Evolution and Genetic Science

  • 1,357 views
Uploaded on

Personal incredulity of pseudo scientists has reached a state where they poised to sabotage the current education system across the world. I submit this document to the students who seeks wisdom and …

Personal incredulity of pseudo scientists has reached a state where they poised to sabotage the current education system across the world. I submit this document to the students who seeks wisdom and not pseudo science.

Even though this article started with the review of Hussain’s article, the scope of this article evolved into a state where it gives a summarized still holistic perspective on evolutionary biology and alternate religious views (Creationism and Intelligent Design). I have sited more than 150 reference points (to get deeper into each area) and more than two dozen books to refer on various subjects like Evolutionary Biology, Neuro Science, Quantum Physics, Relativity, and Morality etc., and videos lectures from prominent universities and medical institutes.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way....(Hell)
~Charles Dickens - "A Tale of Two Cities".

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,357
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   1    Evolution  &  Genetic  Science    Asathoma  Sath  Gamaya,  Thamosama  Jyothir  Gamaya,  Mruthyorma  Amrutham  Gamaya  From  lies  to  Truth,  From  Darkness  to  Light,  From  Death  to  Eternity    Araf  Karsh  Hamid      
  • 2. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    2  Personal  incredulity  of  pseudo  scientists  has  reached  a  state  where  they  poised  to  sabotage  the  current  education  system  across  the  world.  I  submit  this  document  to  the  students  who  seeks  wisdom  and  not  pseudo  science.      This  is  a  critical  review  of  N  M  Hussain’s  article  titled  “Evolution  and  Genetic  Science”  published  in  (Malayalam)  the  magazine  Sneha  Samvadham  on  October/November  2012.   The   focus   of   N   M   Hussain’s   article   is   to   prove   that   the   Darwin’s   Evolution  theory  has  failed  in  the  last  150  years,  and  this  failure  results  in  Creation  (by  God)  as  the  only  alternate  solution.  This  document  analyzes  N  H  Hussain’s  arguments  and  check  if  he  has  provided  scientific  facts  to  disprove  a  153  years  old  theory  or  his  opinion   is   biased   towards   Creationism   or   Intelligent   Design.   Apart   from   that,   this  document  focuses  on  show  casing  evidence  (empirical  data)  across  a  wide  spectrum  of  domains  to  support  evolution.    Even  though  this  article  started  with  the  review  of  Hussain’s  article,  the  scope  of  this  article  evolved  into  a  state  where  it  gives  a  summarized,  still  holistic  perspective  on  evolutionary   biology   and   alternate   religious   views   (Creationism   and   Intelligent  Design).  I  have  sited  more  than  150  reference  points  (to  get  deeper  into  each  area)  and   more   than   two   dozen   books   to   refer   on   various   subjects   like   Evolutionary  Biology,  Neuro  Science,  Quantum  Physics,  Relativity,  and  Morality  etc.,  and  videos  lectures  from  prominent  universities  and  medical  institutes.      It  was  the  best  of  times,  it  was  the  worst  of  times,  it  was  the  age  of  wisdom,  it  was  the  age  of  foolishness,  it  was  the  epoch  of  belief,  it  was  the  epoch  of  incredulity,  it  was  the  season  of  Light,  it  was  the  season  of  Darkness,  it  was  the  spring  of  hope,  it  was  the  winter  of  despair,  we  had  everything  before  us,  we  had  nothing  before  us,  we  were  all  going  direct  to  Heaven,  we  were  all  going  direct  the  other  way....(Hell)  ~Charles  Dickens  -­‐  "A  Tale  of  Two  Cities".    Reviewed  Article   Oct,  2012   Evolution  and  Genetic  Science  by  N  M  Hussain,  Sneha  Samvadham  Reviewed  By   Oct,  2012   Araf  Karsh  Hamid    ©  Copyrights  on  images  and  other  references  in  this  document    This  document  is  purely  for  education  purpose  only  and  not  meant  for  any  profit.  The   copyrights   of   images   and   other   references   used   in   this   article   belong   to  respective  web  sites,  articles  and  books.      
  • 3. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   3  Table  of  Contents  Introduction  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  6  Understanding  the  structure  of  this  document  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  8  1.   Understanding  Evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  9  1.1   History  of  Earth  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  9  1.1.1   Figuring  out  Earth’s  age  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  9  1.1.2   Geological  Time  Periods  (from  BBC)  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  12  1.1.3   Geological  Time  Line  (from  BBC)  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  12  1.1.4   Tree  of  Life  (from  BBC)  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  13  1.2   Understanding  Darwin’s  Theory  of  Evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  18  1.2.1   Idea  1  –  Natural  Selection  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  18  1.2.2   Idea  2  –  Common  Descent  (Descent  with  Modification)  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  18  1.2.3   Idea  2.1  –  Single  Origin  of  Life  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  18  1.2.4   Idea  3  –  Variation  in  Rate  of  Change  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  18  1.2.5   Natural  Selection  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  19  1.2.6   Refuting  Creationist  claim  that  Natural  Selection  Doesn’t  Work  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  20  1.2.7   Misconceptions  about  Evolution  Theory  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  22  1.2.8   Predictive  Power  of  Evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  23  1.3   Understanding  Genome  –  DNA,  Chromosomes,  Genes  &  Alleles  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  24  1.3.1   DNA  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  24  1.3.2   Mitochondrial  DNA  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  26  1.3.3   Chromosome  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  27  1.3.4   Gene  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  28  1.3.5   Allele  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  29  1.3.6   Control  Genes  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  29  1.3.7   Gene  Pool  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  30  1.3.8   Comparing  Genotype  and  Phenotype  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  31  1.3.9   Amino  Acids  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  32  1.4   Mutation  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  33  1.4.1   Where  do  mutations  occur?  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  33  1.4.2   Kinds  of  Mutation  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  34  1.4.3   Mutation  Models  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  34  1.4.4   Types  of  DNA  Mutations  and  Their  Impact  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  38  1.4.5   What  causes  mutations?  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  39  1.4.6   What  are  the  consequences  of  mutations?  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  39  1.5   Natural  Selection  at  Genetic  Level  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  40  1.5.1   Neutral  Theory:  The  Null  Hypothesis  of  Molecular  Evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  40  1.5.2   Positive  Natural  Selection  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  41  1.5.3   Negative  Natural  Selection  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  42  1.6   Historical  Background  on  Darwin’s  Theory  of  Evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  43  1.6.1   Pre  Darwinian  Theories  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  43  1.6.2   Refuting  Creationist  claim  on  Darwin’s  history  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  44  1.7   FARM  Formula  to  test  Evolution  Theory  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  45  1.7.1   Refuting  Creationist  claim  on  Natural  Selection:  Analyze  geological  time  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  46  1.8   Comparing  Two  Religious  Views  against  Science  (Evolution)  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  47  1.8.1   Creationism  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  48  1.8.2   Intelligent  design (ID)  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  48  1.8.3   Irreducible  Complexity  (IC)  –  By  Michael  Behe  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  48  1.8.4   Bacterial  Flagellum  –  Fallen  case  of  Irreducible  Complexity  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  49  1.8.5   Specified  Complexity  (SC)  –  By  William  Dembski  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  51  
  • 4. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    4  1.8.6   Example  using  Dembski  Explanatory  Filter  to  detect  Design  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  52  1.9   Verdict  of  prominent  cases  of  Creationism  Vs.  Evolution  in  US  Courts  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  55  1.9.1   Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Epperson  v.  Arkansas,  1968  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  55  1.9.2   Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Edwards  v.  Aguillard,  1987  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  55  1.9.3   Kitzmiller  v.  Dover  Area  School  District,  2005  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  55  2.   Wrong  interpretation  of  Science  and  Scientist’s  Quotes  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  56  2.1   Stephen  Jay  Gould,  Niles  Eldredge  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  56  2.1.1   Refuting  Creationist  claim  that  Evolution  is  dead  as  per  Stephen  Jay  Gould  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  56  2.2.   Steven  M  Stanley  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  58  2.3   Theories  to  explain  the  progress  of  Evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  60  2.3.1   Punctuated  equilibrium  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  60  2.3.2   Multiple  meanings  of  gradualism  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  60  2.3.3   Quantum  evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  61  2.3.4   Creationist  interpretation  on  Gould’s  Punctuated  Equilibrium  Theory  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  62  2.4   Motoo  Kimura  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  65  2.5   Theories  on  Molecular  Evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  65  2.5.1   Population  genetics  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  65  2.5.2   Genetic  Drift  Vs.  Natural  Selection  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  66  2.5.3   McDonald–Kreitman  test  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  66  2.5.4   Neutral  Theory  of  molecular  evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  67  2.6   Theodosius  Dobzhansky  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  68  2.7   Genetics  and  Origin  of  Species  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  68  3.   Evidence  for  Darwin’s  Theory  of  Evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  70  3.1   Micro  Evolution  Evidence  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  70  3.1.1   Evidence  for  Evolution  in  Human  Time  Frame:  Malaria  Vs.  Homo  Sapiens  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  70  3.1.2   Fighting  the  evolution  of  malaria  in  Cambodia  -­‐  Berkeley  University  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  72  3.1.3   E.  coli  caught  in  the  act  of  evolving  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  72  3.1.4   Chromosome  2  in  Human  DNA  -­‐  Evidence  for  Common  Descent  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  74  3.1.5   Endogenous  Retro  Virus  –  Evidence  for  Common  Descent  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  75  3.1.6   Molecular  Clocks:  Protein  Evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  76  3.1.7   Cytochrome  C  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  78  3.2   Interpreting  the  Fossil  Record  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  79  3.2.1   Paleontology  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  79  3.2.2   Paleoanthropology  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  79  3.2.3   Taphonomy  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  79  3.2.4   Doing  math  with  species  and  fossils  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  79  3.3   Macro  Evolution  Evidence  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  80  3.3.1   Evaluating  the  Design  of  Giraffe  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  80  3.3.2   Evolution  of  Italian  Wall  Lizards  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  81  3.3.3   Evolution  of  Whales:  From  Land  Animal  to  the  Giant  of  the  Ocean  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  81  3.4   Transitional  Fossils  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  85  3.4.1   Tiktaalik:  Fish  to  Tetrapods  (Amphibians,  Reptiles,  Mammals)  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  86  3.4.2   Thrinaxodon  :  Reptiles  to  Mammals  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  87  3.4.3   Archaeopteryx  :  Reptiles  To  Birds  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  88  3.4.4   Ambulocetus  :  Land  Mammals  To  Ocean  Giant  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  89  3.4.5   Quadrupedal  Primates  to  Bipedal  Primates  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  90  3.5   Final  nail  in  the  coffin  of  the  creationists  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  93  3.5.1   Three  stages  of  Evolutionary  Biology  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  93  3.5.2   Creationists  buried  for  ever  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  94  4.   Conclusion  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  95  
  • 5. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   5  4.1   Summarizing  the  critical  mistakes  from  the  article  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  95  4.2   Analyze  Creationism,  Intelligent  Design  and  Evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  96  4.2.1   Analyzing  the  Micro  and  Macro  Evidence  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  96  4.2.2   Analyzing  Intelligent  Design  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  96  4.2.3   Analyzing  Creationism  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  97  4.2.4   Questions  to  Creationists  and  Intelligent  Design  Proponents  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  97  4.2.5   Some  more  interesting  questions  to  creationists  of  Abrahamic  faith.  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  98  5.   Explore  (Videos  and  Books)  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  99  5.1   Glossary  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  99  5.2   Videos  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  100  5.2.1   Evolution  and  Genetics  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  100  5.3   Websites  on  Evolution  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  100  5.3.1   Universities  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  100  5.3.2   Web  Sites  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  100  5.4   Books  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  101  5.4.1   Cosmology  and  Quantum  Physics  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  101  5.4.2   Evolution  and  Genetics  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  101  5.4.3   Neuro  Science  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  101  5.4.4   Others  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  101      What  is  Science?    By  John  A  Moore,  1993    A  way  of  Knowing  By:    • Accumulating  data  from  observations  and  experiments  • Seeking  relationships  of  the  data  with  other  natural  phenomena  • Excluding  super  natural  explanations  and  personal  wishes    Science  is  never  complete,  and  each  new  discovery  produces  new  questions.    By  Thomas  H.  Huxley       “Science  is  nothing  but  trained  and  organized  common  sense”    Science:  • A  body  of  Knowledge  • The  process  for  building  that  Knowledge  • Has  both  creative  and  critical  components          
  • 6. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    6  Introduction    Fighting  against  Darwin’s  Evolution  theory  has  a  long  history  as  old  as  the  theory  itself.   However,   what’s   surprising   is   you   don’t   see   creationists   fight   against   other  fields  of  science  for  example  Theory  of  Relativity  or  Quantum  Physics  which  is  much  more   bizarre,   than   saying   we   got   evolved   from   Ape.   Compare   to   Relativity   and  Quantum  Physics,  saying  we  were  evolved  from  Ape  is  nothing.    But  still  why  this  massive  amount  of  century  old  attacks  against  biology.      Here  is  the  answer  for  that        That  describes  everything  from  the  motion  of  the  planets  to  galaxies  to  the  color  of  your  skin.      Now   do   you   think   any   creationist   will   dare   to   question   any   of   these   things?   The  answer  is  a  big  NO.  The  latest  book  from  Stephen  Hawking  “The  Grand  Design”  says  there   is   no   role   for   a   Supreme   power   for   the   Big   Bang   of   the   Universe   and   its  functions,  the  latest  book  by  Laurence  M  Krauss  says,  Universe  came  from  nothing.      Last  year  (Oct  20111),  three  scientists  were  awarded  Nobel  Prize  for  confirming  the  expansion  of  the  Universe,  confirming  Big  Bang  Theory.  Oh  boy!,  its  expanding  at  a  faster  rate  than  anticipated  due  to  Dark  Energy.  That’s  the  second  evidence  for  Big  Bang  Theory.  Prior  to  this  Scientists  got  Nobel  Prize  in  19782  and  20063  for  Cosmic  Microwave  Background  Radiation4,  the  remnants  of  Big  Bang.      The  big-­‐bang  theory  predicts  that  this  primordial  light  should  display  a  classic  “blackbody”  spectrum,  an  indicator  that  the  whole  universe  started  out  at  a  uniform  temperature  before                                                                                                                  1  Nobel  Prize  for  Physics  2011  2  Nobel  Prize  for  Physics  1978  3  Nobel  Prize  for  Physics  2006  4  MSNBC  –  Americans  win  Nobel  for  Big  Bang  study  March  10,  2006  
  • 7. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   7  expanding  into  the  much  less  homogeneous  state  we  now  observes.  That  is  exactly  what  COBE5  found.  “It’s  just  a  magnificent  verification  of  the  big  bang,”  said  Lawrence  Krauss,  a  professor  of  physics  at  Case  Western  Reserve  University  in  Cleveland.    Albert   Einstein   published   General   Theory   of   Relativity   in   1916   and   the   Big   Bang  model  was  a  natural  outcome  of  this  theory.  However,  wisdom  at  that  time  points  towards  a  static  universe.  So,  he  modified  his  theory  by  introducing  Cosmological  Constant   to   make   his   theory   predict   the   static   model.   However,   in   1929,   Edwin  Hubble  announced  the  expansion  of  universe  as  he  observed  that  the  galaxies  were  systematically   moving   away   from   us   with   speed   proportional   to   their   distance.  Einstein   abandoned   the   Cosmological   Constant   after   this   observation   by   Hubble.  However,  a  number  of  observations  in  1998  points  towards  a  cosmic  acceleration  have   revived   the   cosmological   constant!   Even   Einstein’s   blunder   became   another  brilliant  idea.    Following   image   shows   the   history   of   the   universe   with   initial   expansion   due   to  inflation   and   the   current   expansion   due   to   Dark   Energy.   20116  Nobel   Prize7  for  Physics  is  attributed  to  the  accelerated  expansion  of  Universe  due  to  Dark  Energy.        I  feel  its  time  there  should  be  some  mathematical  formula,  which  will  explain  the  concept  of  Natural  Selection  and  predict  changes  (from  mutation,  genetic  drift)  of  any  species  predicting  the  potential  DNA  sequences  of  the  future  species.    Once  that  happens  blind  pseudo  science  attack  on  Evolution  will  stop.  By  the  way  you  must  wondering  if  I  understood  the  above  formula.  Absolutely  Not!                                                                                                                    5  COBE  –  Cosmic  Background  Explorer  6  CNN  –  Scientists  studying  Universe’s  expansion  win  Nobel  Prize  in  Physics  October  4,  2011  7  BBC  News  –  Nobel  Physics  Prize  honors  Accelerating  Universe  find  October  4,  2011  
  • 8. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    8  Understanding  the  structure  of  this  document    This  document  is  divided  into  following  sections:    1. Understanding  Evolution  2. Wrong  Interpretation  of  Science  and  Scientists  Quotes  3. Evidence  for  Darwin’s  Theory  of  Evolution  4. Conclusion  5. Explore  (Videos  &  Books)    1.   Understanding  Evolution    This   section   explains   the   key   ideas   of   Darwin’s   theory   of   Evolution.     It   briefly  introduces   the   user   to   genetic   science   by   explaining   mutation   and   concept   of  geological  time  line,  which  is  very  important  to  understand  evolution  of  species.      The  key  part  of  evolution  is  variation  and  selection  and  the  time  frame.  Variations  happen  through  mutations  and  Natural  Selection  is  the  key  for  the  branching  out  and  diversification  of  species.  Time  is  a  very  critical  component  of  evolution.  When  we  talk  about  time  we  are  not  talking  about  time  in  days,  months  or  years.  We  are  talking  about  time  in  millions  of  years.  To  explain  that  briefly,  60  million  years  ago  India  was  an  island  and  was  not  part  of  Asia  the  way  we  see  it  today.  Indian  island  barged   into   Asia   and   that   collision   created   the   Himalayas.   This   gives   you   an   idea  about  the  geological  time  frame  we  are  talking  about.      Understanding   Natural   Selection,   Common   descent   with   modification   along   with  how  mutation  works,  is  a  key  part  in  the  whole  process.  Apart  from  Darwin’s  theory  of   Evolution   this   section   also   looks   at   the   alternate   non-­‐scientific   theories   from  creationists.  Non-­‐scientific  theories  masqueraded  as  scientific  theories.      2.   Wrong  Interpretation  of  Science  and  Scientists  quotes    One  of  the  tactics  the  creationists  deploy  is  to  misquote  the  prominent  scientists  and  wrongly  interpret  the  their  theories  to  confuse  the  public.  This  section  debunks  such  claims  with  evidence  from  such  scientist’s  latest  books,  press  statements.      3.   Evidence  for  Darwin’s  Theory  of  Evolution    This  section  showcases  some  of  the  key  evidence  to  support  evolution  from  fossil  records,  genetics,  some  bad  designs  in  species  and  other  areas  of  science.      4.   Conclusion    This   section   analyses   every   section   in   this   document   like   evidences,   creationist  theories  etc.      
