ResearchPDF Available

Is There Good Evidence for Biological Evolution?

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

A staggering number of Americans, and people around the world, do not know that there is sufficient evidence for evolution (Newport, F. 2009). There are a number of evidences for biological evolution, also known as, descent with modification.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Is
there good evidence for biological
e
vo
lu
tio
n
?
by, Reginald V. Finley
S
r
Originally Published: April 15th 2009
Updated: March 22nd 2011
Abstract:
A
staggering number of
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
s,
and people around
t
h
e
world, do not know that
t
h
e
r
e
is sufficient
evidence for evolution
(
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
,
F.
2009). There are
a
number of evidences for biological
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
,
a
l
s
o
known
as,
d
e
sce
n
t
with
m
o
d
i
f
i
ca
t
i
o
n
.
Introduction:
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
ng
evolution is pivotal to
t
h
e
un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
ng
of basic biological science.
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
i
s
understanding it is almost impossible to understand why organisms come into being and behave
t
h
e
way
t
h
e
y
do.
E
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
explains how species resist pesticides, how
p
a
t
h
o
g
e
n
s
i
n
va
d
e
their host
and
how
t
h
e
y
overcome predation.
E
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
isalso critical in developing new
ways
to treat
d
i
s
e
a
se
and
predicting
ways
to help stop resistance to antibiotics.
A
common example of this resistance are
su
p
e
r
-
germs being cr
e
a
t
e
d
from
co
n
t
i
nu
o
u
s
use
of a
n
t
i
-
b
a
ct
e
r
i
a
l
soaps.
E
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
predicts that germs
can
e
vo
l
ve
into more dangerous organisms
as a
result of
co
n
t
i
nu
e
d
use
of a
n
t
i
-
b
a
ct
e
r
i
a
l
soaps, but it a
l
so
predicts that minimizing
t
h
e
use
of a
n
t
i
-
b
a
ct
e
r
i
a
l
soaps will
l
e
sse
n
t
h
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
of new
su
p
e
r
-
g
e
r
m
s
(Levy, S. 2000).
T
e
a
ch
i
ng
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
germ resistance to antibiotics is
a
common scientific example of
t
h
e
e
ff
i
ca
c
y
o
f
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
theory. However, our public schools
co
n
t
i
nu
e
to
be a
target for a
n
t
i
-
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
i
st
s,
that
w
i
s
h
to push a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
i
d
e
a
s
a
b
o
u
t
man and animal origins. Many of
t
h
e
se
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
o
r
i
e
s
do
n
o
t
r
e
co
gn
i
ze
t
h
e
growing body of
e
v
i
d
e
n
ce
in support of
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
theory. The evidence p
r
e
se
n
t
e
d
w
ill
hopefully provide
a
rebuttal to
t
h
o
se
that wish to undermine good biological science
e
d
u
ca
t
i
o
n
.
All of
t
h
e
evidence for evolution is multitudinous and
can
in no
way be
listed in
a
single
p
a
p
e
r
.
H
o
w
e
ve
r
,
t
h
e
six strong evidences for evolution that follow should suffice to
co
un
t
e
r
the many
vo
i
ces
that doubt
t
h
e
ve
r
a
ci
t
y
of
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
theory. These evidences will
be
distinct from
each
other in
some ways
but
t
h
e
y
are all connected to
each
other
via
DNA
.
The
g
e
n
e
t
i
c
evidence that follows will
consist
of:
P
se
u
d
o
g
e
n
e
Homology, The
V
i
t
a
m
i
n
C
Broken
Gene,
E
n
d
o
g
e
n
o
u
s
R
e
t
r
o
v
i
r
u
se
s,
T
ee
t
h
Gene
E
x
p
r
e
ss
i
o
n
,
Missing Chromosomes, and The
P
h
y
l
o
g
e
n
e
t
i
c
T
r
ee
.
In
trying to
un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
the evidence, it is
i
m
p
e
r
a
t
i
ve
that
t
h
e
r
e
is
an
understanding of
w
h
a
t
genes a
r
e
and their function.
Genes
are
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
of DNA that are
t
r
a
n
scr
i
b
e
d
to perform
a
specific
f
un
ct
i
o
n
.
Making
co
p
i
e
s
of
t
h
e
m
se
l
ves
are part of their normal function. Alfred
S
t
u
r
t
e
va
n
t
,
a
geneticist,
was
t
h
e
first to discover
t
h
e
se
new duplications in 1925 while working with fruit flies.
He
d
i
sc
o
ve
r
e
d
that
some
of the offspring had
an
extra copy of
a
gene
(
S
t
u
r
t
e
va
n
t
,
1925).
S
i
n
ce
S
t
u
r
t
e
va
n
t
,
other
sci
e
n
t
i
st
s
have
observed new gene duplications in many different species, including humans
(
F
a
i
r
b
a
n
ks,
2007).
These new duplications or new
co
p
i
e
s
are imperfect.
In
fact,
t
h
e
y
are mutations of
t
h
e
original
gene. Once a
mutation occurs, genes rarely are ab
l
e
to perform
t
h
e
same original function.
C
o
n
t
i
nu
e
d mutations, however, allow this new gene to possibly perform different
f
un
ct
i
o
n
s.
Pseudogene Homology (Similarities in copied genes)
F
i
n
d
i
ng
the same gene duplications among homologous species lends some evidence for
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
F
a
i
r
b
a
n
ks,
2007). These gene duplications are passed on from p
a
r
e
n
t
to offspring.
A
pseudogene is
a
copy of
a
gene. Humans and chimps share many pseudogenes.
