Is There Good Evidence for Biological Evolution?

Abstract

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.

Full text

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