  • 9. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   9  1.   Understanding  Evolution    Almost  every  creationist’s  says  Evolution  is  just  a  theory  and  not  a  fact.  According  to  "The  American  Heritage  Dictionary,"  a  theory  is:    A  set  of  statements  or  principles  devised  to  explain  a  group  of  facts  or  phenomena,  especially  one  that  has  been  repeatedly  tested  or  is  widely  accepted  and  can  be  used  to  make  predictions  about  natural  phenomena.    Let  me  start  with  N  M  Hussain’s  understanding  of  Darwin’s  Theory  of  Evolution  from  his  article.  Compared  to  popular  belief  (creationism)  in  Darwin’s  time,  Darwin  made  two   extra   ordinary   claims.   Before   I   address   this   let   me   show   what   Hussain   wrote  about  Darwin’s  Theory  in  his  article  titled  “Evolution  and  Genetic  Science8”  in  the  Magazine  Sneha  Samvadham  cover  story  (2012  October).  1.1   History  of  Earth    Before  we  get  into  the  article  let  us  have  a  quick  look  at  the  scenario  in  1859  at  the  time  Darwin  published  “On  Origin  of  the  Species”.    1. Earth  is  too  young.  2. No  transitional  forms  in  the  fossil  record.  3. Natural  Selection  can’t  work  because  rare  variants  would  be  swamped  out.  4. Animals  look  too  different  to  come  from  common  ancestors.  1.1.1   Figuring  out  Earth’s  age    According  to  Archbishop  James  Ussher’s9  estimate  based  on  genealogy  in  the  Bible  Earth  got  created  around  the  year  4004  B.C.  That  put  the  age  of  Earth  around  6000  years   old.   Lord   Kelvin10  (famous   physicist   at   that   time)   calculated   that   the   age   of  Earth   is   around   40   (max)   million   years.   Kelvin’s   estimate   came   from   physics   of  cooling  of  the  Earth  and  the  Sun.  Darwin  felt  this  age  has  to  be  wrong,  because  with  2  to  40  million  years  he  realized  that  evolution  is  not  possible  for  so  many  diverse  amounts   of   species   you   observe   on   planet   Earth.     Lord   Kelvin   was   against   the  concept   of   Darwin’s   Evolution   and   he   felt   his   calculation   of   Earth’s   age   refutes  Darwin’s  theory  of  Evolution  and  point  towards  the  spontaneous  creation  of  species  by  God.      Here  is  an  abstract  from  the  paper  published  by  University  of  Manitoba11,  Canada      “Calculations  at  high  school  level  can  be  used  to  show  how  Newton  estimated  the  age  of  the  Earth  from  the  cooling  of  a  hot  body  and  later  Helmholtz  and  Kelvin  applied  thermodynamic  arguments  to  finding  the  ages  of  both  the  Sun                                                                                                                  8  Evolution  and  Genetic  Science  by  N  M  Hussain,  Sneha  Samvadham,  2012  October  9  Archbishop  James  Ussher  –  Wikipedia    10  Lord  Kelvin  –  Wikipedia    11  Calculating  the  Age  of  Earth  and  the  Sun  by  Arthur  Stinner  
  • 10. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    10  and  the  Earth.  Finding  the  Sun  to  be  younger  than  the  Earth  was  a  puzzle  until  the  discovery  of  radioactivity  and  the  Sun’s  true  source  of  power.”    Albert  Einstein’s  E=mc2  revolutionized  the  understanding  of  the  power  source  and  age  of  the  sun.    4  Hydrogen  atoms  –  in  fusion  make  1  Helium  atom  and  releases  energy    Discovery  of  radioactivity  provides  new  way  to  calculate  absolute  age  of  rocks,  and  detailed  measurements  suggest  that  the  Earth  is  around  4.6  billion  years  old.    Now  this  (Age  of  Earth)  has  been  proven  beyond  any  doubt  in  the  present  time.      Now   consider   the   forces   Darwin   faced   at   that   time   when   he   formulated   and  published  his  theory  on  evolution  of  species.  Both  theology  and  the  contemporary  science  (at  that  time)  point  towards  an  age  of  Earth  (6000  years  or  40  million  years),  which  is  absolutely  not  compatible  with  the  concept  of  Evolution  and  with  that  age,  there  is  not  enough  time  for  the  Natural  Selection  to  work.      This  backdrop  of  Earth’s  age  is  very  critical  to  understand  Darwin’s  thought  process  and  his  confidence  in  his  theory.          Without  even  establishing  anything  and  without  even  explaining  the  concept  or  the  meaning  of  Natural  Selection12,  Hussain  is  trying  to  conclude  that  Charles  Lyell’s  6th  point  (gradually  accumulated  changes  create  new  species  in  time)  is  what  Darwin’s  Evolution  theory  is  all  about  without  explaining  why  there  should  be  a  change  in  the  first  place.                                                                                                                    12  Origin  of  Species,  Charles  Darwin,  Signet  Classics,  150th,  Anniversary  Edition,  Chapter  4,  Page  76  
  • 11. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   11  The   key   part   of   Natural   Selection   is   Why   Natural   Selection?   Under   what  circumstances   Natural   Selection   works.   That’s   exactly   what   Hussain   should   try   to  understand  and  explain  if  he  thinks  he  is  an  expert  in  Darwin’s  Evolution  Theory.      What  N  M  Hussain  expects  in  the  Origin  of  Species  theory  is  the  answer  to  Earth’s  4.5  billion  years  of  History  well  defined.  Which  means  how  each  species  formed  and  how  it  got  evolved.  He  didn’t  get  the  concept  that  Charles  Darwin’s  “On  the  Origin  of  Species”   is   a   collection   of   theories   (with   examples)   on   what   you   see   around   in  different  geographic  locations  across  the  world  and  created  a  scientific  model,  which  can  give  a  scientific  explanation  on  the  diversity  of  species  on  planet  Earth.  Every  theory  requires  empirical  data  to  support  the  theories  predictions.  However,  the  key  aspect  is  trying  to  figure  what  exactly  the  theory  is  trying  to  emphasize.  Now  lets  look  at  Hussain’s  conclusion  on  “On  the  Origin  of  Species”.        Here   Hussain   explains   that,   “On   Origin   of   the   Species”   should   contain   details   of  atleast  one  species  (from  the  beginning)  from  the  current  2  million  species  in  this  world.  This  is  the  perfect  example  that  he  doesn’t  understand  Darwin’s  theory.  He  needs  to  understand  that,  to  explain  that  you  need  to  go  through  4.5  billion  years  of  Earth’s  history13  (check  out  the  BBC  site  for  the  Prehistoric  Life  on  Earth),  and  the  most   critical   part   of   Darwin’s   theory   is   Common   Descent   running   into   the   last   3  billion  years  of  Earth’s  history.      So,  from  the  above  paragraph  (from  Hussain)  following  things  we  can  infer.    1. Hussain  doesn’t  understand  that  the  Earth  is  4.5  billion  years  old  2. Hussain  doesn’t  understand  the  concept  of  Common  Descent.    3. Hussain  doesn’t  accept  single  origin  of  life.    4. Hussain   doesn’t   understand   that   Eukaryote14  evolved   around   2.7   billions  years  ago.  5. Hussain  expects  one  book  to  reveal  all  the  details  of  3  billion  years  of  species  history!                                                                                                                      13  BBC  –  History  of  Life  on  Earth  14  Eukaryote  -­‐  Wikipedia  
  • 12. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    12  1.1.2   Geological  Time  Periods  (from  BBC)      Following   data   from   BBC   Site   shows   various   geological   time   on   Earth.   It’s   important   to  understand  this  history  to  get  the  complete  grasp  of  Evolution.        Following  extract  is  from  BBC  site  on  Prehistoric  life  of  Earth15    The   Earth   is   a   little   over   4.5   billion   years   old,   its   oldest   materials   being   4.3   billion-­‐year-­‐old   zircon  crystals.   Its   earliest   times   were   geologically   violent,   and   it   suffered   constant   bombardment   from  meteorites.  When  this  ended,  the  Earth  cooled  and  its  surface  solidified  to  a  crust  -­‐  the  first  solid  rocks.  There   were   no   continents   as   yet,   just   a   global   ocean   peppered   with   small   islands.   Erosion,  sedimentation  and  volcanic  activity  -­‐  possibly  assisted  by  more  meteor  impacts  -­‐  eventually  created  small  proto-­‐continents  which  grew  until  they  reached  roughly  their  current  size  2.5  billion  years  ago.  The  continents  have  since  repeatedly  collided  and  been  torn  apart,  so  maps  of  Earth  in  the  distant  past  are  quite  different  to  todays.  The  history  of  life  on  Earth  began  about  3.8  billion  years  ago,  initially  with  single-­‐celled  prokaryotic  cells,  such  as  bacteria.  Multicellular  life  evolved  over  a  billion  years  later  and  its  only  in  the  last  570  million  years  that  the  kind  of  life  forms  we  are  familiar  with  began  to  evolve,  starting  with  arthropods,  followed  by  fish  530  million  years  ago  (Ma),  land  plants  475Ma  and  forests  385Ma.  Mammals  didnt  evolve   until   200Ma   and   our   own   species,   Homo   sapiens,   only   200,000   years   ago.   So   humans   have  been  around  for  a  mere  0.004%  of  the  Earths  history.  1.1.3   Geological  Time  Line  (from  BBC)                                                                                                                      15  BBC  –  Prehistoric  Life  of  Earth  
  • 13. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   13      1.1.4   Tree  of  Life  (from  BBC)      
  • 14. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    14  However,  Hussain,  as  a  creationist  how  can  he  accept  Evolution,  because  his  whole  purpose   is   not   to   understand   Evolution   but   to   say   God   Created   all   species   at   the  same  time.  His  prejudiced  mind  is  completely  closed  to  Science.  Hussain  expects  that  “On  Origin  of  the  Species”  can  be  worth  its  salt,  only  if  it  contains  4.5  billion  years  of  Earth  history.      So,  its  very  clear  that  Hussain,  started  his  article  with  a  prejudiced  mind  and  trying  to  prove  that  Evolution  is  wrong  without  understanding  what  it  really  means  and  has  no  clue  about  Earth’s  history.    After  going  through  the  4.5  billion  years  of  Earth’s  history,  what  will  be  the  version  of  a  creationist?    1. God  Created  Universe  2. God  Created  Earth  3. God  Created  Species  4. God  Created  Man    Can  we  ask  any  questions  on  the  above  four  statements?  Like  the  following:    1. How  old  is  Universe?  2. How  old  is  Sun?  3. How  old  is  Earth?  4. Is  the  Universe  static  or  expanding?  5. What  will  be  the  fate  of  the  Universe?  6. Are  all  these  diverse  set  of  species  got  created  at  the  same  time?  7. What  about  the  case  of  99%  of  species  got  extinct?  8. If   an   asteroid   didn’t   hit   Earth   60   million   years   ago,   Dinosaurs   will   be   still  ruling  this  planet!  So,  did  God,  purposefully  destroyed  Dinosaurs  to  create  Humans?  9. What’s  space  and  time?  10. Is  Time  absolute?  11. What’s  primary  matter  or  consciousness?    Science  is  all  about  answering  the  RIGHT  questions  and  more.  When  you  ask  these  questions,  a  creationist  will  hide  behind  religion  and  say,  “that’s  not  the  purpose  of  the  religion!”    Readers  must  be  thinking  now,  why  I  am  talking  about  Universe,  Earth  and  Stars  in  an  article  about  Evolution.  Evolution  is  there  everywhere,  there  is  a  cosmic  Evolution  (formation  of  Stars  and  planets)  and  there  is  biological  Evolution.  Understanding  the  history  and  geological  time  period  is  critical  to  understand  Evolution  and  Darwin’s  vision.    Now  where  is  science  when  Hussain’s  belief  says  that  God  created  every  species?  That’s   nothing   but   faith.   That’s   where   his   confusion   starts,   confusing   faith   with  Science.   You   don’t   need   to   bring   in   Science   if   you   want   be   spiritual.   Religion   and  
  • 15. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   15  Science  has  two  very  distinctive  roles.  It’s  ok  to  be  spiritual,  and  the  golden  rule  to  follow,  never  mix  up  your  personal  spiritual  beliefs  with  Science!    As  Hussain  is  confused  about  Earth’s  history  and  the  theories  of  Evolution,  lets  move  forward  and  look  how  Hussain  presented  the  case  even  after  it’s  very  clear  about  his  intentions.      In  the  next  section  Hussain  describes  Darwin’s  example  and  he  is  concluding  that,  it  never   happens   in   nature   and   its   nothing   but   Darwin’s   pure   imagination.   Without  even  explaining  the  theory  and  the  accompanying  facts,  without  even  evaluating  the  facts,  he  declared  that  Evolution  Theory  doesn’t  work.  Now  lets  see  what  Darwin  says   in   Origin   of   Species   about   his   examples   to   illustrate   the   concept   of   Natural  Selection.    “I  must  beg  permission  to  give  one  or  two  imaginary  illustrations16.”    -­‐  Charles  Darwin,  Chapter  IV,  On  the  Origin  of  the  Species,  Page  86        When   Darwin   took   the   readers   permission   to   explain   the   concept   of   Natural  Selection  using  an  imaginary  illustration,  Hussain  portrayed  as  his  own  conclusion!    I  could  understand  if  this  article  is  published  in  1859.  However  after  150  years  there  are   ‘n’   numbers   of   evidence   available   in   Genetics   and   Organism   level   to   support  Darwin’s  Theory.  The  third  section  of  this  article  focuses  on  few  prime  examples  to  illustrate  micro  and  macroevolution  as  well  as  it  will  discuss  the  concept  of  design  or  bad  design  in  animals.      His  paragraph  ends  with  the  statement  that  Darwin  never  gave  any  evidence  for  his  theory.  Science  illiterates  will  be  so  happy  to  read  Hussain’s  statement  as  Hussain  is  exploiting  their  ignorance.      How  intelligent  to  confuse  the  normal  readers!                                                                                                                      16  On  Origin  of  Species,  Charles  Darwin,    Signet  Classics  150th  Anniversary  Edition  
  • 16. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    16  This  kind  of  tactics  is  called  FUD  Factor;  inject  Fear,  Uncertainty  and  Doubt  in  other  people’s  mind.  This  is  what  priests  did  to  the  common  man  for  the  past  5  thousand  years.      Let  us  look  at  how  theoretical  physics  works.  Take  Einstein’s  Relativity17  Theory  or  Newton’s  Laws  of  Gravity18,  these  theories  had  the  predictive  power.      • Once  the  observations  where  applied  to  the  hypothesis,  it  produced  accurate  results.    • This  is  verified  by  ‘n’  number  of  scientists  across  the  world.  That’s  when  it  became  a  theory.  • In  Newton’s  Laws  of  Gravity  it  predicted  everything  except  Mercury’s  path  (around  Sun),  because  observation  and  path  produced  by  Newton’s  Law  of  Gravity   were   not   matching   (slight   variations).   This   got   fixed   with   Einstein’s  General  Theory  of  Relativity.  Today  to  send  a  Rocket  to  space  you  need  only  Newton’s  Law.  However,  if  the  payload  of  the  rocket  contains  a  GPS  satellite  then  you  need  Einstein’s  Special  theory  of  Relativity  and  General  Theory  of  Relativity,  without  these  theories,  the  discrepancies  in  finding  your  location  will  be  around  11  kms  per  day.      That’s  the  kind  of  predictive  power  in  Darwin’s  theory  detailed  in  “On  Origin  of  the  Species”  book.  It  had  the  predictive  power  to  predict  the  evolution  of  species  from  microbes  to  macro  organisms.      Now  lets  look  at  what  exactly  is  “On  the  Origin  of  Species”  is  all  about.  Before  that  lets  review  the  fundamental  creationist  view  on  Origin  of  Species.    God  created  all  species  as  is  and  everything  required  to  support  them.      Can  you  prove  this?  No,  its  nothing  but  you  have  to  believe  and  that’s  called  faith  and  not  Science.    It’s  pointless  to  get  into  a  Science  Vs.  Religion  debate.  I  feel  it’s  not  a  debatable  subject  because  of  its  distinctive  nature  and  goals.      Like  I  said  before  it’s  OK  to  believe  in  God  and  have  faith,  that  doesn’t  mean,  that’s  how   Science   should   work.   Faith   is   subjective   and   it’s   very   personal.   Science   is  Objective  and  is  a  continuous  iterative  process.  Iteration  refines  the  scientific  facts  with  more  knowledge,  data  and  understanding  of  the  universe  and  nature.    So,  the  purpose  of  this  article  is  not  to  establish  the  existence  of  God  or  deny  it,  but  to  review  the  claims  made  by  Hussain  against  Evolution,  and  analyze  those  claims.  In  the   next   section   we   will   examine   the   key   concepts   in   the   “On   the   Origin   of   the  Species”  which  Hussain  failed  to  elaborate  in  his  article.    Then  we  will  compare  the  alternate  theories  on  Evolution  like  Creationism  and  Intelligent  Design.  The  reason                                                                                                                  17  Einstein’s  General  Theory  of  Relativity  –  Wikipedia    18  Newton’s  Law  of  Gravity  –  Wikipedia    
  • 17. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   17  for  this  comparison  is  to  give  the  reader  a  holistic  picture  on  this  topic,  so  that  they  can  make  their  own  judgments  on  what  to  believe  and  what  not  to  believe.      So,  lets  get  started  with  Darwin’s  theory  of  Evolution.      
