction to evolution's continually repeated million-year-mantra and it is disheartening to an evolutionist:

" 'This conclusion is surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could.' Thaler told AFP."8

So how does evolution explain the conclusions of the Stoeckler and Thaler study?

One evolutionist's answer is the evolutionist answer to everything, " 'Environmental trauma..' explained Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University. "Environmental trauma is the reason why there is no divergence of species and why all of them emerged at roughly the same time.9

In other words, something catastrophic happened thousands of years ago that erased all the genetic evidence for evolution. If that castrophy had not have occurred, then the Stoeckle-Thaler study would have been different. It would have shown that 90 percent of all species emerged millions of years ago (long before 200,000 years ago) and that they did not emerge at the same time. And there would be genetic evidence of the in-between species, exactly as theorized by Darwin.

The problem with that explanation, according to Thaler, is that there is no evidence of such a catastrophy 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. He says, "...the last true mass extinction event was 65.5 million years ago when a likely asterod strike wiped out land-bound dinosaurs and half of all species on Earth."10

In his attempt to rehabilitate evolution, Thaler offers another explanation. He theorizes that what he has observed is simply the way evolution works. There are no in-between species, and all (or at least 90%) of the animals alive at any one point in time emerged together and "relatively recently."11

Essentially, what Thaler is saying is that this is what they observed and evolution is the only explanation (Creation can never be an explanation because it posits the existence of a Creator and Creators are not permitted no matter what the evidence shows). Therefore what he observed is evolution.

But, Dr. Thaler, if there was a Creator, what would we expect to find? We would expect to find that all animals emerged at the same time and relatively recently, that the genetic differences between the species remain static and there are no in-between species. Is this not what your study showed?




2 Interview in Phys Org May 28, 2018 found at " is a science, research and technology news aggregator where much of the content is republished directly from press releases and news agencies." Wikipedia.

3 id.

4 Id.

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 Id.