As
pseudogenes are co
p
i
e
s
of
genes,
it is difficult to explain how the exact
same pseudogenes could end up in different animal species;
t
h
a
t
is, without
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
theory.
E
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
predicts that
t
h
e
r
e
should
be
very similar sections of
g
e
n
e
t
i
c
code among similar looking
c
r
e
a
t
u
r
e
s,
and
t
h
e
r
e
i
s.
One
of
t
h
e
more well understood pseudogenes are the hemoglobin pseudogenes.
H
e
m
o
g
l
o
b
i
n
pseudogenes are co
p
i
e
s
of working hemoglobin genes, which are responsible for transporting
oxygen
in
t
h
e
red blood cell. There are
a
number of hemoglobin genes that function a
t
various
t
i
m
e
s
d
u
r
i
ng
human
d
e
ve
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
In
many
p
l
a
c
e
s
in
t
h
e
DNA,
t
h
e
r
e
are inactive pseudogenes that sit right
next
t
o
their
p
a
r
e
n
t
hemoglobin genes. These groupings are called clusters.
In
t
h
e
case
of
hemoglobin,
t
h
e
se
clusters are called
t
h
e
b
e
t
a
and alpha clusters.
W
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
b
e
t
a
cluster is
a
pseudogene of its
p
a
r
e
n
t
hemoglobin gene, and it is filled with mutations. It is called the
p
si
-
b
e
t
a
pseudogene, and over
30
%
o
f
its DNA
has
mutated compared to the
p
a
r
e
n
t
hemoglobin gene (Chang
&
S
li
gh
t
o
m
,
1984). All
g
r
e
a
t
apes
have
t
h
e
exact same
p
si
-
b
e
t
a
pseudogene in
t
h
e
exact same
p
l
a
ce
.
New
W
o
r
l
d
monkeys,
however,
have
t
h
e
same
p
si
-
b
e
t
a
pseudogene, but lack
an
extra one that
humans have. This
r
e
ve
a
l
s
t
o
us a
d
e
vi
a
t
i
o
n
on
a
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
branch of evolution where somehow, after
t
h
e
g
r
e
a
t
-
a
p
e
split,
New
W
o
r
l
d
monkeys lost their extra
se
t
(Chang
&
S
li
gh
t
o
m
,
1984).
The Vitamin C Gene. (The GULO UnitaryPseudogene)
A
unitary pseudogene is
a
gene that
has
lost its ability to perform any
t
a
sks
a
t
all.
A
un
i
t
a
r
y
p
se
u
d
o
g
e
n
e
is
t
h
e
only one of its
t
y
p
e
found in the entire genome. This gene corresponds to
w
h
a
t
m
a
n
y
of
us have
heard
as
ves
t
i
g
i
a
l
organs. For example,
a
mole in Australia known
as
t
h
e
M
a
r
su
p
i
a
l
mole
has
lost its ability to
use
its eyes. The gene that codes for connecting nerves from
t
h
e
eyes
to
t
h
e
brain is gone; therefore,
t
h
e
mole is blind
(
S
p
r
i
ng
e
r
et al., 1997). It
has
no need for
eyes a
t
all,
y
e
t
has
t
h
e
m
anyway
as
ves
t
i
g
e
s
of its
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
past. If
t
h
e
r
e
is
an
identical pseudogene d
i
sco
ve
r
e
d
i
n
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
m
o
l
e
-
li
k
e
species in
t
h
e
region,
t
h
e
r
e
is
a
good chance that
t
h
e
se
animals are
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
They
likely share
a
common a
n
ce
st
o
r
.
Humans and the
g
r
e
a
t
apes share
a
unitary pseudogene of
g
r
e
a
t
interest in
t
h
e
scientific
co
mmun
i
t
y
and provides good evidence for evolution.
A
working example of pseudogene evolution is
t
h
e
gene
sequence known
as,
L
-
gu
l
o
n
o
l
a
ct
o
n
e
oxidase. Commonly known
as
t
h
e
GULO
pseudogene or
t
h
e
GULOP
gene in humans. The
GULO
gene is
a
gene that allows most mammals to
c
r
e
a
t
e
vitamin
C on
their own. However, humans and
t
h
e
other
g
r
e
a
t
apes,
ca
nn
o
t
c
r
e
a
t
e
vitamin
C
on their own. This
i
s
because apes and humans
have a
broken
GULO
gene. At one point,
t
h
e
GULO
gene allowed
ce
r
t
a
i
n
ch
e
m
i
ca
l
products to
be
produced that allowed
t
h
e
s
y
n
t
h
e
si
s
of vitamin
C,
but it
has
now mutated
t
o
t
h
e
point where it no longer serves
t
h
e
same purpose
(
F
a
i
r
b
a
n
ks,
2007).
N
o
t
only do apes
and
humans share
t
h
e
same broken
GULO
gene, but
t
h
e
GULO
pseudogene itself is a
l
so
broken in
t
h
e
exact same
p
l
a
ce
b
e
t
w
ee
n
humans and
ch
i
m
p
a
n
ze
e
s.
The
GULO
gene is
98
%
identical and this
i
s
true of most of
t
h
e
genes shared
b
e
t
w
ee
n
chimps and humans
(
F
a
i
r
b
a
n
ks,
2007)..
Some a
n
t
i
-
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
i
st
s
have a
sse
r
t
e
d
that the broken
GULO
gene is in fact not broken a
t
all, that
i
t
serves some purpose within
t
h
e
genome and is
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
not
su
ff
i
ci
e
n
t
e
vi
d
e
n
ce
for
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
However, even if true,
t
h
e
y
must explain why all apes are a
b
so
l
u
t
e
l
y
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
on
e
x
o
g
e
n
o
u
s
sources of vitamin
C
to live
(Ha
et al.,
2004).