  • 18. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    18  1.2   Understanding  Darwin’s  Theory  of  Evolution    With   this   backdrop   let   us   look   into   what’s   Darwin’s   “On   Origin   of   Species”   first  published  in  1859,  (153  years  ago)  is  all  about.  Darwin  had  an  extra  ordinary  vision  on  the  Evolution  of  Species  and  came  up  with  two  brilliant  and  spectacular  ideas  and  the  third  one  (2.1)  is  an  inference  from  his  second  idea.    1.2.1   Idea  1  –  Natural  Selection19    “Can  it,  then,  be  thought  improbable  …  that  other  variations  useful  in  some  way  to  each  being  in  the  great  and  complex  battle  of  life,  should  sometimes  occur  in  the  course  of  thousands  of  generations?  If  such  do  occur,  can  we  doubt  (remembering  that   many   more   individuals   are   born   than   can   possibly   survive)   that   individuals  having   advantage,   however   slight,   over   others,   would   have   the   best   chance   of  surviving  and  of  procreating  their  kind?  On  the  other  hand,  we  may  feel  sure  that  any  variation  in  the  least  degree  injurious  would  be  rigidly  destroyed.  This  preservation  of  favorable  variations  and  the  rejection  of  injurious  variations  I  call  Natural  Selection”    –  Chapter  IV,  “Natural  Selection”  On  the  Origin  of  Species,  Page  77    Then   comes   the   extra   ordinary   vision   of   Darwin,   which   says   this   process   would  connect  all  life’s  form  via  their  descent  from  common  ancestors.  1.2.2   Idea  2  –  Common  Descent20  (Descent  with  Modification)    Several  classes  of  facts…  seem  to  me  to  proclaim  so  plainly,  that  the  innumerable  species,   genera,   and   families   of   organic   beings,   with   which   this   world   is   peopled,  have  all  descended,  each  within  its  own  class  or  group,  from  common  parents,  and  have  all  been  modified  in  the  course  of  descent.  –  Chapter  XIV,  “Mutual  Affinities  of  Organic  Beings:  Morphology:  Embryology:”  On  the  Origin  of  Species,  Page  477    Then  the  astounding  claim  1.2.3   Idea  2.1  –  Single  Origin  of  Life21    Therefore   I   should   infer   from   analogy   that   probably   all   the   organic   beings,   which  have  ever  lived  on  this  earth,  have  descended  from  on  primordial  form,  into  which  life  was  first  breathed.  –  Chapter  XV,  “Recapitulations  and  Conclusions:”  On  the  Origin  of  Species,  Page  502  1.2.4   Idea  3  –  Variation  in  Rate  of  Change22    Species  of  different  genera  and  classes  have  not  changed  at  the  same  rate,  or  in  the  same  degree.                                                                                                                  19  On  Origin  of  Species,  Charles  Darwin,    Signet  Classics  150th  Anniversary  Edition,  Chapter  4,  Page  77  20  On  Origin  of  Species,  Charles  Darwin,    Signet  Classics  150th  Anniversary  Edition,  Chapter  14,  Page  477  21  On  Origin  of  Species,  Charles  Darwin,    Signet  Classics  150th  Anniversary  Edition,  Chapter  15,  Page  502  22  On  Origin  of  Species,  Charles  Darwin,    Signet  Classics  150th  Anniversary  Edition,  Chapter  11,  Page  345  
  • 19. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   19  -­‐  Charles  Darwin,  Chapter  XI  “On  the  Geological  succession  of  Organic  Beings”  On  the  Origin  of  Species,  Page  345  In  the  fifth  edition  Darwin  wrote    “Many   species   when   once   formed   never   undergo   any   further   change   but   become  extinct  without  leaving  modified  descendants;  and  the  periods  during  which  species  have  undergone  modifications,  though  long  as  measure  by  years  have  probably  been  short   in   comparison   with   the   periods   during   which   they   have   retained   the   same  form.”  -­‐  Charles  Darwin23,  Chapter  XV  “Recapitulation  and  Conclusion”,  On  the  Origin  of  Species,  Page  483    1.2.5   Natural  Selection    So,   from   the   above   ideas   from   “On   the   Origin   of   the   Species”   what   are   the   key  ingredients   to   fuel   the   Evolution?   Let   us   summarize   key   elements   from   Idea   1   –  “Natural  Selection”  (check  the  words  highlighted  in  red).    1. Variation  2. Selection  (advantage)  3. Time  (thousands  of  generations)    Understanding  this  powerful  concept  is  key  for  the  Evolution  theory.  There  is  huge  amount   of   evidences   confirming   Natural   Selection.   Understanding   the   reasons  behind   Natural   Selection   is   the   key   to   your   understanding   of   origin   of   species.  Environmental  factors  play  a  key  role  in  Natural  Selection  along  with  time.      At   the   genetic   level,   mutation   plays   the   most   critical   role   and   understanding   the  genotype,   which   describes   the   traits   in   the   organism,   and   the   phenotype,   which  makes  the  trait  visible.  We  will  revisit  Natural  Selection  after  getting  a  brief  idea  on  DNA  and  mutations.      The  next  key  aspect  of  Darwin’s  theory  is  the  Descent  with  Modifications.  Here  the  concept  is  not  for  single  organism.  It’s  for  the  entire  group  of  species  in  a  particular  environment  and  descent  with  modifications  traces  back  to  a  single  origin  of  life  as  per  Darwin.      “DNA   sequencing   has   confirmed   beyond   any   doubt   that   all   living   creatures   share  a  common   origin.   Innumerable   examples   of  evolution   in   action  can   be   seen   all  around  us,  from  the  pollution-­‐matching  peppered  moth  to  fast-­‐changing  viruses  such  as  HIV  and  H5N1  bird  flu.  Evolution  is  as  firmly  established  a  scientific  fact  as  the  roundness  of  the  Earth.”  (Quote  from  New  Scientist24)                                                                                                                    23  On  Origin  of  Species,  Charles  Darwin,    Signet  Classics  150th  Anniversary  Edition,  Chapter  15,  Page  483  24  New  Scientist  -­‐  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-­‐evolution-­‐24-­‐myths-­‐and-­‐misconceptions.html    
  • 20. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    20  The  crystal  clear  evidence  comes  in  Genetic  Science.  The  most  interesting  case  is  the  100,000  years  fight  between  Homo  sapiens  and  Malaria.  The  most  devastating  news  on  malaria  in  the  recent  times  is,  it  is  going  to  be  incurable  disease  soon,  because  malaria  is  evolving  pretty  fast.  Malaria  already  accounts  for  millions  of  deaths  every  year!    In  modern  Science  Evolution  happens  at  two  levels    1. Micro  Evolution  through  Natural  Selection  2. Macro  Evolution  through  Natural  Selection    To  understand  Micro  Evolution,  we  will  look  into  the  structure  of  DNA  and  mutations  in  sections  1.3  Understanding  Genome  and  1.4.  Mutations.  For  Macroevolution,  we  will   look   at   the   evidence   presented   in   this   article.   In   both   levels   there   is   a   huge  amount  of  evidence  supporting  Darwin’s  Natural  Selection.  Before  we  jump  into  the  next   sections   on   Science,   let   us   try   to   analyze   the   creationist’s   views   on   Natural  Selection.      1.2.6   Refuting  Creationist  claim  that  Natural  Selection  Doesn’t  Work    Let  us  look  at  Hussain’s  perspective  from  his  article.        Now  here  he  is  concluding  that  the  Origin  of  Species  can’t  be  explained  by  Natural  Selection   and   then   making   critical   statement   that   Natural   Selection   doesn’t   have  that  capability.  To  come  back  to  his  statement  that  Natural  Selection  can’t  explain  evolution  is  absolutely  wrong.    If  his  analysis  is  logical  and  scientific,  he  must  explain  why  Natural  Selection  won’t  work  and  what’s  the  alternative  scientific  theory  if  there  are  any.    
  • 21. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   21  Here  are  the  reasons  why  his  conclusions  are  wrong    1. The  creationist  never  tried  to  explain  what  Natural  Selection  is  all  about  and  refused   to   give   an   explanation   instead   just   proclaimed   his   opinion   that  Natural  Selection  doesn’t  work  instead  of  giving  any  logical  arguments.  His  statement  is  poorly  out  of  ignorance  and  his  complete  blindness  to  modern  science.  Its  very  clear  that  Hussain  has  no  clue  about  Natural  Selection.  2. To   refute   Hussain’s   claim   that   Natural   Selection   doesn’t   work,   the   best  example   is   the   case   I   mentioned   under   Microevolution   in   Genetic   Science,  the   100,000   years   fight   between   Homo   sapiens   and   Malaria   (more   details  under  evidence  section).  If  he  understood  the  concept  of  Natural  Selection  and  researched  on  that,  he  would  have  found  1000s  and  1000s  of  evidences  from   different   wings   of   evolutionary   biology.   I   have   created   a   separate  section   for   evidences   highlighting   some   of   the   prominent   evidences   on  Evolution.  3. Hussain   has   no   clue   about   the   age   of   Earth   and   has   no   answers   on   why  different   species   appeared   in   different   (as   per   the   evolution   theory)  geological   time.   Without   Natural   Selection   it’s   impossible   for   species   to  appear  the  way  fossil  records  points  out.    4. Today,  evidence  for  natural  selection  you  will  find  in  genetic  science  (DNA,  genes),  fossil  records,  morphology  analysis  etc.  The  evidence  section  clearly  establishes   this   case.   They   are   books   and   videos   (available   in   the   Explore  section)  from  top  universities  explaining  how  Natural  Selection  works  at  the  genetic  level.      Before   we   get   deep   into   a   critical   review   of   Hussain’s   article   its   important   to  understand  his  target  audience.  The  nature  of  Hussain’s  article  reveals  very  clearly  his  target  audience  and  his  intentions  and  it  will  be  very  interesting  to  understand  the   Hussain’s   target   audience.   It   definitely   can’t   be   educated   scientifically   literate  community.  Imagine  this  is  the  cover  story  of  a  magazine  (I  don’t  know  how  popular  that   magazine   is).   So,   with   the   initial   few   pages   I   get   a   feeling   that   the   Hussain’s  article  is  targeted  at  scientifically  illiterate  segment  who  heard  about  evolution  but  is  in   a   confused   state   whether   to   accept   that   or   not,   and   always   in   a   continuous  conflict  with  their  religious  beliefs  which  is  creationism.  When  their  kids  go  to  school  and   learn   about   evolution   they   are   not   sure   what   their   kids   learning   is   right   or  wrong.          
