Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?

First let me apologize for the terrible formatting this post will no
doubt have. I can't find this whole thread on my news server and am
using Google Groups. I have actually had to quote tewxt using copy and
paste, as Google insists on replying to the wrong post!


Steven J:
[in response to the question: "Give one example where Darwinian (or
Macro) evolution has been tested, and of course validated. Details
please; not general comments from scientists or a long list of article
titles."]
Even more striking is the correspondence among
GULO pseudogenes in humans and other old-world primates; identically-
disabled nonfunctional genes (which explains why none of us, unlike
most mammals, can make vitamin C, which is why we get scurvy if we
don't eat enough fruit), with the minor sequence differences in the
pseudogenes smallest between species believed (on independent
grounds)
to be most closely related (e.g. the human version is closest to the
chimp version, slightly more unlike the gorilla version, more unlike
the orangutan version, and still more different from the macaque
version).

Sss1000 follow-up:
Very impressive Steven, and I think the best attempt yet to answer the
question. You do give specifics (of course for the moment I'll have
to take your word for it.). From what I can understand, your first
two examples show similarities between human and primate genes. You
state the second as being more striking; I believe because the
smallest differences between humans and primates occur for primates
believed (on independent grounds) to be most related to humans: from
closest to farthest being chimp, gorilla, orangutan, macaque. This is
impressive, but could that have not been predicted from observation.
Don't we know from basic observation that humans most resemble chimps,
gorillas, orangutans, macaques? Don't most people deduce by pure
observation that humans resemble primates more than other animals?
Aren't their hands, feet, and face (not a fllaterring statement) most
closely resemble humans. Given that these similarities, isn't it
logical that humans genetics would also most closely match primates.

Greg Guarino's response:

You have missed the point about the Vitamin C genes. I'm not the most
qualified to explain it, but I'll give it a try. It is indeed logical
that our genetics would most closely match that of other primates if
we accept that we all had a common ancestor. If we were all created
separately then logic would suggest only that the FUNCTIONAL bits be
similar.

It is not by chance that Steven uses the example of a non-functional
part of our genetic code. Suppose you are the designer. You have in
mind to create some creatures with a taste for, and a talent for
obtaining, fruit. You decide that these creatures won't need the
ability to manufacture Vitamin C as a result. How would you go about
removing that ability? I'm pretty sure that I would simply remove that
gene entirely, rather than just render it inoperative.

Let's use some examples that were unambiguously designed. Suppose
hydrogen or ethanol-only cars become popular, and let's also suppose
that such cars have no need of a catalytic converter. (out of my area
of expertise here, too) Would you, as the designer, put the
unnecessary equipment in and bypass it? I doubt it. You'd do what
actual designers do: include the parts you think will work (or sell)
the best, and omit the rest. You'd also choose your design concepts
from among whatever ones suited your design, or your fancy, not just
those from "related" cars.

But let's suppose you are that sort of inscrutable designer. You put
the disabled genes in each of your primates. But are your non-
functional Vitamin C genes identical in each species? Nope. You go to
the trouble designing different varieties of non-functional parts to
put in your creatures.

But that's not enough for you. You don't make a dozen or two versions,
each like a separate painting. No, you change the the original working
gene a little , then change THAT one a little in a couple of different
ways, then change each of those a little more, etc., making it look
exactly like the progressive mutation of a non-essential gene through
a "family" of creatures. You carefully arrange your superfluous
genetic bits among your primates as if they had in fact diverged from
a common ancestor, some branching off more recently than others.

Beyond the immediate argument, and I find this a very compelling one,
there's another lesson to be learned here: Most people who argue
against standard biology do so with only the most general outline of
how it works. It is no accident that the people who are best
acquainted with the details are convinced of the validity of
evolution. For every generalization like "Given that these
similarities, isn't it logical that humans genetics would also most
closely match primates?", there are a thousand details doing the
devil's work. :)

Greg Guarino

.

Relevant Pages