Compared to functioning
GULO
genes in n
o
n
-
p
r
i
m
a
t
e
sp
e
c
i
e
s,
t
h
e
human
GULO
pseudogene
has
mutated over
20
%
the length of
t
h
e
gene
(
F
a
i
r
b
a
n
ks,
2007). Thus, with
so
many
mu
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
ccu
mu
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
along the gene,
t
h
e
earliest changes to
t
h
e
GULO
gene in humans must
have
happened long ago. All apes
have
t
h
e
same mutations. This means that their ancestor a
t
one
p
o
i
n
t
passed down
t
h
e
broken gene to them. Humans, which are apes,
have
the same broken gene;
w
h
i
ch
suggests that humans share
a
common ancestor with
t
h
e
m
.
Endogenous Retroviruses
W
i
t
h
i
n
our genes and pseudogenes are
r
e
mn
a
n
t
s
of
an
invasion;
a
viral invasion that occurred to
o
u
r
ancestors not long ago. At
t
i
m
e
s
,
viruses
can
i
n
va
d
e
our germ(sex) cells, write itself into
t
h
e
DNA
and
pass on to
t
h
e
next
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
As we
all know, no copy is perfect; thus, when
ce
ll
s
r
e
p
li
ca
t
e
,
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
errors. If this error, mutation, isn't
d
e
l
e
t
e
r
i
o
u
s
to the organism it
has
infected,
t
h
e
virus
can
p
o
ss
i
b
l
y
become inactive.
S
i
n
ce
it's presence doesn't
kill
t
h
e
organism it's copied into, it
can
possibly
b
e
p
a
sse
d
on to future
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s.
These viral
r
e
m
a
n
t
s
are known
as
endogenous
r
e
t
r
o
vi
r
u
ses
(
W
i
ki
p
e
d
i
a
,
2009).
E
n
d
o
g
e
n
o
u
s
r
e
t
r
o
vi
r
u
ses
are
a
strong
case
for evolution
(
N
e
l
s
o
n
et al., 2003). It
has
been long
known
that humans and
ch
i
m
p
a
n
ze
e
s
possess many of
t
h
e
same
ERVs.
S
i
n
c
e
ERV's
are passed on
via
t
h
e
g
e
r
m
-
li
n
e
,
(Flockerzi
et al., 2006), and
ch
i
m
p
a
n
ze
e
s
possess
t
h
e
exact same
ERV
r
e
mn
a
n
t
s
as
humans, this is proof
p
osi
t
i
ve
that chimps and humans are
cousins.
Humans and chimps
r
e
ve
a
l
a
common ancestry
via
endogenous
r
e
t
r
o
vi
r
u
se
s,
but
t
h
e
y
are not
t
h
e
o
n
l
y
organisms that do. Many small
w
il
d
ca
t
s
a
l
so
share
ERVs
(
D
o
ug
l
a
s,
2007). These
ca
t
s,
a
t
one point
i
n
their evolution, shared
a
common ancestor that passed down
r
e
mn
a
n
t
s
of their viral history to
t
h
e
m
.
The Missing Chromosome
It is widely a
cce
p
t
e
d
that humans and chimps share DNA; that is,
t
h
e
y
are cousins
g
e
n
e
t
i
ca
ll
y
.
However, some a
n
t
i
-
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
i
st
s
do not a
cce
p
t
that humans
e
vo
l
ve
d
from
t
h
e
same
g
r
e
a
t
a
n
ce
st
o
r
.
They
use
t
h
e
ch
i
m
p
/
hum
a
n
chromosomal
m
i
sm
a
t
ch
as
justification. Humans
have
23 pairs
o
f
Chromosomes while chimps
have
24 pairs. For decades
it
was
not known, with certainty, why
ch
i
m
p
s
had one more
se
t
of chromosomes
t
h
a
n
humans. The evidence is in on
t
h
e
strange
ch
r
o
m
o
so
m
a
l
differentiation
b
e
t
w
ee
n
chimps and humans. Human chromosome Number 2
has many
r
e
p
r
e
se
n
t
a
t
i
ves
in Chimp DNA a
t
their
2a
and 2b
si
t
e
s
(
A
va
r
e
ll
o
et al., 1992). This
o
b
se
r
va
t
i
o
n
shows
that that
t
h
e
r
e
is some kind of relationship
b
e
t
w
ee
n
t
h
e
se
t
h
r
ee
genes.
F
i
gu
r
e
1.1:
S
o
u
r
ce
:
(
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
ww
w
.
g
a
t
e
.
n
e
t
/
~
r
w
m
s
/
hum
_
a
p
e
_
ch
r
o
m
.
h
t
m
l
)
A
comparison of human chromosome
2
with chimp genes
2a
and
2
b
.
A
total deletion of
a
chromosome pair does not make sense in
an
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
model. It
was
sp
e
cu
l
a
t
e
d
that
a
well known biological process seen before in
t
h
e
genome of other animals may
have
occurred in humans. This process is called fusion.
Fusion occurs when
t
h
e
r
e
is
a
h
e
a
d
-
t
o
-
h
e
a
d
j
o
i
n
i
ng
of chromosomes. Human chromosome Number 2, a
t
one point,
was
two distinct chromosomes
t
h
a
t
somehow fused
(
I
j
d
o
et al., 1991). The diagram above shows
a
visual relationship b
e
t
w
ee
n
all
3
chromosomes. The dark bands are
r
e
p
e
a
t
i
ng
se
gm
e
n
t
s
of DNA which
have
been
s
t
a
i
n
e
d
.