  • 22. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    22  1.2.7   Misconceptions  about  Evolution  Theory25    Misconception:  Evolution  is  a  theory  about  Origin  of  Life  Correction:  Evolution  is  theory  focuses  on  the  Origin  of  Species.  It’s  about  how  life  diversified  and  branched  out.  So  it’s  not  about  Origin  of  Life.      Misconception:  Evolution  is  by  Chance  Correction:  Evolution  is  NOT  by  chance,  mutation  is  random  but  Natural  Selection  is  NOT  random.      Misconception:   Individual  organisms  can  evolve  (into  new  species)  during  a  single  lifespan.  Correction:  Evolutionary  change  is  based  on  changes  in  the  genetic  makeup  of  the  population  over  time  and  Population,  and  not  individual  organisms,  evolve.    Misconception:  Evolution  only  occurs  slowly  and  gradually  Correction:  Evolution  occurs  slowly  and  gradually,  but  it  can  also  occur  rapidly,  and  the  rate  of  change  can  be  different  from  species  to  species.    Misconception:  Evolution  results  in  organisms  always  getting  better  and  better.  Correction:   Natural   Selection   does   result   in   improved   abilities   to   survive   and  reproduce.  Natural  Selection  allows  the  survival  of  the  individuals  with  a  range  of  traits,  individuals  that  are  good  enough  to  survive.   There  are  other  mechanisms  of  evolution   that   dont   cause   adaptive   change.   Mutation,  migration,   and  genetic  drift  may   cause  populations  to   evolve   in   ways   that   are   actually   harmful   overall   or  make   them   less   suitable   for   their   environments.  Evolution   doesn’t   make   the  organism  better,  it  makes  it  fittest  for  the  current  environment.      Misconception:  Genetic  mutation  arise  in  response  to  the  environment  Correction:    Mutations  are  constantly  occurring,  depends  upon  the  environment  the  mutation  can  be  good,  bad  or  neutral.    Natural  selection  picks  up  the  mutation,  which  is  beneficial  for  the  current  crisis  the  species  is  facing.  Even  if  that  mutation  solves  the  current  crisis,  it  may  be  potentially  harmful   in   the   future.   Which   shows   that   Natural   Selection   doesn’t   do   long   term  planning  something  a  designer  keeps  in  mind  when  the  designer  designs  something.  The  classic  example  is  the  Sickle  Cell  mutation  to  combat  malaria  by  the  Humans.  However,  we  know  that  inheriting  sickle  cell  from  both  parents  is  fatal.                                                                                                                        25  Misconceptions  about  Evolution  –  Berkeley  University    
  • 23. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   23  1.2.8   Predictive  Power  of  Evolution    Here  is  an  example  of  how  Evolution  Theory  predicts  where  to  find  a  specific  fossil.      Evolution  tells  us    1. The  time  species  lived,  helps  to  narrow  down  the  rock  formation  to  look  for  fossils.  2. About  the  habitat  of  the  species.  3. Species  morphology26,  which  includes  species  outward  appearance  (shape,  structure,  color,  pattern)  and  the  internal  structures  like  organs  and  bones.    This   doesn’t   mean   that   it’s   a   like   a   GPS   location,   so   that   the   only   thing   the  paleontologist27  needs  to  do  is  go  and  dig  up  the  fossil.  An  example  is  the  discovery  of  the  Tiktaalik28  fossil,  which  is  a  transition  fossil  between  fish  and  Tetrapods29,  the  first   four   legged   vertebrates   and   their   descendants   including   the   amphibians,  reptiles,  birds  and  mammals.      In   2004,   a   field   crew   digging   in   the   Canadian   Arctic   (their   fourth   trip   to   Artic   in  summer)  unearthed  the  fossil  remains  of  a  half-­‐fish,  half-­‐amphibian  that  would  all  but   confirm   paleontologists   theories   about   how   land-­‐dwelling   Tetrapods   (four-­‐limbed  animals,  including  us)  evolved  from  their  fish  ancestors.  The  animal  was  a  so-­‐called   lobe-­‐finned   fish   that   lived   about   375   million   years   ago.   Named   Tiktaalik  rosae  by  its  discoverers,  it  is  a  classic  example  of  a  transitional  form,  one  that  bridges  the  evolutionary  gap  between  two  quite  different  types  of  animal.  Read  more  in  PBS  (Nova)  web  site  under  Fossil  evidence30.          In  the  next  section  we  will  get  more  in  depth  understanding  of  DNA  and  Mutations  and  how  Natural  Selection  works  at  Microevolution.                                                                                                                        26  Morphology  –  Wikipedia    27  Paleontology  -­‐  Wikipedia  28  Tiktaalik  Transition  between  Fish  and  Tetrapods  –  Wikipedia      29  Tetrapod  -­‐  Wikipedia  30  PBS  Nova  Transition  Fossil  Evidence    
  • 24. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    24  1.3   Understanding  Genome  –  DNA,  Chromosomes,  Genes  &  Alleles    The   entire   DNA   sequence   is   called   Genome   and   in   humans   it’s   around   3.4   billion  base  pairs.  In  computer  storage  terms  it  will  take  3  Gigabytes  of  storage  to  store  the  human  genome  of  3.2  billion  bases.    1.3.1   DNA31    DeoxyriboNucleic  Acid  in  short  DNA  is  the  hereditary  material  in  humans  and  almost   all   organisms.   Most   DNA   is  located  in  the  Cell  Nucleus.  However  a  small   amount   of   DNA   can   also   be  found  in  the  mitochondria,  which  is  the  powerhouse   of   a   cell.   This   DNA   is  known   as   mitochondrial   DNA   or  mtDNA.      The  DNA  is  composed  of  four  chemical  bases:  • Adenine  (A)  • Guanine  (G)  • Cytosine  (C)  • Thymine  (T)    Human  DNA  consists  of  3  billion  bases  and  more  than  99%  of  those  bases  are  the  same  in  all  the  people.    Figure  1:  Double  Helix  structure  with  base  pairs,    sugar  molecule  and  phosphate  molecule.    The  four  chemical  bases  join  based  on  special  rules32.  A  always  pairs  with  T  and  C  always  pairs  with  G.      Double  Helix    The  chemical  bases  (ATCG),  pair  up  with  each  other  to  form  double  helix  (figure  1).  Each   base   is   attached   to   eh   sugar   molecule   and   phosphate   molecule   and   all   the  three   put   together   (Base   pairs,   Sugar   molecule,   phosphate   molecule)   is   called   a  nucleotide.   The   Nucleotides   are   arranged   in   two   long   strands   that   form   a   spiral  called  a  double  helix.      DNA  molecules  are  informational  molecules  encoding  the  genetic  instructions  used  in  the  development  and  functioning  of  all  known  living  organisms  and  may  viruses.                                                                                                                        31  DNA  –  Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA    32  University  of  Utah  -­‐  http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/tour/    
  • 25. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   25  The  DNA  Grammar33    The  DNA  code   uses   groups   of   three  letters   to   make   meaning.   This   means  that  when  the  cell  reads  the  instructions  encoded   in   the   DNA   sequence   to   make  a  protein,   it   reads   it   three   letters   at   a  time.   Most   groups   of   three   letters   -­‐  known   as   triplets   or  codons  -­‐   code   for  an  amino  acid.    Since  there  are  four  different  DNA  letters  (A,  G,  C  and  T),  there  are  43  =  4  x  4  x  4  =  64   different   combinations   that   can   be  used.   However,   as   there   are   only   20  different   types   of  amino   acid,   some   of  these   64  codons  code   for   the   same  amino  acid.  Some  of  the  64  codons  dont  code  for  any  of  the  amino  acids.  Instead  they   provide   the   punctuation   and  grammar,  like  where  the  cell  should  start  and  stop      Preliminary  evidence34  indicating  that  the  genetic  code  was  indeed  a  triplet  code  came  from  an  experiment  by  Francis  Crick  and  Sydney  Brenner  (1961).  This  experiment  examined  the  effect  of  frameshift  mutations  on  protein  synthesis.  Frameshift  mutations35  are  much  more  disruptive  to  the  genetic  code  than  simple  base  substitutions,  because  they  involve  a  base  insertion  or  deletion,  thus  changing  the  number  of  bases  and  their  positions  in  a  gene.  For  example,  the  mutagen  proflavine  causes  frameshift  mutations  by  inserting  itself  between  DNA  bases.  The  presence  of  proflavine  in  a  DNA  molecule  thus  interferes  with  the  molecules  replication  such  that  the  resultant  DNA  copy  has  a  base  inserted  or  deleted.                                                                                                                      33  http://www.yourgenome.org/dgg/general/proteins/proteins_1.shtml    34  Nature:  Nucleic  Acids  to  Amino  Acids:  DNA  Species  proteins  35  Nature:  Genetic  Mutations  
  • 26. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    26  1.3.2   Mitochondrial  DNA36    Mitochondrial   DNA   has   a   special   role   in   evolutionary   science   as   its   inherited   only  through  the  mother.  Compare  to  the  DNA  in  the  nucleus,  mitochondrial  DNA  doesn’t  have   to   go   through   lot   of   changes.   Mitochondrial   DNA   contains   37   genes,   all   of  which  are  essential  for  normal  mitochondrial  function.        Mitochondrial  DNA  has  a  circular  shape  compare  to  the  Double  Helix  of  the  DNA  in  the  nucleus  of  the  cell.                                                                                                                        36  University  of  Utah  -­‐  http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/extras/molgen/four_types.html    
  • 27. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   27  1.3.3   Chromosome37    In  the  nucleus  of  each  cell,  the  DNA  molecule  is  packaged  into  thread-­‐like  structures  called  chromosomes.  Each  chromosome  is  made  up  of  DNA  tightly  coiled  many  times  around  proteins  called  histones  that  support  its  structure.  Chromosomes  are  made  up  of  genes.      Each  chromosome  has  a  constriction  point  called  the  centromere,  which  divides  the  chromosome   into   two   sections,   or   “arms.”   The   short   arm   of   the   chromosome   is  labeled  the  “p  arm.”  The  long  arm  of  the  chromosome  is  labeled  the  “q  arm.”  The  location   of   the   centromere   on   each   chromosome   gives   the   chromosome   its  characteristic  shape,  and  can  be  used  to  help  describe  the  location  of  specific  genes.    Chromosomes38  come  in  pairs  (as  shown  in  the  figure  below).  Each  chromosome  is  a  tightly  packed  strand  of  DNA.  There  are  two  strands  of  DNA  joined  together  at  the  centromere  to  form  an  X  shaped  structure.  One  strand  comes  from  mother  and  one  from  father.      Because  there  are  two  strands  of  DNA,  it  means  that  animals  have  two  copies  of  every  gene,  rather  one  copy  as  with  E.  Coli  (bacteria).  The  sperm  and  egg  from  the  mother  and  father  each  contribute  one  copy  of  each  chromosome.      To   form   the   single   strand   in   the   sperm   or   egg,   one   or   the   other   copy   of   gene   is  randomly  chosen.  Because  of  the  random  nature  of  gene  selection,  each  child  gets  a  different  mix  of  genes  from  the  DNA  of  the  mother  and  father.      In  humans,  each  cell  normally  contains  23  pairs  of  chromosomes,  for  a  total  of  46.  Twenty-­‐two   of   these   pairs,   called   autosomes,   look   the   same   in   both   males   and                                                                                                                  37  http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/howmanychromosomes  38  http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/genetic/gene-­‐pool1.htm  
  • 28. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    28  females.  The  23rd  pair,  the  sex  chromosomes,  differ  between  males  and  females.  Females  have  two  copies  of  the  X  chromosome,  while  males  have  one  X  and  one  Y  chromosome.    Chromosome  2  is  an  interesting  candidate  in  evolution.  The  reason  for  that  is  Apes  has   24   pair   of   chromosomes,   that’s   a   total   of   48.   So,   if   we   are   evolved   from   a  common  ancestor  then  how  come  we  got  only  23  pair  of  chromosomes?    You  will  find  the  answer  in  “evidence  section”.    1.3.4   Gene39    A  gene  is  the  basic  physical  and  functional  unit  of  heredity.  Genes,  which  are  made  up  of  DNA,  act  as  instructions  to  make  molecules  called  proteins.  In  humans,  genes  vary  in  size  from  a  few  hundred  DNA  bases  to  more  than  2  million  bases.  The  Human  Genome  Project  has  estimated  that  humans  have  between  20,000  and  25,000  genes.  Every  person  has  two  copies  of  each  gene,  one  inherited  from  each  parent.  Most  genes  are  the  same  in  all  people,  but  a  small  number  of  genes  (less  than  1  percent  of  the  total)  are  slightly  different  between  people.    A  gene40  is  nothing  but  a  template  for  creating  a  protein.  This  means  that,  in  any  plant  or  animal,  there  are  actually  two  templates  for  every  protein.  In  some  cases,  the   two   templates   are   the   same   (homozygous),   while   in   some   other   cases   the  templates  are  different  (heterozygous).  Each  gene  appears  at  a  certain  location  on  a  certain  chromosome,  and  the  location  of  a  particular  gene  is  called  locus  of  the  gene.                                                                                                                      39  http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/gene  40  http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/genetic/gene-­‐pool1.htm  
  • 29. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   29  1.3.5   Allele    Alleles  are  forms  of  the  same  gene  with  small  differences  in  their  sequence  of  DNA  bases.  These  small  differences  contribute  to  each  person’s  unique  physical  features.  1.3.6   Control  Genes41    Control   genes   are   like   master   keys   to   a   set   of   locks.   It   controls   other   genes,  determining  when  and  where  other  genes  are  turned  on.  Mutations  in  these  parts  of  genome   can   substantially   change   the   way   organism   is   built.   Mutation   on   a   single  gene  is  similar  to  a  bad  note  produced  by  a  specific  music  player.  However  if  the  mutation   happens   to   the   conductor   of   an   orchestra,   then   the   result   will   be   fatal.  Many  organisms  have  powerful  control  genes  that  determine  how  the  body  is  laid  out.  Some  control  genes  are  common  to  many  organisms  and  are  inherited  from  our  common  ancestor.        Hox  Genes    Hox42  genes   help   layout   the   basic   body   forms   of   many   animals   including   humans,  flies,  and  worms.  The  instructions  are  carried  out  as  embryo  develops.                                                                                                                      41  Berkeley  University  –  Control  Genes    42  Berkeley  University  –  Hox  Gene  
  • 30. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    30  Many   creationists   show   that   the   mutations   in   control   genes   as   an   example   of  “mutations   are   always   bad”   concept.   It   can   bring   in   only   fatal   changes   to   an  organism.    Their  objectives  are  very  simple  –  introduce  fear  in  the  young  mind,  so  that  they  are  away  from  science.      Mutations   to   control   genes   can  transform   one   body   part   into  another.   Scientists   have   studied  flies   carrying   Hox   gene  mutations   that   sprout   leg   on  their   foreheads   instead   of  antennae!    You   will   find   this   picture   in   a      creationists   article   proclaiming  that  mutations  are  bad!  They  will  never  enlighten  the  readers  that  it’s  in  the  control  gene.        PAX643  Gene    PAX6  gene  is  a  member  of  the  Pax  Gene  Family.  It  acts  as  a  master  control  gene  for  the  development  of  eyes  and  other  sensory  organs.  Mouse  PAX6  gen  can  trigger  eye  development   in   Drosophila   melanogaster   (Fruit   Fly),   and   mouse   and   human   PAX6  have  identical  Amino  acid  sequences.  1.3.7   Gene  Pool44    The  combination  of  all  the  versions  of  all  the  genes  in  in  a  species  is  called  the  gene  pool  of  the  species.  Some  of  the  arguments  creationists  propose  is  because  of  the  gene  pool,  a  species  cant  change  over  to  completely  different  species  over  a  period  of  time.      Here  their  argument  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  variations  has  a  limitations  and  for   them   time   is   nothing   but   few   years.   Along   with   the   same   argument   they   say  Mutations   are   always   harmful.   If   you   take   these   two   arguments   then   what   you  realize  is  all  the  species  will  die  out  because  of  harmful  mutations  over  a  period  of  time  because  of  the  restrictive  gene  pool.      In  the  next  section  we  will  see  how  mutations  work  and  the  various  models  with  which  mutations  work.                                                                                                                      43  Gehring  WJ,  Ikeo  K  (September  1999).  "Pax  6:  mastering  eye  morphogenesis  and  eye              evolution".  Trends  Genet.  15  (9):  371–7  44  Gene  Pool  -­‐  http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/genetic/gene-­‐pool2.htm    
  • 31. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   31  1.3.8   Comparing45  Genotype  and  Phenotype    Genotype  is  the  specific  genetic  code  that  provides  information  for  a  particular  trait  in  the  organism.  While  the  phenotype  is  the  visible  expressed  trait,  such  as  eye  color,  hair  color  etc.  The  phenotype  depends  upon  the  genotype  but  also  can  be  influenced  by   environmental   factors.   An   organisms   genotype   is   a   major   (the   largest   by   far  for  morphology)  influencing  factor  in  the  development  of  its  phenotype,  but  it  is  not  the  only  one.  Even  two  organisms  with  identical  genotypes  normally  differ  in  their  phenotypes.       Genotype   Phenotype  Refers  to:   The  information  contained  on  two  alleles  in  the  cell.  An  expressed  and  observable  trait,  e.g.  hair  color.  Can  be  determined  by:  Genotyping  –  using  a  biological  assay,  such  as  PCR,  to  find  out  what  genes  are  on  an  allele.  Observation  of  the  individual.  Depends  upon:   The  hereditary  information  that  was  given  to  an  individual  by  their  parents.  Genotype  and  the  influence  of  the  environment.  Contains:   All  the  hereditary  information  of  an  individual,  even  if  those  genes  are  not  expressed.  Expressed  genes  only.  Inheritance:   Partly  inherited  by  offspring,  as  one  of  the  two  alleles  is  passed  on  during  reproduction.  Cannot  be  inherited.    It   is   the   organisms   physical   properties,   which   directly   determine   its   chances   of  survival  and  reproductive  output,  while  the  inheritance  of  physical  properties  occurs  only  as  a  secondary  consequence  of  the  inheritance  of  genes.  Therefore,  to  properly  understand  the  theory  of  evolution  via  natural  selection,  one  must  understand  the  genotype–phenotype46  distinction.                                                                                                                      45  http://www.diffen.com/difference/Genotype_vs_Phenotype  46  Wikipedia  -­‐  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype-­‐phenotype_distinction    
  • 32. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    32  1.3.9   Amino  Acids    So,  finally  we  are  into  chemistry  now.            
  • 33. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   33  1.4   Mutation47        Following  section  is  from  Nature  (magazine)  Education  section.      DNA  is  a  dynamic  and  adaptable  molecule.  As  such,  the  nucleotide  sequences  found  within   it   are   subject   to   change   as   the   result   of   a   phenomenon   called  mutation.  Depending  on  how  a  particular  mutation  modifies  an  organisms  genetic  makeup,  it  can  prove  harmless,  helpful,  or  even  hurtful.  Sometimes,  a  mutation  may  even  cause  dramatic  changes  in  the  physiology  of  an  affected  organism.  Of  course,  in  order  to  better  understand  the  varying  effects  of  mutations,  it  is  first  necessary  to  understand  what  mutations  are  and  how  they  occur.      The  DNA  in  any  cell  can  be  altered  through  environmental  exposure  to  certain  chemicals,  ultraviolet  radiation,  other  genetic  insults,  or  even  errors  that  occur  during  the  process  of  replication.  If  a  mutation  occurs  in  a  germ-­‐line  cell  (one  that  will  give  rise  to  gametes,  i.e.,  egg  or  sperm  cells),  then  this  mutation  can  be  passed  to  an  organisms  offspring.  This  means  that  every  cell  in  the  developing  embryo  will  carry  the  mutation.  As  opposed  to  germ-­‐line  mutations,  somatic  mutations  occur  in  cells  found  elsewhere  in  an  organisms  body.  Such  mutations  are  passed  to  daughter  cells  during  the  process  of  mitosis  (Figure  0),  but  they  are  not  passed  to  offspring  conceived  via  sexual  reproduction.      Figure  0:  The  two  basic  classes  of  mutations  are  somatic  mutations  and  germ-­‐line  mutations.    Mutations  are  random  changes  in  the  sequence  of  the  DNA  in  a  gene.  Mutations  can  be  grouped  into  two  main  categories  based  on  where  they  occur:  somatic  mutations  and  germ-­‐line  mutations  1.4.1   Where  do  mutations  occur?  Somatic  mutations  take  place  in  non-­‐reproductive  cells.  Many  kinds  of  somatic  mutations  have  no  obvious  effect  on  an  organism,  because  genetically  normal  body  cells  are  able  to  compensate  for  the  mutated  cells.                                                                                                                  47  Nature  –  DNA  is  constantly  changing  through  the  Process  of  Mutation  
  • 34. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    34  Nonetheless,  certain  other  mutations  can  greatly  impact  the  life  and  function  of  an  organism.  For  example,  somatic  mutations  that  affect  cell  division  (particularly  those  that  allow  cells  to  divide  uncontrollably)  are  the  basis  for  many  forms  of  cancer.    Germ-­‐line  mutations  occur  in  gametes  or  in  cells  that  eventually  produce  gametes.  In  contrast  with  somatic  mutations,  germ-­‐line  mutations  are  passed  on  to  an  organisms  progeny.  As  a  result,  future  generations  of  organisms  will  carry  the  mutation  in  all  of  their  cells  (both  somatic  and  germ-­‐line).  1.4.2   Kinds  of  Mutation      There   are   two   kinds   of   Mutations   Gene   Level   and   Chromosome   level   mutations.  Mutations  arent  just  grouped  according  to  where  they  occur  frequently,  the  length  of  the  nucleotide  sequences  they  affect  also  categorizes  them.    Gene-­‐Level  Mutations  –      Changes  to  short  stretches  of  nucleotides  are  called  gene-­‐level  mutations,  because  these  mutations  affect  the  specific  genes  that  provide  instructions  for  various  functional  molecules,  including  proteins.  Changes  in  these  molecules  can  have  an  impact  on  any  number  of  an  organisms  physical  characteristics.    Chromosomal  Mutations  -­‐      As  opposed  to  gene-­‐level  mutations,  mutations  that  alter  longer  stretches  of  DNA  (ranging  from  multiple  genes  up  to  entire  chromosomes)  are  called  chromosomal  mutations.  These  mutations  often  have  serious  consequences  for  affected  organisms.  Because  gene-­‐level  mutations  are  more  common  than  chromosomal  mutations,  the  following  sections  focus  on  these  smaller  alterations  to  the  normal  genetic  sequence.  1.4.3   Mutation  Models48    There  are  four  models  1. Base  Substitution    2. Insertion  3. Deletion  4. Frameshift      Base  Substitution    Base  substitutions  are  the  simplest  type  of  gene-­‐level  mutation,  and  they  involve  the  swapping  of  one  nucleotide  for  another  during  DNA  replication.  For  example,  during  replication,  a  thymine  nucleotide  might  be  inserted  in  place  of  a  guanine  nucleotide.                                                                                                                  48  Nature  –  DNA  is  constantly  changing  through  the  Process  of  Mutation  
  • 35. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   35  With  base  substitution  mutations,  only  a  single  nucleotide  within  a  gene  sequence  is  changed,  so  only  one  codon  is  affected  (Figure  1).      Figure 1: Only a single codon in the gene sequence is changed in base substitution mutation.  Although  a  base  substitution  alters  only  a  single  codon  in  a  gene,  it  can  still  have  a  significant   impact   on   protein   production.   In   fact,   depending   on   the   nature   of   the  codon   change,   base   substitutions   can   lead   to   three   different   subcategories   of  mutations.  The  first  of  these  subcategories  consists  of  missense  mutations,  in  which  the   altered   codon   leads   to   insertion   of   an   incorrect   amino   acid   into   a   protein  molecule  during  translation;  the  second  consists  of  nonsense  mutations,  in  which  the  altered  codon  prematurely  terminates  synthesis  of  a  protein  molecule;  and  the  third  consists  of  silent   mutations,  in  which  the  altered  codon  codes  for  the  same  amino  acid  as  the  unaltered  codon.  Insertion    Insertions   and   deletions   are   two  other   types   of   mutations   that   can  affect   cells   at   the   gene   level.  An  insertion   mutation  occurs   when  an  extra  nucleotide  is  added  to  the  DNA   strand   during   replication.   This  can   happen   when   the   replicating  strand   "slips,"   or   wrinkles,   which  allows   the   extra   nucleotide   to   be  incorporated   (Figure   2).   Strand  slippage   can   also   lead   to   deletion  mutations.      Figure 2: During an insertion mutation, the replicatingstrand "slips" or forms a wrinkle, which causes theextra nucleotide to be incorporated.    
  • 36. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    36  Deletion    A  deletion   mutation  occurs  when   a   wrinkle   forms   on  the   DNA   template   strand  and   subsequently   causes   a  nucleotide   to   be   omitted  from   the   replicated   strand  (Figure  3).  Figure 3: In a deletion mutation, a wrinkle forms on the DNAtemplate strand, which causes a nucleotide to be omitted fromthe replicated strand.Frameshift49    Insertion  or  deletion  of  one  or  more  nucleotides  during  replication  can  also  lead  to  another   type   of   mutation   known   as   a  frameshift   mutation.   The   outcome   of   a  frameshift  mutation  is  complete  alteration  of  the  amino  acid  sequence  of  a  protein.  This  alteration  occurs  during  translation  because  ribosomes  read  the  mRNA  strand  in  terms  of  codons,  or  groups  of  three  nucleotides.  These  groups  are  called  the  reading  frame.      Thus,   if   the   number   of   bases  removed   from   or   inserted   into   a  segment   of   DNA   is   not   a   multiple  of   three   (Figure   4a),   the   reading  frame  transcribed  to  the  mRNA  will  be  completely  changed  (Figure  4b).  Consequently,   once   it   encounters  the   mutation,   the   ribosome   will  read   the   mRNA   sequence  differently,  which  can  result  in  the  production  of  an  entirely  different  sequence   of   amino   acids   in   the  growing  polypeptide  chain.    To   better   understand   frameshift  mutations,   lets   consider   the  analogy   of   words   as   codons,   and  letters   within   those   words   as  nucleotides.  Each  word  itself  has  a  separate  meaning,  as  each  codons  represents   one   amino   acid.   The  following   sentence   is   composed  entirely  of  three-­‐letter  words,  each    Figure 4: If the number of bases removed or insertedfrom a segment of DNA is not a multiple of three (a), adifferent sequence with a different set of reading                                                                                                                49  Nature  –  DNA  is  constantly  changing  through  the  Process  of  Mutation  
  • 37. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   37  representing  a  three-­‐letter  codon:   frames is transcribed to mRNA (b).  THE  BIG  BAD  FLY  HAD  ONE  RED  EYE  AND  ONE  BLU  EYE.  Now,  suppose  that  a  mutation  eliminates  the  sixth  nucleotide,  in  this  case  the  letter  "G".  This  deletion  means  that  the  letters  shift,  and  the  rest  of  the  sentence  contains  entirely  new  "words":  THE  BIB  ADF  LYH  ADO  NER  EDE  YEA  NDO  NEB  LUE  YE.  This  error  changes  the  relationship  of  all  nucleotides  to  each  codon,  and  effectively  changes   every   single   codon   in   the   sequence.   Consequently,   there   is   a   widespread  change  in  the  amino  acid  sequence  of  the  protein.  Lets  consider  an  example  with  an  RNA  sequence  that  codes  for  a  sequence  of  amino  acids:  AUG  AAA  CUU  CGC  AGG  AUG  AUG  AUG  With  the  triplet  code,  the  sequence  shown  in  figure  5  corresponds  to  a  protein  made  of  the  following  amino  acids:    Methionine-­‐Lysine-­‐Leucine-­‐Arginine-­‐Arginine-­‐Methionine-­‐Methionine-­‐Methionine        Figure 5: This sequence of mRNA codes for the amino acids methionine-lysine-leucine-arginine-arginine-methionine-methionine-methionine.  Now,  suppose  that  a  mutation  occurs  during  replication,  and  it  results  in  deletion  of  the   fourth   nucleotide   in   the   sequence.   When   separated   into   triplet   codons,   the  nucleotide  sequence  would  now  read  as  follows  (Figure  6):    AUG  AAC  UUC  GCA  GGA  UGA  UGA  UG  This   series   of   codons   would   encode   the   following   sequence   of   amino   acids:    Methionine-­‐Asparagine-­‐Phenylalanine-­‐Alanine-­‐Glycine-­‐STOP-­‐STOP  
  • 38. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    38      Figure 6: If the fourth nucleotide in the sequence is deleted, the reading frame shifts and the aminoacid sequence changes to methionine-asparagine-phenylalanine-alanine-glycine-STOP-STOP  Each   of   the   stop   codons   tells   the   ribosome   to   terminate   protein   synthesis   at   that  point.  Consequently,  the  mutant  protein  is  entirely  different  due  to  the  deletion  of  the  fourth  nucleotide,  and  it  is  also  shorter  due  to  the  appearance  of  a  premature  stop  codon.  This  mutant  protein  will  be  unable  to  perform  its  necessary  function  in  the  cell.  1.4.4   Types  of  DNA  Mutations  and  Their  Impact50  Classof MutationTypeof MutationDescription Human Disease(s) Linked toThis MutationPoint mutationSubstitution One base is incorrectly addedduring replication and replaces the pair inthe corresponding position on thecomplementary strandSickle-cell anemiaInsertion One or more extra nucleotides are insertedinto replicating DNA, often resulting in aframeshiftOne form of beta-thalassemiaDeletion One or more nucleotides is "skipped" duringreplication or otherwise excised, oftenresulting in a frameshiftCystic fibrosisChromosomalmutationInversion One region of a chromosome is flipped andreinsertedOpitz-Kaveggia syndromeDeletion A region of a chromosome is lost, resultingin the absence of all the genes in that areaCri du chat syndromeDuplication A region of a chromosome is repeated,resulting in an increase in dosage from thegenes in that regionSome cancersTranslocation A region from one chromosome is aberrantlyattached to another chromosomeOne form of leukemiaCopy numbervariationGeneamplificationThe number of tandem copies of a locus isincreasedSome breast cancersExpandingtrinucleotiderepeatThe normal number of repeated trinucleotidesequences is expandedFragile X syndrome,Huntingtons disease                                                                                                                50  Nature  –  Genetic  Mutations  and  their  Impact  
  • 39. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   39  1.4.5   What  causes  mutations?51    Mutations  can  arise  in  cells  of  all  types  as  a  result  of  a  variety  of  factors,  including  chance.  In  fact,  some  of  the  mutations  discussed  above  are  the  result  of  spontaneous  events   during   replication,   and   they   are   thus   known   as  spontaneous   mutations.  Slippage  of  the  DNA  template  strand  and  subsequent  insertion  of  an  extra  nucleotide  is  one  example  of  a  spontaneous  mutation;  excess  flexibility  of  the  DNA  strand  and  the  subsequent  mispairing  of  bases  is  another.    Environmental  exposure  to  certain  chemicals,  ultraviolet  radiation,  or  other  external  factors  can  also  cause  DNA  to  change.  These  external  agents  of  genetic  change  are  called  mutagens.   Exposure   to   mutagens   often   causes   alterations   in   the   molecular  structure  of  nucleotides,  ultimately  causing  substitutions,  insertions,  and  deletions  in  the  DNA  sequence.  1.4.6   What  are  the  consequences  of  mutations?52    Mutations   are   a   source   of   genetic   diversity   in   populations,   and,   as   mentioned  previously,  they  can  have  widely  varying  individual  effects.  In  some  cases,  mutations  prove  beneficial  to  an  organism  by  making  it  better  able  to  adapt  to  environmental  factors.  In  other  situations,  mutations  are  harmful  to  an  organism  —  for  instance,  they   might   lead   to   increased   susceptibility   to   illness   or   disease.   In   still   other  circumstances,   mutations   are   neutral,   proving   neither   beneficial   nor   detrimental  outcomes   to   an   organism.   Thus,   it   is   safe   to   say   that   the   ultimate   effects   of  mutations  are  as  widely  varied  as  the  types  of  mutations  themselves.      We  have  gone  through  a  brief  tour  on  DNA  and  Mutations,  now  its  time  to  take  a  relook  at  Natural  Selection  at  the  Genetic  Level.                                                                                                                      51  Nature  –  DNA  is  constantly  changing  through  the  Process  of  Mutation  52  Nature  –  DNA  is  constantly  changing  through  the  Process  of  Mutation  
  • 40. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    40  1.5   Natural  Selection  at  Genetic  Level    After  the  brief  tour  on  DNA  and  Mutations,  its  time  for  us  to  take  a  relook  at  Natural  Selection  at  the  micro  level  –  Genetics.  There  are  two  types  of  Natural  Selection,  to  select   the   variants   at   the   DNA   level.   These   two   models   come   out   from   Neutral  Theory  of  Molecular  Evolution.      • Positive  Natural  Selection  • Negative  Natural  Selection  1.5.1   Neutral  Theory:  The  Null  Hypothesis  of  Molecular  Evolution53    In  the  decades  since  its  introduction,  the  neutral  theory  of  evolution  has  become  central  to  the  study  of  evolution  at  the  molecular  level,  in  part  because  it  provides  a  way  to  make  strong  predictions  that  can  be  tested  against  actual  data.  The  neutral  theory  holds  that  most  variation  at  the  molecular  level  does  not  affect  fitness  and,  therefore,   stochastic   processes   best   explain   the   evolutionary   fate   of   genetic  variation.   This   theory   also   presents   a   framework   for   ongoing   exploration   of   two  areas  of  research:  biased  gene  conversion,  and  the  impact  of  effective  population  size  on  the  effective  neutrality  of  genetic  variants.      In   1968,   Motoo   Kimura   proposed   a   new   hypothesis,   now   known   as   the   neutral  theory  of  molecular  evolution  (Kimura,  1968),  Kimura  subsequently  summarized  his  theory  as  follows:    "This  neutral  theory  claims  that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  evolutionary  changes  at  the  molecular  level  are  not  caused  by  selection  acting  on  advantageous  mutants,  but  by  random  fixation  of  selectively  neutral  or  very  nearly  neutral  mutants  through  the   cumulative   effect   of   sampling   drift   (due   to   finite  population  number)   under  continued  input  of  new  mutations"  (Kimura,  1991)  It   must   be   stressed   that   the   neutral   theory   of   molecular  evolution  is   not   an   anti-­‐Darwinian   theory.   Both   the   selectionist   and   neutral   theories   recognize   that  natural  selection  is   responsible   for   the  adaptation  of   organisms   to  their  environment.   Both   also   recognize   that   most   new   mutations   in   functionally  important  regions  are  deleterious  and  that  purifying  selection  quickly  removes  these  deleterious  mutations  from  populations.  Thus,  these  mutations  do  not  contribute—or   contribute   very   little—to   sequence  divergence  between  species   and   to  polymorphisms   within  species.   Rather,   the   dispute   between   selectionists   and  neutralists   relates   only   to   the   relative   proportion   of   neutral   and   advantageous  mutations  that  contribute  to  sequence  divergence  and  polymorphism.    Analysis  of  genomic  sequence  data  reveals  that  there  is  no  "all  or  nothing"  answer  to  this   dispute.   In   fact,   the   proportion   of   neutral   substitutions   varies   widely   among                                                                                                                  53  By  Laurent  Duret,  Laboratory  of  Biometric  and  Evolutionary  Biology,  University  of  Claude  Bernard,            France,  2008  ©  Nature          http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/neutral-­‐theory-­‐the-­‐null-­‐hypothesis-­‐of-­‐molecular-­‐839    