There a
r
e
distinct homologies that should
be
readily a
pp
a
r
e
n
t
along
t
h
e
bands.
At
t
h
e
ch
e
m
i
ca
l
level,
t
h
e
evidence is more revealing. The
nu
c
l
e
o
t
i
d
e
s
m
a
t
ch
up a
l
m
o
s
t
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
l
y
a
l
o
ng
t
h
e
gene with
a
98
%
similarity
b
e
t
w
ee
n
t
h
e
m
(
F
a
i
r
b
a
n
ks,
2007). Thus, a
t
one point,
an a
n
ce
st
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
to chimps and humans had
a
fusion
t
a
ke
p
l
a
ce
b
e
t
w
ee
n
his
2a
and 2b chromosome
w
h
i
ch
e
ve
n
t
u
a
ll
y
led to our
l
o
ng
-
a
r
m
e
d
human chromosome 2. Chromosome
2
is a
l
so
found in
N
e
a
n
d
e
r
t
h
a
l
DNA, which correctly
p
l
a
ces
man and
N
e
a
n
d
e
r
t
h
a
l
s
as
cousins that diverged from
a
common a
n
ce
st
o
r
that possessed
t
h
e
fused
gene.
Chickens with Teeth
A
mutant chicken
was
d
i
sco
ve
r
e
d
that possessed teeth much like
a
baby crocodile. It is
a
mu
t
a
n
t
chicken called
a
Talpid
(
H
a
rr
i
s
et al, 2007).
Some a
n
t
i
-
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
d
vo
ca
t
e
s
have
argued for
ce
n
t
u
r
i
e
s
that all organisms that are a
va
il
a
b
l
e
to us
t
o
d
a
y
,
were
cr
e
a
t
e
d
as
t
h
e
y
are are; co
m
p
l
e
t
e
and
unchanged. Thus, with this presupposition, evolution
ca
nn
o
t
be
true. However, Talpid
ch
i
ck
e
n
s
p
r
o
vi
d
e
“n
a
ke
d
-
e
y
e
evidence of
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
It is widely a
cce
p
t
e
d
within
t
h
e
scientific community that birds and reptiles share
a
common a
n
ce
st
o
r
(
P
r
e
ss,
D.
2005). If this is true, bird ancestors a
t
one time had teeth. The fact that Talpids
have
genes
that express
t
ee
t
h
is more evidence of evolution.
E
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
t
h
e
o
r
y
predicts that
t
h
e
r
e
should
be
some evidence of avian ancestry
via
t
h
e
DNA. The tools to discover this are now a
va
il
a
b
l
e
.
S
c
i
e
n
t
i
st
s
can
now turn on the genes that express
t
ee
t
h
in normal
ch
i
cke
n
s
and cause
t
ee
t
h
to grow
(
C
a
r
e
y
,
2006). This is significant in that genes
can
not express particular cellular morphologies
un
l
e
ss
t
h
e
base
code is a
l
r
e
a
d
y
t
h
e
r
e
,
a
t
least in part. Domestic
ch
i
cke
n
s
carry genes to grow teeth, but
t
h
e
y
are
t
u
r
n
e
d
off (Carey, 2006).
In
other words,
sci
e
n
t
i
st
s
did not
c
r
e
a
t
e
t
h
e
teeth,
t
h
e
genes were a
l
r
e
a
d
y
t
h
e
r
e
.
The
machinery to
c
r
e
a
t
e
teeth in birds is a
l
r
e
a
d
y
p
r
e
se
n
t
;
a
r
e
mn
a
n
t
of their
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
past.
Thus,
t
h
e
machinery should not
be
t
h
e
r
e
if birds ancestors never had teeth. To further explain
via
analogy,
t
h
e
r
e
are no genes for humans to grow wings for instance,
as
such,
sci
e
n
t
i
st
s
ca
nn
o
t
a
ct
i
va
t
e
a
wing
g
e
n
e
a
s
humans do not
have
any ancestors that possessed wings, therefore,
t
h
e
w
i
ng
-
g
e
n
e
does not
e
xi
st.
The
o
b
se
r
va
t
i
o
n
that organisms
can
express
ce
r
t
a
i
n
morphological
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
st
i
cs
from their a
n
ce
st
r
a
l
past is nothing new.
In
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
y
1900's,
E
t
i
e
nn
e
G
e
o
ff
r
o
y
S
a
i
n
t
-
H
ill
a
i
r
e
n
o
t
i
ce
d
tiny bumps along
t
h
e
beaks of parrots during
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
y
s
t
a
g
e
s
of their
d
e
ve
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
B
i
e
ll
o
,
2006). It appears that all
b
i
r
d
s
have
similar machinery within their genome to express teeth.
In
t
h
e
case
of chickens,
t
h
e
r
e
is no
d
o
u
b
t
that
t
h
e
y
have a
common ancestor that a
t
one time had
t
ee
t
h
.
Phylogenetic Trees
A
p
h
y
l
o
g
e
n
e
t
i
c
t
r
ee
or
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
t
r
ee
is
a
t
r
ee
showing the
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
sh
i
p
s
among
va
r
i
o
u
s
biological
sp
e
c
i
e
s
or other entities that are b
e
li
e
ve
d
to
have a
common ancestor
(
W
i
ki
p
e
d
i
a
,
2009).
I
t
used to
be
the
case
that this
was
performed by morphological comparison, such
as
by
o
b
se
r
ving
external and internal
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
st
i
cs
of
an
organism. Looking a
t
w
o
l
ves
and foxes, for instance,
makes
it pretty
easy
to
p
l
a
ce
t
h
e
m
on
a
t
r
ee
as
“cousins” due to their obvious morphological
ch
a
r
a
ct
e
r
i
st
i
cs.
E
x
a
m
i
n
i
ng
a
cells' organelles (tiny functioning interior
p
a
r
t
s)
and a
l
so
analyzing their
ch
e
m
i
ca
l
m
a
ke
-
up, provides
a
very clear picture from which to deduce
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
n
e
ss.
Once
DNA could
be a
n
a
l
y
ze
d
and
g
e
n
e
t
i
c
sequences could
be
compared,
a
whole new avenue
was
a
va
il
a
b
l
e
to
sci
e
n
t
i
st
s
and taxonomists. It became possible now to look a
t
gene sequences
and
compare them with other animals to
see
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
sh
i
p
s.
W
h
a
t
sci
e
n
t
i
st
s
can
now do is an
a
l
y
z
e
DNA
sa
m
p
l
e
s
of various and unknown origin, and even though
t
h
e
y
are
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
blind
as
to
w
h
a
t
a
n
i
m
a
l
s
t
h
e
sa
m
p
l
e
has
come from,
t
h
e
y
can
develop and family
t
r
ee
which just
so
happens to
o
ve
r
l
a
y
q
u
i
t
e
nicely with kn
o
w
n
p
h
y
l
o
g
e
n
e
t
i
c
t
r
ee
s
(
O
gun
se
i
t
a
n
,
2004).
E
sse
n
t
i
a
ll
y
,
w
h
a
t
this means is that
a
f
a
m
il
y
t
r
ee
can be
produced using DNA only; showing cousin
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s.
E
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
biologists no
l
o
ng
e
r
have
to rely on homologies only. The DNA is sufficient to show
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
n
e
ss.
Now that
we have
DNA
a
t
our disposal, it is possible that
a
scientist
can
look a
t
DNA
sa
m
p
l
e
s
of unknown origin and still
p
r
o
d
u
ce
a
p
h
y
l
o
g
e
n
e
t
i
c
t
r
ee
(a
family
t
r
ee
)
that
o
ve
r
l
a
y
s
almost perfectly with “known”
p
h
y
l
o
g
e
n
e
t
i
c
t
r
ee
s
.
T
h
i
s
overlapping is very strong evidence that
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
t
h
e
o
r
y
is
co
rr
e
c
t
.
Conclusion
There is good
e
v
i
d
e
n
ce
for evolution. O
pp
o
n
e
n
t
s
that
have
i
ssu
e
t
h
e
most with evolution
and
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
t
h
e
o
r
y
are
t
h
o
se
with limited knowledge of
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
scientific evidence provides a
n
d
/
o
r
a
r
e
b
i
a
se
d
against
t
h
e
evidence due to other
n
o
n
-
sci
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
convictions.
Some a
n
t
i
-
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
i
st
s
,
f
o
r
instance, a
sse
r
t
that humans were
cr
e
a
t
e
d
in one day, are
f
un
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
ll
y
different from other a
n
i
m
a
l
s,
and were made sp
e
ci
a
l
.
Modern
g
e
n
e
t
i
cs
however paint
a
very different picture.
In
modern
day
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
models,
t
h
e
r
e
is seen
a
rather steady
r
a
t
e
of gene frequency change in species over
l
o
ng
periods of time; humans included. The a
ccu
mu
l
a
t
i
o
n
of pseudogenes align perfectly with
t
h
e
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
evolution, but not
so
much with
an
instant and
sp
e
ci
a
l
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
co
n
ce
p
t
.
E
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
explains
e
l
e
g
a
n
t
l
y
why sp
e
c
i
e
s
share pseudogenes.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
i
d
e
a
s
a
b
o
u
t
man's origins fail to explain
pseudogene
p
l
a
ce
m
e
n
t
among homologous o
r
g
a
n
i
sm
s.
Just as
importantly, evolution is
an
established fact within
t
h
e
scientific community. It is possible,
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
sciences would not exist if
we
didn't develop
a
system to know
w
h
a
t
is and
w
h
a
t
is not true a
b
o
u
t
our world.
A
cce
p
t
i
ng
evolution is
a
critical foundation that is required to understand
t
h
e
many
aspects
of life
we see
around
us
t
o
d
a
y
.
The evidence reviewed appears to show that
a
number of organisms share
a
common a
n
ce
st
r
y
.
Chimps and humans share identical pseudogenes and evolution explains how this is p
o
ssi
b
l
e
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
sm
s
that are
t
h
e
most similar share more DNA. Humans and Chimps
have
many of
t
h
e
same
viral insertions that
can
only
be
passed down
via
sexual reproduction.
E
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
provides
a
w
o
r
ki
ng
model to make sense of
t
h
e
evidence provided.
E
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
,
d
e
sce
n
t
with modification, is
a
w
e
ll
a
cce
p
t
e
d
t
h
e
o
r
y
that makes sense of
w
h
a
t
we see
in
t
h
e
biological world.
Based
on
t
h
e
g
e
n
e
t
i
c
evidence a
t
hand, evolution from common ancestry is true. Humans are cousins with not just
m
o
d
e
r
n
apes and
p
r
i
m
a
t
e
s,
but all
c
r
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
on this
p
l
a
n
e
t
.
E
ve
r
y
living being on the p
l
a
n
e
t
E
a
r
t
h
,
all share
a
common ancestor in
t
h
e
grand
t
r
ee
of
li
f
e
.
R
EFE
R
E
NC
ES
:
Avarello,
R.,
P
e
d
i
ci
n
i
,
A., Caiulo, A., Zuffardi,
O.,
Fraccaro, M.(1992).
E
vi
d
e
n
ce
for
an a
n
ce
st
r
a
l
alphoid domain on
t
h
e
long arm of human chromosome 2.