  • 41. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   41  taxa.  However,  it  is  now  clearly  established  that  non-­‐adaptive  processes  cannot  be  neglected.   Even   in   taxa   in   which  selection  is   very   effective,   a   large   fraction   of  substitutions  are  indeed  neutral.    The   classification   of   mutations   into   three   distinct   types—deleterious,   neutral,   and  advantageous—is   of   course   an   oversimplification.   In   reality,   there   is   a   continuum  from   highly   deleterious   to   weakly   deleterious,   nearly   neutral,   neutral,   weakly  advantageous,  and  strongly  advantageous  mutations    Empirical   data   are   consistent   with   this   prediction.   For   example,  in  Drosophila  species  (where  Ne  is   about   106),   the   proportion   of   non-­‐synonymous  substitutions  that  have  been  fixed  by  positive  selection  is  about  50%.  Contrast  this  with  the  data  for  hominids  (with  Ne  around  10,000  to  30,000),  where  this  proportion  is   close   to   zero.   Similarly,   the   proportion   of   non-­‐synonymous   mutations   that   are  effectively   neutral   is   less   than   16%   in  Drosophila,  whereas   it   is   about   30%   in  hominids  (Eyre-­‐Walker  &  Keightley,  2007).    1.5.2   Positive  Natural  Selection54    Positive   natural  selection,   or   the   tendency   of   beneficial   traits   to   increase   in  prevalence   (frequency)   in   a  population,   is   the   driving   force  behind  adaptive  evolution.  For  a  trait  to  undergo  positive  selection,  it  must  have  two  characteristics.  First,  the  trait  must  be  beneficial;  in  other  words,  it  must  increase  the  organisms  probability  of   surviving   and   reproducing.   Second,   the   trait   must   be  heritable   so   that   it   can   be   passed   to   an   organisms  offspring.   Beneficial   traits   are  extremely  varied  and  may  include  anything  from  protective  coloration,  to  the  ability  to  utilize  a  new  food  source,  to  a  change  in  size  or  shape  that  might  be  useful  in  a  particular  environment.  If  a  trait  results  in  more  offspring  who  share  the  trait,  then  that  trait  is  more  likely  to  become  common  in  the  population  than  a  trait  that  arises  randomly.   At   the   molecular   level,   selection   occurs   when   a   particular  DNA  variant  becomes  more  common  because  of  its  effect  on  the  organisms  that  carry  it.                                                                                                                        54  Nature  -­‐  http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Evolutionary-­‐Adaptation-­‐in-­‐the-­‐Human-­‐Lineage-­‐12397        By  Stephen  F  Schaffner  (MIT,  Harvard,  Cambridge  USA),  Pardis  C  Sabeti  (Harvard,  Cambridge)          Evolutionary  Adaption  in  the  Human  Lineage,  ©  Nature    
  • 42. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    42  1.5.3   Negative  Natural  Selection55    Selection  is   a   powerful   force   in  evolution,   and   it   works   in   many   ways.   In   the   end,  however,   selection   constantly   sorts   through   the   variation   that   is   produced   by  mutations  to  select  the  fit  and  remove  the  unfit,  while  ignoring  neutral  changes.  A  few  distinct  types  of  selection  are  illustrated  in  Figure  1.    • Stabilizing  selection  keeps  the  population  at  one  stable  optimal  value  • Directional  selection  transforms  the  value  of  a  trait  by  increasing  the  frequency  of  individuals  closer  to  a  distant  optimum  • Disruptive  selection  increases  the  frequency  of  large  and  small  values  of  a  trait  at  the  expense  of  intermediate  values  • Balancing  selection  selects  the  optimal  compromise  among  several  constraints    At   their   core,   all   forms   of   selection   involve   individuals   with   inherited   differences  in  fitness  competing  within  the  same  population.  This  competition  is  about  fitness  as  measured   by   survival   rates,  fecundity,   or   some   other   trait   that   correlates   with  fitness.   The   "winner"   of   the   competition   is   positively   selected,   and  its  genotype  increases   in   frequency;   on   the   other   hand,   the   "loser"   is   negatively  selected,   and   the   frequency   of   its   genotype   decreases.   Thus,  negative  selection  and  positive   selection  cannot   be   separated.   To   make   communication  easier,   however,   scientists   talk   about   positive   selection   when   the   focus   of   a  particular  study  is  on  an  increase  in  rare  variants  that  improve  optimal  fitness,  and  they   speak   of   negative   selection   when   the   focus   is   on   the   removal   of   harmful  variants.                                                                                                                      55  Dr.  Laurence  Loewe  (University  of  Edinburgh,  Scotland,  UK)  ©  Nature            Negative  Selection  -­‐  http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Negative-­‐Selection-­‐1136  
  • 43. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   43  1.6   Historical  Background56  on  Darwin’s  Theory  of  Evolution    Darwins  ideas  were  inspired  by:    1. The  theory  of  Principles  of  Geology  by  Charles  Lyell  promoted  the  idea  that  simple  weak  forces  could  act  continuously  over  long  periods  of  time  to  produce  radical  changes  in  the  Earths  landscape.    2. The  observations  that  he  had  made  on  the  Beagle  voyage,    3. The  work  of  a  political  economist,  the  Reverend  Thomas  Malthus,  who  in  An  Essay  on  the  Principle  of  Population,  noted  that  population  (if  unchecked)  increases  exponentially,  whereas  the  food  supply  grows  only  arithmetically;  thus,  inevitable  limitations  of  resources  would  have  demographic  implications,  leading  to  a  "struggle  for  existence".      The   success   of   uniformitarianism   theory   raised   awareness   of   the   vast   scale  of  geological   time  and   made   plausible   the   idea   that   tiny,   virtually   imperceptible  changes   in   successive   generations   could   produce   consequences   on   the   scale   of  differences   between   species.   Uniformitarianism   was   formulated   by  Scottish  naturalists  in   the   late   18th   century,   starting   with   the   work   of  the  geologist  James   Hutton,   which   was   refined   by  John   Playfair  and   popularized  by  Charles  Lyells  Principles  of  Geology  in  1830.    When   Darwin   read   Malthus   in   1838   he   was   already   primed   by   his   work   as   a  naturalist  to  appreciate  the  "struggle  for  existence"  in  nature  and  it  struck  him  that  as  population  outgrew  resources,  "favorable  variations  would  tend  to  be  preserved,  and  unfavorable  ones  to  be  destroyed.  The  result  of  this  would  be  the  formation  of  new  species.  1.6.1   Pre  Darwinian  Theories    Several  ancient  philosophers  expressed  the  idea  that  nature  produces  a  huge  variety  of   creatures,   randomly,   and   that   only   those   creatures   that   manage   to   provide   for  themselves   and   reproduce   successfully   survive;   well-­‐known   examples  include  Empedocles  and   his   intellectual   successor,   the  Roman  poet  Lucretius  Empedocles  idea  that  organisms  arose  entirely  by  the  incidental  workings  of  causes  such   as   heat   and   cold   was   criticized   by  Aristotle  in   Book   II   of  Physics.  He   posited  natural  teleology  in   its   place.   He   believed   that   form   was   achieved   for   a   purpose,  citing  the  regularity  of  heredity  in  species  as  proof.    The  struggle   for   existence  was   later   described   by   Islamic   writer  Al-­‐Jahiz  in   the   9th  century,  who  argued  that  environmental  factors  influence  animals  to  develop  new  characteristics  to  ensure  survival.  According  to  Rainow,  the  11th  century  scholar  Abu  Rayhan  Biruni  described  the  idea  of  artificial  selection  and  argued  that  nature  works  in  much  the  same  way.                                                                                                                    56  Background  on  Darwin’s  work  
  • 44. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    44  Pierre   Louis   Maupertuis   reintroduced   the   classical   arguments   in   the   18th  century  along  with  others;  including  Charles  Darwins  grandfather  Erasmus  Darwin.      While   these   forerunners   had   an   influence   on   Darwinism,   they   later   had   little  influence  on  the  trajectory  of  evolutionary  thought  after  Charles  Darwin.  1.6.2   Refuting  Creationist  claim  on  Darwin’s  history    According  to  Archbishop  James  Ussher’s57  estimate  based  on  genealogy  in  the  Bible  Earth  got  created  around  the  year  4004  B.C.  That  put  the  age  of  Earth  around  6000  years   old.   Lord   Kelvin58  (famous   physicist   at   that   time)   calculated   that   the   age   of  Earth   is   around   40   (max)   million   years.   Kelvin’s   estimate   came   from   physics   of  cooling  of  the  Earth  and  the  Sun.  Darwin  felt  this  age  has  to  be  wrong,  because  with  40   million   years   he   realized   that   evolution   is   not   possible   for   so   many   diverse  amounts   of   species   you   observe   on   planet   Earth.     Lord   Kelvin   was   against   the  concept   of   Darwin’s   Evolution   and   he   felt   his   calculation   of   Earth’s   age   refutes  Darwin’s  theory  of  Evolution  and  point  towards  the  spontaneous  creation  of  species  by  God.      Now  let  us  look  at  Hussain’s  perspective  on  Darwinian  History.          The   key   issue   over   here   is,   his   lack   of   understanding   of   Darwin’s   “On   Origin   of  Species”.   It’s   a   collection   of   theories,   which   results   in   describing   the   Evolution   of  Species.   Hussain’s   lack   of   knowledge   in   understanding   Natural   Selection   and   its  process  and  the  environment  required  (longer  period  of  time  and  Earth’s  geological  time)   for   Evolution,   compounded   his   blindness   to   the   theory   and   results   in  erroneous  depiction  of  history.      Last  line  is  the  most  interesting  one.  Hussain  says,  Evolutionists  like  Stephen  Gould  supports  Creationism.  In  the  next  section  we  will  evaluate  this  and  understand  the  perspectives  of  these  scientists.  Here,  it  looks  like  Hussain  supports  Creationism  and  not  Intelligent  Design  and  don’t  even  think  about  Evolution!                                                                                                                  57  Archbishop  James  Ussher  –  Wikipedia    58  Lord  Kelvin  –  Wikipedia    
  • 45. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   45  1.7   FARM  Formula  to  test  Evolution  Theory    Following  diagram  shows  the  history  of  Earth  in  24  hours  format.  However,  most  of  the  creationists  don’t  believe  in  this  history.  They  believe  the  Earth  and  life  is  only  around  6000  years  old!        Most  of  the  creationists  argue  that  Darwin’s  theory  is  not  a  theory  because  there  are  so  many  missing  links  in  finding  the  fossils.    Checkout  page  number  5  –  Geological  Time  Line    Here   is   a   simple   experiment   they   (creationists)   can   do   to   disprove   (concept   from  Richard  Dawkins  God  Delusion)  the  theory  of  Evolution.  As  per  the  evolution  time  scale,  the  order  of  evolution  is  as  follows  in  simple  terms  (24  hour  time  scale).    Type   Bacteria59   Jelly  Fish60   Fish61   Amphibians62   Reptiles63   Mammals64  24  hour  Time  Scale     8:48  pm   9:00  pm   10:00  pm   10:45  pm   11:40  pm  Fossil  Record   3.4  bya   530+  mya   530  mya   39765  mya   340  mya   195  mya    Formula  to  Test  Evolution  =  Fish  >  Amphibian  >  Reptiles  >  Mammals    They  (creationist)  need  to  find  just  ONE  fossil  out  of  order.  Means  if  they  find  a  fossil  of  any  Mammal  older  than  Amphibian  fossil  or  Fish  Fossil  then  evolution  collapses  like  a  pack  of  cards.                                                                                                                    59  Discovery  Channel:  Oldest  fossil  of  bacteria,  living  3.4  billion  years  were  found  in  Australia  60  National  Geographic  :  Oldest  Jelly  Fish  fossil  record,  half  a  billion  years    61  BBC  News:  Oldest  fish  fossil  record  530  million  years  ago  62  Berkeley  University:  Oldest  Amphibian  fossil  record  368  million  years  63  New  York  Times:    Oldest  Reptile  fossil  record  340  million  years  64  Harvard  University:  Oldest  Mammal  fossil  record  195  million  years  65  National  Geographic  –  Oldest  land  walker  tracks  found  Jan  6,  2010  
  • 46. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    46  Just  ONE  fossil  that’s  all,  any  creationists  required  to  break  this  evolution  pattern!    So,  instead  of  asking  for  the  missing  link,  they  should  find  just  one  fossil,  just  one  fossil  out  of  the  order,  which  will  end  the  debate  forever.    Instead   what   they   do   is   to   catch   on   to   some   out   of   context   statement.   The   best  example  of  this  is  the  IDA  fossil  discovery.  Initial  interpretations  from  the  scientist  placed  that  fossil  in  the  Homo  sapiens  evolution  branch.  However,  after  the  careful  analysis  and  study,  they  realized  that  it  fits  more  accurately  in  the  Lemur  branch.  Creationist   will   just   simply   forget   the   fact   that   the   IDA   fossil   has   moved   on   to  another  branch  after  extensive  study  and  its  still  part  of  the  Tree  of  Life.    What  this  means  is  all  the  fossils  scientists  finds  is  actually  increasing  the  proofs  for  Evolution  and  not  the  other  way  around.  1.7.1   Refuting  Creationist  claim  on  Natural  Selection:  Analyze  geological  time    The   fossil   record   clearly  indicates   a   progression   and  divergence   of   species   over   a  period   of   long   time,   clearly  indicating   the   three   key  elements  of  Natural  Selection  (Variation,   Selection   and  Time).    If   Hussain   says   that   Natural  Selection   doesn’t   work   then  how  will  he  explain  this  fossil  record   and   geological   time  line?      1. Single  Cell  2. Multi  Cell  3. Fish  4. Amphibians  5. Reptiles  6. Mammals      To  prove  that  this  is  wrong  Hussain  or  a  creationist  needs  to  find  just  ONE  fossil  of  human  before  or  at  the  time  of  fish  evolution.  Just  ONE  fossil  that’s  all  they  need  to  find  rather  than  asking  for  missing  links.  Can’t  they  find  just  ONE  fossil  in  150  years?    There  is  no  concept  of  missing  link  in  evolutionary  biology.  Every  fossil  found  is  been  added   to   the   existing   branch   or   may   be   creating   a   new   branch   resulting   in   more  proof  for  evolution.  So,  why  don’t  all  these  creationists  spend  their  time  searching  for  that  ONE  fossil  which  is  the  Holy  Grail  of  creationism?    