P
u
b
M
e
d
.
R
e
t
r
i
e
ve
d
April 14th,
2009,
from h
t
t
p
:
/
/
ww
w
.
n
c
b
i
.
n
l
m
.
n
i
h
.
g
o
v
/
p
u
b
m
e
d
/
158
7
535
B
i
e
ll
o
,
D.
(2006).
M
u
t
a
n
t
ch
i
cke
n
s
grow a
lli
g
a
t
o
r
-
li
k
e
teeth.
S
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
American.
R
e
t
r
i
e
ve
d
A
p
r
il
14
th
, 2009, from h
t
t
p
:
/
/
ww
w
.
s
c
i
a
m
.
c
o
m
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
.
c
f
m
?
i
d
=
mu
t
a
n
t
-
ch
i
c
k
e
n
-
g
r
o
w
s
-
a
l
l
i
Carey,
B.
(2006).
S
u
r
p
r
i
se
:
C
h
i
cke
n
s
can
grow teeth.
L
i
ve
S
c
i
e
n
ce
.
R
e
t
r
i
e
ve
d
April 12th, 2009,
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
ww
w
.
l
i
ve
s
c
i
e
n
ce
.
co
m
/
a
n
i
m
a
l
s
/
060
2
22
_
c
h
i
cke
n
_
t
ee
t
h
.
h
t
m
l
Chang,
S
li
gh
t
o
m
,
J
.
(1984).
I
so
l
a
t
i
o
n
and
N
u
c
l
e
o
t
i
d
e
S
e
q
u
e
n
ce
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
of
t
h
e
B
e
t
a
-
t
y
p
e
G
l
o
b
i
n
P
se
u
d
o
g
e
n
e
from Human, Gorilla, and
C
h
i
m
p
a
n
ze
e
.
Jo
u
r
n
a
l
of Molecular
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
.
180, 767
-
84.
Douglas,
T.
(2007). The 29+
evidences for
m
a
cro
e
vo
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
TalkOrigins.org.
R
e
t
r
i
e
ve
d
April
12
t
h
,
2009, from h
t
t
p
:
/
/
ww
w
.
t
a
l
k
o
r
i
g
i
n
s
.
o
r
g
/
f
a
q
s
/
c
o
m
d
e
sc/
F
a
i
r
b
a
n
ks,
D.
(2007).
R
e
li
cs
of
Eden:
The powerful evidence of evolution in human
DNA.
Amherst,
NY:
P
r
o
m
e
t
h
e
u
s
Books.
F
l
o
cke
r
zi
,
A.,
B
u
r
kh
a
r
d
t
,
S.,
S
ch
e
m
pp
,
W
.,
Meese,
E.,
Mayer,
J
.
(2006). Human
endogenous
retrovirus
H
E
R
V
-
K
14
families:
S
t
a
t
u
s,
va
r
i
a
n
t
s,
evolution, and mobilization of other
ce
ll
u
l
a
r
sequences.
Jo
u
r
n
a
l
of Virology.
R
e
t
r
i
e
ve
d
April 14th, 2009,
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
//
j
v i
.
a
sm
.
o
r
g
/
c
g
i
/
co
n
t
e
n
t
/
f
u
ll
/
79
/
5
/
2941
h
tt
p
:
//
j
v i
.
a
sm
.
o
r
g
/
cg
i
/
co
n
t
e
n
t
/
f
u
l
l
/
79
/
5
/
2941
Ha,
M., Graham,
F.,
D'Souza,
C.,
Muller,
W.,
Igdoura,
S.,
S
ch
e
ll
h
o
r
n
,
H.
(2004). Functional rescue
o
f
vitamin
C
s
y
n
t
h
e
si
s
deficiency in human
ce
ll
s
using a
d
e
n
o
vi
r
a
l
-
b
a
se
d
expression of Murine
l
-
G
u
l
o
n
o
-
G
a
mm
a
-
L
a
c
t
o
n
e
O
x
i
d
a
s
e
.
PUBMed.
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
e
d
April 14th, 2009,
f
r
o
m
h
tt
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
n
c
b
i
.
n
l
m
.
n
i
h
.
g
o
v
/
p
u
b
m
e
d
/
149626
7
4
Harris, M., Hasso,
S.,
Ferguson, M.,
F
a
ll
o
n
,
J.
(2006). The
D
e
ve
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of Archosaurian
F
i
r
st
-
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
ee
t
h
in
a
C
h
i
cke
n
M
u
t
a
n
t
.
C
u
rr
e
n
t
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
,
16, 4, 371
-
377.
Ijdo,
J
.,
B
a
l
d
i
n
i
,
A., Ward, D., Reeders,
S.,
W
e
ll
s,
R.
(1991). Origin of human chromosome 2:
an
ancestral
t
e
l
o
m
e
r
e
-
t
e
l
o
m
e
r
e
fusion.
P
r
o
ce
e
d
i
ng
s
of the
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Academy of
S
ci
e
n
ces
.
R
e
t
r
i
e
ve
d
April 12th, 2009, from h
tt
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
p
n
a
s
.
o
r
g
/
co
n
t
e
n
t
/
88
/
20
/
9051
.
f
u
l
l
.
pd
f
+
h
t
m
l
Levy, S.
(2000).
A
n
t
i
b
a
ct
e
r
i
a
l
household products:
Cause
for concern.
R
e
t
r
i
e
ve
d
June
29
th
, 2009,
f
r
o
m
h
tt
p
:
/
/
www
.
cd
c.
g
o
v/
n
ci
d
o
d
/
e
i
d
/
vo
l
7
n
o
3
_
su
pp
/
l
e
v
y
.
h
t
m
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
,
F.
(2009).
On
D
a
r
w
i
n
s
birthday, only 4 in 10
b
e
li
e
ve
in evolution.
R
e
t
r
i
e
ve
d
f
r
o
m
h
tt
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
g
a
ll
u
p
.
co
m
/
p
o
ll
/
1
1
4
544
/
D
a
r
w
i
n
-
B
i
r
t
h
d
a
y
-
B
e
l
i
e
ve
-
E
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
a
s
p
x
O
gun
se
i
t
a
n
,
O.
(2000) Microbial
D
i
v
e
r
si
t
y
.
R
e
t
r
i
e
ve
d
April 1st, 2009
f
r
o
m
:
h
tt
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
b
l
a
c
k
w
e
l
l
p
u
b
li
s
h
i
ng
.
co
m
/
o
gun
se
i
t
a
n
/
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
.
a
sp
S
p
r
i
ng
e
r
,
M.,
Burk, A., Kavanagh,
J.
,
W
a
dd
e
ll
,
V.,
S
t
a
nh
o
p
e
,
M.
(2011) The interphotoreceptor
r
e
t
i
n
o
i
d binding protein gene in therian mammals:
I
m
p
li
ca
t
i
o
n
s
for higher
l
e
ve
l
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
sh
i
p
s
and
evidence
for
l
o
ss
of function in
t
h
e
marsupial mole,
R
e
t
r
i
e
ve
d
April 2nd, 2009,
f
r
o
m
:
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
ww
w
.
p
n
a
s
.
o
r
g
/
co
n
t
e
n
t
/
94
/
25
/
13754
.
f
u
l
l
Wikipedia, (2011)
E
n
d
o
g
e
n
o
u
s
R
e
t
r
o
vi
r
u
se
s,
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
e
d
April 2nd, 2009,
f
r
o
m
:
h
tt
p
:
//
e
n
.
w
i
k
i
p
e
d
i
a
.
o
r
g
/
w
i
k
i
/
E
n
d
o
g
e
n
o
u
s_
r
e
t
r
o
v i
r
u
s
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
Article
Full-text available
The subclass Theria of Mammalia includes marsupials (infraclass Metatheria) and placentals (infraclass Eutheria). Within each group, interordinal relationships remain unclear. One limitation of many studies is incomplete ordinal representation. Here, we analyze DNA sequences for part of exon 1 of the interphotoreceptor retinoid binding protein gene, including 10 that are newly reported, for representatives of all therian orders. Among placentals, the most robust clades are Cetartiodactyla, Paenungulata, and an expanded African clade that includes paenungulates, tubulidentates, and macroscelideans. Anagalida, Archonta, Altungulata, Hyracoidea + Perissodactyla, Ungulata, and the "flying primate" hypothesis are rejected by statistical tests. Among marsupials, the most robust clade includes all orders except Didelphimorphia. The phylogenetic placement of the monito del monte and the marsupial mole remains unclear. However, the marsupial mole sequence contains three frameshift indels and numerous stop codons in all three reading frames. Given that the interphotoreceptor retinoid binding protein gene is a single-copy gene that functions in the visual cycle and that the marsupial mole is blind with degenerate eyes, this finding suggests that phenotypic degeneration of the eyes is accompanied by parallel changes at the molecular level as a result of relaxed selective constraints.
Article
Full-text available
The human genome harbors many distinct families of human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) that stem from exogenous retroviruses that infected the germ line millions of years ago. Many HERV families remain to be investigated. We report in the present study the detailed characterization of the HERV-K14I and HERV-K14CI families as they are represented in the human genome. Most of the 68 HERV-K14I and 23 HERV-K14CI proviruses are severely mutated, frequently displaying uniform deletions of retroviral genes and long terminal repeats (LTRs). Both HERV families entered the germ line approximately 39 million years ago, as evidenced by homologous sequences in hominoids and Old World primates and calculation of evolutionary ages based on a molecular clock. Proviruses of both families were formed during a brief period. A majority of HERV-K14CI proviruses on the Y chromosome mimic a higher evolutionary age, showing that LTR-LTR divergence data can indicate false ages. Fully translatable consensus sequences encoding major retroviral proteins were generated. Most HERV-K14I loci lack an env gene and are structurally reminiscent of LTR retrotransposons. A minority of HERV-K14I variants display an env gene. HERV-K14I proviruses are associated with three distinct LTR families, while HERV-K14CI is associated with a single LTR family. Hybrid proviruses consisting of HERV-K14I and HERV-W sequences that appear to have produced provirus progeny in the genome were detected. Several HERV-K14I proviruses harbor TRPC6 mRNA portions, exemplifying mobilization of cellular transcripts by HERVs. Our analysis contributes essential information on two more HERV families and on the biology of HERV sequences in general.
Article
In situ hybridization, under low stringency conditions with two alphoid DNA probes (pY alpha 1 and p82H) labeled with digoxigenin-dUTP, decorated all the centromeres of the human karyotype. However, signals were also detected on the long arm of chromosome 2 at approximately q21.3-q22.1. Since it is supposed that human chromosome 2 originated by the telomeric fusion of two ancestral primate chromosomes, these findings indicate that not only the telomeric sequences, but also the ancestral centromere (or at least its alphoid sequences), have been conserved.