  • 47. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   47  1.8   Comparing  Two  Religious  Views  against  Science  (Evolution)    Creationism66   Intelligent  Design67   Science  –  Darwin’s  Evolution68  God  created  all  species  as  is.    Bible  Genesis  -­‐  Irreducible  Complexity    Ex:  Bacterial  flagellum,      By  Michael  Behe  -­‐ Specified  Complexity  By  William  Dembski  -­‐  Fine  Tuned  Universe  -­‐  Intelligent  Designer  -­‐ Natural   Selection69  based   on  external   pressures   modifies  a   species   over   a   period   of  time.    Chapter  IV,  Page  77  Belief  in  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  account  of  the  creation  of  the  universe  and  of  all  living  things  related  in  the  Bible.  -­‐ Some  ID  Scientists  accepts  Evolution  partially  -­‐ Accepts  Darwin’s  Natural  Selection    -­‐ Accepts  Darwin’s  Common  Descent  -­‐ This   process   would   connect  all   life   forms   via   their  descent   from   common  ancestors70.    Chapter  XIV,  Page  477  Creation  means  that  various  forms  of  life  began  abruptly  through  the  agency  of  an  Intelligent  creator  with  their  distinctive  features  already  intact  -­‐-­‐  fish  with  fins  and  scales,  birds  with  feathers,  beaks  and  wings  etc.  (The  Design  of  Life,  William  Dembski,  p28,  Dover  Exhibit  #775)  Intelligent  Design  means  that  various  forms  of  life  began  abruptly  through  the  agency  of  an  intelligent  creator  with  their  distinctive  features  already  intact  -­‐-­‐  fish  with  fins  and  scales,  birds  with  feathers,  beaks  and  wings  etc.  Of  Pandas  and  People,  1993,  Page  99-­‐100  -­‐ Therefore   all   the   organic  beings  have  descended  from  one   primordial   form71,   into  which  life  was  first  breathed.    Chapter  XV,  Page  502  MIRACLES  REQUIRED*   MIRACLES  REQUIRED*   NO  MIRACLES  REQUIRED    *  Miracles  required  because  scientifically  it’s  an  illogical  process.    If  there  is  no  Evolution  then  what  else  can  be  potentially  a  different  scientific  view.  There  is  NONE!    Wait  a  minute  there  is  an  alternate  hypothesis.      All  living  species  evolve  from  Single  cell  to  the  complex  species,  which  means  it’s  not  a  tree  with  a  common  descent  instead,  all  species  evolved  in  parallel!    In  effect  this  is  more  complex  than  Natural  Selection  and  a  common  descent.    Apply  Occam’s  razor72  here  Darwin’s  Theory  of  Evolution  wins!  So,  what  is  established  here  is  Evolution  can  be  the  ONLY  logical  way  of  explaining  the  Origin  of  Species  without  invoking  any  miracles!                                                                                                                  66  Definition  of  Creationist  Theory  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/creationism    67  Intelligent  Design  68  On  Origin  of  Species,  Charles  Darwin,    Signet  Classics  150th  Anniversary  Edition  69  On  Origin  of  Species,  Charles  Darwin,    Signet  Classics  150th  Anniversary  Edition,  Page  77  70  On  Origin  of  Species,  Charles  Darwin,    Signet  Classics  150th  Anniversary  Edition,  Page  477  71  On  Origin  of  Species,  Charles  Darwin,    Signet  Classics  150th  Anniversary  Edition,  Page  502  72  Occam’s  Razor  -­‐  It  is  a  principle  stating  that  among  competing  hypotheses,  the  one,  which  makes          the  fewest  assumptions,  should  be  selected.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor      
  • 48. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    48  That’s  why  Scientists  across  the  World  considers  Darwin’s  work  as  an  extra  ordinary  break  through  at  par  with  Einstein’s  Theory  of  Relativity  and  Quantum  Mechanics.    Any  other  view  other  than  Evolution  requires  miracles.  Now  that’s  faith.    So,  the  critical  point  is  no  point  in  comparing  Science  with  Religion  (Faith).    1.8.1   Creationism73    It  is   the  religious   belief  that  humanity,  life,   the  Earth,   and   the  universe  are  the  creation  of   a   supernatural  being,   most   often   referring   to   the  Abrahamic   God.  As  science   developed  from   the   18th   century   onwards,   various   views   developed  which  aimed  to  reconcile  science  with  the  Abrahamic  creation  narrative.  At  this  time  those   holding   that  species  had   been   created   separately   (such   as  Philip   Gosse  in  1847)   were   generally   called   "advocates   of   creation"   but   they   were   occasionally  called  "creationists".  1.8.2   Intelligent  design74(ID)      It   is   a   form   of  creationism  promulgated   by   the  Discovery   Institute.   The   Institute  defines  it  as  the  proposition  that  "certain  features  of  the  universe  and  of  living  things  are  best  explained  by  an  intelligent  cause,  not  an  undirected  process  such  as  natural  selection."  It   is   a   contemporary   adaptation   of   the   traditional  teleological  argument  for   the  existence   of   God,   presented   by   its   advocates   as   "an   evidence-­‐based  scientific  theory  about  lifes  origins"  rather  than  "a  religious-­‐based  idea.    Irreducible   Complexity,   proposed   by   Michael   Behe,   is   the   key   component   of  Intelligent   Design.   In   the   next   section   we   will   try   to   understand   the   concept   of  Irreducible  Complexity.  1.8.3   Irreducible  Complexity75  (IC)  –  By  Michael  Behe    Michael   J   Behe76  introduced   the   concept   of   Irreducible   Complexity   in   his   book  Darwin’s  Black  Box.77  Let  us  understand  that  from  Behe’s  on  words  from  Black  Box.    “By  irreducibly  complex  I  mean  a  single  system  composed  of  several  well-­‐matched,  interacting  parts  that  contribute  to  the  basic  function,  wherein  the  removal  of  any  one  of  the  parts  causes  the  system  to   effectively   cease   functioning.  An  irreducibly  complex  system  cannot  be  produced  directly  (that  is,  by  continuously  improving  the  initial   function,   which   continues   to   work   by   the   same   mechanism)   by   slight,  successive   modifications   of   a   precursor   system,   because   any   precursor   to   an  irreducibly  complex  system  that  is  missing  a  part  is  by  definition  nonfunctional.  An  irreducibly  complex  biological  system,  if  there  is  such  a  thing,  would  be  a  powerful  challenge  to  Darwinian  evolution”.  -­‐  Michael  Behe,  Darwin’s  Black  Box,  Page  no,  39                                                                                                                  73  Creationism  74  Intelligent  Design  75  Irreducible  Complexity  76  Michael  J  Behe,  Biochemistry,  Discovery  Institute,  USA  77  Darwin’s  Black  Box  by  Michael  J  Behe  
  • 49. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   49  The   Current   Intelligent   Design   movement   rides   on   Behe’s   Irreducible   Complexity  idea.  I  know  this  is  not  part  of  this  discussion  as  per  Hussain’s  article,  however,  I  would   like   to   briefly   mention   this   case   to   have   a   complete   picture   on   alternate  theories   to   Evolution.   Unfortunately   both   Creationism   and   Intelligent   Design  revolves  around  a  Supreme  Agent  who  supports  the  origin  of  species,  which  is  clearly  not  science,  but  faith.  Like  I  said  before  Faith  and  Science  is  not  a  subject  I  would  like  to  debate  here.  However,  existence  of  God  can  be  a  separate  debate.    Now  let  us  understand  exactly  what  Irreducible  complexity  means:    1. The   cell   contains   Biochemical   machines   in   which   the   loss   of   a   single  component  may  abolish  function  (i.e.,  are  Irreducibly  Complex)  2. And  any  Irreducibly  Complex  structure  that  is  missing  a  part  is  by  definition  non-­‐functional,  leaving  natural  selection  with  nothing  to  select  for.  3. Therefore,   irreducibly   complex   structures   cannot   be   produced   by   natural  selection.  4. Therefore,   they   must   be   the   products   of   Intelligent   Design   (=   evidence   for  design)  1.8.4   Bacterial  Flagellum  –  Fallen  case  of  Irreducible  Complexity      The  Bacterial  Flagellum  is  the  classic  case  show  cased  by  Michael  Behe,  explaining  that,  this  system  is  created  with  around  50  proteins  and  if  1  protein  is  missing  then  rest  of  the  proteins  where  useless  for  the  species,  so  there  is  nothing  for  the  natural  selection   to   select,   for   the   flagellum   to   evolve.     Following   images   shows   the  components   of   bacterial   flagellum   and   how   the   sub   components   used   for   other  things      Bacterial  Flagellum78   Other  Usage  of  Flagellum  components        The   above   diagram   clearly   shows   how   Michael   Behe’s   argument   falls   flat   on  Irreducible  complexity  with  Flagellum.    As  per  Behe  there  should  not  be  any  use  with  the  subcomponents  of  Bacterial  flagellum.                                                                                                                  78  Image  courtesy  Kenneth  Miller  lecture  in  Sept  27,  2006,  HHMI  headquarters  for  High  School          students  from  Loudon  County,  VA,  USA  
  • 50. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    50  This  was  the  critical  issue  Behe  show  cased  in  the  famous  Kitzmiller  Vs.  Dover  Area  School  District79  case80  2005,  Philadelphia,  USA.      Kenneth   Miller81  testified   in   the   court   talking   about   Type   III   Secretion   System82  (TTSS),  made  up  of  around  10  proteins,  which  is  also  part  of  Bacterial  Flagellum.  Now  the  question  whether  TTSS  is  a  precursor  to  Flagellum  or  not  is  something  needs  to  be  verified.  However,  the  point  in  Irreducible  Complexity  is  if  one  of  the  protein  is  not  available  then  rest  of  the  proteins  are  completely  non  functional,  and  that’s  the  point  which  breaks  concept  of  Irreducible  Complexity  with  TTSS.      Watch  the  2  hours  of  “Great  Debate”  83  between  Kenneth  Miller  and  Michael  Behe  on  the  same  subject.  (YouTube  videos  divided  into  3  parts).    That’s  the  first  pillar  (Irreducible  Complexity)  of  Intelligent  Design,  now  its  time  for  us  to  focus  on  the  second  pillar  of  Intelligent  Design,  i.e.,  Specified  Complexity  by  William  Dembski.  We  will  look  at  Dembski’s  Explanatory  Filter,  which  is  created  to  discovering   Intelligent   Design   in   nature.   We   will   go   through   the   filter   using   few  examples  and  see  how  the  filter  stands  upto  the  test.                                                                                                                        79  Kitzmiller  vs.  Dover  Area  School  District  80  Judge  rules  against  Intelligent  Design,  Dec  20th,  2005,  Supreme  Court,  Philadelphia,  USA  81  Kenneth  R  Miller,  Brown  University,  USA  82  Type  III  Secretion  System  83  From  Great  Debate  Kenneth  Miller  Vs.  Michael  Behe  (Part  3)  
  • 51. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   51  1.8.5   Specified  Complexity84  (SC)  –  By  William  Dembski85    Specified  Complexity  is  another  key  idea  in  Intelligent  Design  proposed  by  William  Dembski.   The  concept  is  intended  to  formalize  a  property  that  singles  out  patterns  that  are  both  specified  and  complex.  Dembski  states  that  specified  complexity  is  a  reliable  marker  of  design  by  an  intelligent  agent,  a  central  tenet  to  intelligent  design  and  which  Dembski  argues  for  in  opposition  to  modern  evolutionary  theory.  Some  regard  specified  complexity  as  mathematically  unsound  claiming  that  it  has  not  been  the  basis  for  further  independent  work  in  information  theory,  complexity  theory,  or  biology.  Specified  complexity  is  one  of  the  two  main  arguments  used  by  intelligent  design  proponents,  the  other  being  irreducible  complexity.    Following  is  Dembski‘s  explanatory  filter86  to  detect  Intelligent  Design  in  the  nature.        One   of   the   key   (faulty)   assumptions   Dembski   makes   is   that   if   something   cant   be  explained   at   that   particular   moment   by   science   then   it   goes   into   the   realm   of  Specified   Complexity.   It’s   assuming   that   science   has   mastered   everything   of   that  particular  event  and  there  is  nothing  more  to  learn.        Its  best  to  explain  this  filter  with  a  case  and  see  if  we  can  infer  the  design,  if  the  event  has  specification,  which  will  remove  Natural  Cause  and  Chance.                                                                                                                  84  Specified  Complexity  by  William  Dembski  –  Wikipedia    85  William  Dembski  –  Wikipedia    86  The  Design  Inference  by  William  Dembski,  Page  37  –  Wikipedia    
  • 52. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    52  1.8.6   Example  using  Dembski  Explanatory  Filter  to  detect  Design    Fairy  Ring87    It  is  a  naturally  occurring  ring  or  arc  of  mushrooms.  The  rings  may   grow   to   over   10   meters   (33  ft)   in   diameter,   and   they  become  stable  over  time  as  the  fungus  grows  and  seeks  food  underground.   They   are   found   mainly   in  forested  areas,   but  also   appear   in  grasslands   or   rangelands.   Fairy   rings   are  detectable   by  sporocarps  in   rings   or   arcs,   as   well   as   by   a  necrotic   zone   (dead   grass),   or   a   ring   of   dark   green   grass.   If  these   manifestations   are   visible   a   fairy   fungus  mycelium  is  likely  to  be  present  in  the  ring  or  arc  underneath.      Fairy  rings  also  occupy  a  prominent  place  in  European  folklore  as  the  location  of  gateways  into  elfin  kingdoms,   or   places   where   elves   gather   and   dance.   According   to   the   folklore,   a   fairy   ring   appears  when   a   fairy,   pixie,   or   elf   appears.   It   will   disappear   without   trace   in   less   than   five   days,   but   if   an  observer  waits  for  the  elf  to  return  to  the  ring,  he  or  she  may  be  able  to  capture  it.    Now  let  us  apply  Dembski  Explanatory  Filter  over  here  and  do  time  travel  to  Europe  in  early  1800s,  and  assume  that  you  are  peasant  working  on  a  field  and  happened  to  see  the  Fairy  Ring.                                                                                                                        87  Fairy  Ring  –  Wikipedia    