Article
The beta-globin gene cluster of human, gorilla and chimpanzee contain the same number and organization of beta-type globin genes: 5'-epsilon (embryonic)-G gamma and A gamma (fetal)-psi beta (inactive)-delta and beta (adult)-3'. We have isolated the psi beta-globin gene regions from the three species and determined their nucleotide sequences. These three pseudogenes each share the same substitutions in the initiator codon (ATG----GTA), a substitution in codon 15 which generates a termination signal TGG----TGA, nucleotide deletion in codon 20 and the resulting frame shift which yields many termination signals in exons 2 and 3. The basic structure of these psi beta-globin genes, however, remains consistent with that found for functional beta-globin genes: their coding regions are split by two introns, IVS 1 (which splits codon 30, 121 base-pairs in length) and IVS 2 (which splits codon 104, 840 to 844 base-pairs in length). These introns retain the normal splice junctions found in other eukaryotic split genes. The three hominoid psi beta-globin genes show a high degree of sequence correspondence, with the number of differences found among them being only about one-third of that predicted for DNA sites evolving at the neutral rate (i.e. for sites evolving in the absence of purifying selection). Thus, there appears to be a deceleration in the rate of evolution of the psi beta-globin locus in higher primates.
Article
The recent entry of products containing antibacterial agents into healthy households has escalated from a few dozen products in the mid-1990s to more than 700 today. Antibacterial products were developed and have been successfully used to prevent transmission of disease-causing microorganisms among patients, particularly in hospitals. They are now being added to products used in healthy households, even though an added health benefit has not been demonstrated. Scientists are concerned that the antibacterial agents will select bacteria resistant to them and cross-resistant to antibiotics. Moreover, if they alter a person's microflora, they may negatively affect the normal maturation of the T helper cell response of the immune system to commensal flora antigens; this change could lead to a greater chance of allergies in children. As with antibiotics, prudent use of these products is urged. Their designated purpose is to protect vulnerable patients.
Article
l-Gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GULO) is a critical enzyme present in most mammalian species that is required for the terminal step in vitamin C biosynthesis. Primates are absolutely dependent on exogenously supplied dietary vitamin C due to inactivation of the Gulo gene by mutation over 40 million years ago. In this study, we report the cloning and expression of the murine l-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase cDNA and gene. The cDNA (2.3 kb) encodes an open reading frame of 440 amino acids that shows high homology to the rat l-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (>94%). The Gulo gene is 22 kb long and contains 12 exons. The 11 introns range in size from 479 to 5641 bp. Northern blot analysis revealed high expression of Gulo transcript in the liver. To investigate whether metabolic loss of vitamin C biosynthesis in human cells can be corrected by heterologous expression of GULO, we constructed a first-generation adenoviral vector expressing the murine GULO cDNA under the transcriptional control of the murine cytomegalovirus (MCMV) early promoter. Low rescue efficiency of Gulo-expressing adenoviral constructs and reduced viral growth in HEK293 cells were observed, suggesting that overexpression of Gulo may be inhibitory to cell growth. Placement of a removable stuffer fragment flanked by lox sites between the MCMV promoter and the Gulo gene resulted in efficient vector rescue and normal viral replication in parental HEK293 cells and high-level expression of Gulo in HEK293 cells expressing Cre recombinase. Cells infected with Gulo-expressing vectors overexpressed an FAD-containing protein that corresponded in size to that predicted for recombinant GULO protein and expressed a functional enzyme as measured by the conversion of l-gulono-gamma-lactone to ascorbic acid in cell-free extracts. The cloning of the murine Gulo cDNA and the construction of Gulo-expressing adenoviral vectors are vital steps toward determining the role of vitamin C in basic metabolism and in disease.
Article
Modern birds do not have teeth. Rather, they develop a specialized keratinized structure, called the rhamphotheca, that covers the mandible, maxillae, and premaxillae. Although recombination studies have shown that the avian epidermis can respond to tooth-inductive cues from mouse or lizard oral mesenchyme and participate in tooth formation [1 • Kollar E.J. • Fisher C. Tooth induction in chick epithelium: Expression of quiescent genes for enamel synthesis.Science. 1980; 207: 993-995 • Crossref • PubMed • Scopus (199) • Google Scholar , 2 • Mitsiadis T.A. • Cheraud Y. • Sharpe P. • Fontaine-Perus J. Development of teeth in chick embryos after mouse neural crest transplantations.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2003; 100: 6541-6545 • Crossref • PubMed • Scopus (90) • Google Scholar ], attempts to initiate tooth development de novo in birds have failed. Here, we describe the formation of teeth in the talpid2 chicken mutant, including the developmental processes and early molecular changes associated with the formation of teeth. Additionally, we show recapitulation of the early events seen in talpid2 after in vivo activation of β-catenin in wild-type embryos. We compare the formation of teeth in the talpid2 mutant with that in the alligator and show the formation of decidedly archosaurian (crocodilian) first-generation teeth in an avian embryo. The formation of teeth in the mutant is coupled with alterations in the specification of the oral/aboral boundary of the jaw. We propose an epigenetic model of the developmental modification of dentition in avian evolution; in this model, changes in the relative position of a lateral signaling center over competent odontogenic mesenchyme led to loss of teeth in avians while maintaining tooth developmental potential.
Mutant chickens grow alligator-like teeth
  • D Biello
Biello, D. (2006). Mutant chickens grow alligator-like teeth. Scientific American. Retrieved April 14 th, 2009, from h t t p : / / ww w. s c i a m. c o m / a r t i c l e. c f m ? i d = mu t a n t -ch i c k e n -g r o w s -a l l i
Surprise: Chickens can grow teeth. LiveScience
  • B Carey
Carey, B. (2006). Surprise: Chickens can grow teeth. LiveScience. Retrieved April 12th, 2009, from h t t p : / / ww w. l i ve s c i e n ce. co m / a n i m a l s / 060 2 22 _ c h i cke n _ t ee t h. h t m l