  • 53. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   53  Now  let  us  look  at  what  modern  science  has  to  say  (from  Britannica  Encyclopedia88).  Fairy  Ring  a  naturally  occurring  circular  ring  of  mushrooms  on  a  lawn  or  other  location.  A  fairy  ring  starts  when  the  mycelium  (spawn)  of  a  mushroom  falls  in  a  favorable  spot  and  sends  out  a  subterranean  network  of  fine,  tubular  threads  called  hyphae.  The  hyphae  grow  out  from  the  spore  evenly  in  all  directions,  forming  a  circular  mat  of  underground  hyphal  threads.  The  mushrooms  that  grow  up  from  this  circular  underground  mat  form  a  similar  pattern  above  ground.  Gradually  the  underground  mycelium  at  the  center  of  the  circle  dies  out.  Its  living  outer  edges,  however,  keep  growing  year  by  year,  and  hence  the  diameter  of  the  ring  gradually  increases.  Over  time  the  ring’s  underground  segments  die  out,  until  the  ring  form  on  the  surface  can  no  longer  be  discerned.    Krebs  Cycle89    Following  extract  from  Kenneth  Miller  web  site  (Web  link  available  in  footnote)..    The  Krebs  cycle,  an  intricate  biochemical  pathway  consisting  of  nine  enzymes  and  a  number  of  cofactors  that  occupies  center  stage  in  the  pathways  of  cellular  metabolism.  The  Krebs  cycle  is  "real,"  "complex,"  and  "biochemical."  Does  it  also  present  a  problem  for  evolution?  Apparently   yes,   according   to   the   authors   of   a   1996   paper   in   the   Journal   of   Molecular  evolution,  who  wrote:    "The  Krebs  cycle  has  been  frequently  quoted  as  a  key  problem  in  the  evolution  of  living  cells,  hard  to  explain  by  Darwin’s  natural  selection:  How  could  natural  selection  explain  the  building  of  a  complicated  structure  in  toto,  when  the  intermediate  stages  have  no  obvious  fitness  functionality?  (Melendez-­‐Hevia,  Wadell,  and  Cascante  1996)    Where   intelligent   design   theorists   throw   up   their   hands   and   declare   defeat   for   evolution,  however,   these   researchers   decided   to   do   the   hard   scientific   work   of   analyzing   the  components   of   the   cycle,   and   seeing   if   any   of   them   might   have   been   selected   for   other  biochemical  tasks.  What  they  found  should  be  a  lesson  to  anyone  who  asserts  that  evolution  can  only  act  by  direct  selection  for  a  final  function.  In  fact,  nearly  all  of  the  proteins  of  the  complex  cycle  can  serve  different  biochemical  purposes  within  the  cell,  making  it  possible  to  explain  in  detail  how  they  evolved:    In  the  Krebs  cycle  problem  the  intermediary  stages  were  also  useful,  but  for  different  purposes,  and,  therefore,  its  complete  design  was  a  very  clear  case  of  opportunism.  .  .  .  the  Krebs  cycle  was  built  through  the  process  that  Jacob  (1977)  called  ‘‘evolution  by   molecular   tinkering,’’   stating   that   evolution   does   not   produce   novelties   from  scratch:   It   works   on   what   already   exists.   The   most   novel   result   of   our   analysis   is  seeing   how,   with   minimal   new   material,   evolution   created   the   most   important  pathway  of  metabolism,  achieving  the  best  chemically  possible  design.  In  this  case,  a  chemical  engineer  who  was  looking  for  the  best  design  of  the  process  could  not  have  found  a  better  design  than  the  cycle  which  works  in  living  cells."  (Melendez-­‐Hevia,  Wadell,  and  Cascante  1996)    Since   this   paper   appeared,   a   study   based   on   genomic   DNA   sequences   has   confirmed   the  validity   of   this   approach   (Huynen,   Dandekar,   and   Bork   1999).   By   contrast,   how   would  intelligent  design/creationists  have  approached  the  Krebs  cycle?                                                                                                                      88  Fairy  Ring  –  Britannic  Encyclopedia    89  Krebs  Cycle,  Kenneth  Miller    
  • 54. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    54  Using   Dembskis   calculations   as   our   guide,   we   would   first   determine   the   amino   acid  sequences  of  each  of  the  proteins  of  the  cycle,  and  then  calculate  the  probability  of  their  spontaneous  assembly.  When  this  is  done,  an  origination  probability  of  less  than  10  -­‐400  is  the  result.  Therefore,  the  result  of  applying  "design"  as  a  predictive  science  would  have  told  both  groups  of  researchers  that  their  ultimately  successful  studies  would  have  been  fruitless,  since  the  probability  of  spontaneous  assembly  falls  below  the  "universal  probability  bound."    When  you  try  to  understand  all  these  ID  philosophies  it’s  time  we  need  to  remember  the  English  Theologian  William  Paley90  creator  of  the  famous  watchmaker91  analogy.  In  1802,  Paley  wrote  (in  Natural  Theology),  if  we  find  a  pocket  watch  in  a  field,  we  immediately  infer  that  it  was  produced  not  by  natural  process  acting  blindly  but  by  a  designing   human   intellect.   So,   the   argument   of   Intelligent   Design   has   roots   even  before  the  Darwin  published  Origin  of  Species.      It’s   an   interesting   journey   from   Blind   Watchmaker   to   Irreducible   Complexity   &  Specified  Complexity.    If  you  look  at  these  philosophies,  what  is  evident  is  something  against  the  scientific  mind.      If  something  is  unknown  or  unable  to  grasp  for  a  person  then  he/she  attributes  that  to   a   Designer,   and   then   the   rest   of   the   world   must   follow   his   conclusion   blindly.  That’s  not  science,  that’s  blind  faith  and  they  can’t  think  beyond  the  obvious.      Science  is  all  about  having  a  curious  mind  and  asking  why,  when  others  give  up  their  hands  saying  it’s  impossible  or  attribute  to  God’s  miracle.      After  summarizing  some  key  fossil  evidence  in  Earth’s  geological  time  frame,  we  will  focus  on  Hussain’s  interpretation  of  famous  scientists  quotes  and  his  intentions  on  quoting   them.   In   the   last   section   we   will   look   at   some   prominent   evidences   in  support  of  Evolution  both  in  Micro  and  Macro  world  of  evolution.                                                                                                                          90  William  Paley  –  Wikipedia    91  Watchmaker  Analogy  -­‐  Wikipedia  
  • 55. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   55  1.9   Verdict  of  prominent  cases  of  Creationism  Vs.  Evolution  in  US  Courts92    1.9.1   Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Epperson  v.  Arkansas,  1968  "Government  in  our  democracy,  state  and  national,  must  be  neutral  in  matters  of  religious  theory,  doctrine,  and  practice.  It  may  not  be  hostile  to  any  religion  or  to  the  advocacy  of  non-­‐religion,  and  it  may  not  aid,  foster,  or  promote  one  religion  or  religious  theory  against  another  or  even  against  the  militant  opposite."  1.9.2   Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Edwards  v.  Aguillard,  1987  "[The]   primary   purpose   [of   the   Louisiana   Creation   Act,   which   required   the  teaching  of  creation  science  together  with  evolution  in  public  schools]  was  to  change  the  public  school  science  curriculum  to  provide  persuasive  advantage  to  a  particular   religious   doctrine   that   rejects   the   factual   basis   of   evolution   in   its  entirety.   Thus,   the   Act   is   designed   either   to   promote   the   theory   of   creation  science  that  embodies  a  particular  religious  tenet  or  to  prohibit  the  teaching  of  a  scientific   theory   disfavored   by   certain   religious   sects.   In   either   case,   the   Act  violates  the  First  Amendment."  1.9.3   Kitzmiller  v.  Dover  Area  School  District,  2005    "[W]e  find  that  ID  [intelligent  design]  is  not  science  and  cannot  be  adjudged  a  valid,   accepted   scientific   theory,   as   it   has   failed   to   publish   in   peer-­‐reviewed  journals,   engage   in   research   and   testing,   and   gain   acceptance   in   the   scientific  community.  ID,  as  noted,  is  grounded  in  theology,  not  science….  Moreover,  ID’s  backers   have   sought   to   avoid   the   scientific   scrutiny   which   we   have   now  determined  that  it  cannot  withstand  by  advocating  that  the  controversy,  but  not  ID  itself,  should  be  taught  in  science  class.  This  tactic  is  at  best  disingenuous,  and  at  worst  a  canard.  The  goal  of  the  IDM  [intelligent  design  movement]  is  not  to  encourage   critical   thought,   but   to   foment   a   revolution   which   would   supplant  evolutionary  theory  with  ID."                                                                                                                        92  http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Excerpts.html  
  • 56. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    56  2.   Wrong  interpretation  of  Science  and  Scientist’s  Quotes    The  most  critical  weapon  creationist  uses  is  misquoting  prominent  scientists  without  understanding  science  and  their  statements.      Here  is  an  interesting  example  from  Hussain’s  article  on  Evolution  2.1   Stephen  Jay  Gould93,  Niles  Eldredge94          Along   with   many   other   researchers   in   the   field,   Goulds   works   were   sometimes  deliberately  taken  out  of  context  by  creationists95  as  "proof"  that  scientists  no  longer  understood   how   organisms   evolved.  Gould   himself   corrected   some   of   these  misinterpretations  and  distortions  of  his  writings  in  later  works.  2.1.1   Refuting  Creationist  claim  that  Evolution  is  dead  as  per  Stephen  Jay  Gould    The following essay originally appeared in The New Yorker, Dec. 13, 1999  FOUR  months  ago,  when  the  Kansas  Board  of  Education  voted  to  cut  evolution  from  the  mandatory  science  curriculum,  few  people  were  more  outraged  than  Stephen  Jay                                                                                                                  93  Steven  Jay  Gould,  Paleontologist,  Evolutionary  Biologist,  USA  94  Niles  Eldredge,  Paleontologist,  USA  95  Creationism  -­‐  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism    
  • 57. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   57  Gould.   Teaching   biology   without   evolution   is   "like   teaching   English   but   making  grammar   optional,"   Gould   said.   The   Kansas   decision   reeked   of   "absurdity"   and  "ignorance"  and  was  a  national  embarrassment.  The  question  of  whether  to  teach  evolution  "only  comes  up  in  this  crazy  country,"  he  told  an  audience  at  the  University  of  Kansas  after  the  decision.    Check  the  statements  from  Stephen  Jay  Gould  “Evolution  as  Fact  and  Theory”  (May  1981)96.    We   proposed   the   theory   of   punctuated   equilibrium   largely   to   provide   a   different  explanation  for  pervasive  trends  in  the  fossil  record.  Trends,  we  argued,  cannot  be  attributed   to   gradual   transformation   within   lineages,   but   must   arise   from   the  different  success  of  certain  kinds  of  species.  A  trend,  we  argued,  is  more  like  climbing  a  flight  of  stairs  (punctuated  and  stasis)  than  rolling  up  an  inclined  plane.  Since   we   proposed   punctuated   equilibria   to   explain   trends,   it   is   infuriating   to   be  quoted  again  and  again  by  creationists—whether  through  design  or  stupidity,  I  do  not   know—as   admitting   that   the   fossil   record   includes   no   transitional   forms.  Transitional  forms  are  generally  lacking  at  the  species  level,  but  they  are  abundant  between  larger  groups.    ……….  I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeplysad97….  Evolution  is  one  of  the  half  dozen  “great  ideas”  developed  by  science.    Now   over   here,   Hussain   never   tried   to   learn   what   the   “theory   of   punctuated  equilibrium”   is   all   about,   and   the   funny   part   is,   he   gave   a   new   definition   on   that  theory!    Hearing  bits  and  pieces  information  resulted  in  him  concluding  that  as  per  Stephen  Jay  Gould  –  Darwin’s  Evolution  theory  is  dead!        How   ridiculous   is   his   statement!   Science   is   not   bits   and   pieces   of   information;   it  requires  a  focused  study  without  a  prejudiced  mind.    Currently  I  am  reading  N  M  Hussain’s  article  as  an  interesting  science  fiction  .  But  I  don’t  see  any  Science  in  it  unfortunately.                                                                                                                      96  Stephen  Jay  Gould,  "Evolution  as  Fact  and  Theory,"  Discover  2  (May  1981):  34-­‐37;          From  Hens  Teeth  and  Horses  Toes,  New  York:  W.  W.  Norton  &  Company,  1994,          Page  260.    97  Stephen  Jay  Gould,  From  Hens  Teeth  and  Horses  Toes,  New  York:  W.  W.  Norton  &  Company,  1994,                  Page  261,  Para  2,  line  no:  1  and  Para  3  line  no.4    
  • 58. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    58  Lets   move   forward   analyze   some   more   content   from   Hussain’s   article   talking  Stephen  Gould  and  some  other  prominent  paleontologist  and  molecular  biologist.  Hussain   has   very   specific   comments   on   their   contribution   to   science   and   their  perspectives  on  Darwin’s  Theory  of  Evolution.  We  will  evaluate  the  new  theories  as  well  as  these  scientist’s  perspectives  on  the  Theory  of  Evolution.      Here  is  the  summary  of  the  Book  Hen’s  Teeth  and  Horse’s98  Toes,  By  Stephen  Jay  Gould    Over  a  century  after  Darwin  published  the  Origin  of  Species,  Darwinian  theory  is  in  a  vibrantly  healthy  state,    writes  Stephen  Jay  Gould,  its  most  engaging  and  illuminating  exponent.  Exploring  the  peculiar  and  mysterious  particulars  of  nature,    Gould  introduces  the  reader  to  some  of  the  many  and  wonderful  manifestations  of  evolutionary  biology.  2.2.   Steven  M  Stanley99    Another   Scientist   Hussain   quote   is   Steven   M   Stanley   the   world   famous  paleontologist.  Let  us  look  what  he  (Hussain)  has  to  say  about  him.                                                                                                                        98  Flipkart.com  -­‐  Hens  Tooth  and  Horses  Toes  By  Stephen  Jay  Gould    99  Steven  M  Stanley,  Paleontologist,  Evolutionary  Biologist,  University  of  Hawaii,  USA    
  • 59. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   59  Here   Hussain   makes   an   astonishing   error.   He   says,   as   per   the   observations   of  humans,   the   species   remain   static   without   any   evolution.   He   thinks   that  macroevolution   must   happen   in   a   human   time   scale!   However,   latest   molecular  study  in  the  case  of  eradicating  malaria  shows  that  in  the  micro  world,  humans  and  malaria  are  evolving  right  in  front  of  our  eyes.  Check  out  the  evidence  section.    Stanley   along   with  Niles   Eldredge  and  S.   J.   Gould,   has   been   one   of   the   principal  advocates   of   punctuational   rate   in  evolution.   He   elaborated  punctuated  equilibrium  prior  to  Gould,  in  1975,  and  presented  further  research  on  the  matter  in  1981  and  1982.      Do  I  have  to  say  anything  more?  They  were  not  against  Evolution,  they  come  out  with   a   new   theory   to   explain   the   fossil   record   (as   per   Gould),   rather   than   saying  evolution  is  not  correct.  It  seems  Hussain  is  desperately  trying  to  hold  on  to  some  scientist   to   prove   that   Evolution   (Science)   is   wrong   and   God   created   all   these  species.      Stanley’s  interpretation  of  the  vertebrate  fossil  record  as  displaying  a  punctuational  nature   has   been   severely   questioned   by   the   work   of  Philip   Gingerich  (1980,   1982,  1983)  and  Robert  Carroll  (1988).  Stanleys  arguments  that  the  process  of  punctuated  equilibrium   is   inconsistent   with   the  Neodarwinian  paradigm   of  gradualistic  evolution,  has  been  most  effectively  challenged  by  Mayr  (1982).    The  above  model  is  the  way  Science  works.  Scientist  try  to  get  the  best  theory  to  explain  the  Natural  phenomena  rather  than  attributing  to  God.      
  • 60. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    60    If  Hussain  translate  the  above  two  paragraphs  he  has  written  (into  English)  and  show  it  to  Gould  and  Stanley  they  will  get  a  shock  of  their  life.  This  is  exactly  the  sentiment  Gould  shown  against  creationist.  Creationists  are  bunch  of  people  who  don’t  have  analytical  capabilities.  Otherwise  they  would  try  to  spend  time  to  understand  what’s  Punctuated  Equilibrium  proposed  by  Gould  and  team.      What  Stanley,  Stephen  Jay  Gould  and  Niles  Eldredge  talked  about  is  not  that  Natural  Selection  doesn’t  work.  They  emphasized  a  method  to  explain  the  fossil  records  with  their  theory,  which  as  per  Gould  itself  is  a  model  of  gradualism  when  you  look  at  the  evolution  at  Geological  time  frame.  Darwin  himself  acknowledges  in  his  book  “On  the  Origin  of  species”  that  there  will  be  variation  in  rate  of  change  from  species  to  species,    checkout  the  section  Multiple  meanings  of  Gradualism.    2.3   Theories  to  explain  the  progress  of  Evolution    Anyway,  here  is  a  quick  summary  on  Punctuated  Equilibrium,  Multiple  meanings  of  gradualism,  and  Quantum  Evolution.  2.3.1   Punctuated  equilibrium    It   is   a   theory   popularized   by  Stephen   Jay   Gould  and  Niles   Eldredge.   The   theory  postulates   that  evolutionary   change  is   not  constant  but   that  speciation  may   occur  rapidly   and   the  species  then   change   little   for   long   periods   of   time.   The   theory  explains  the  patterns  shown  in  the  fossil  record.    2.3.2   Multiple  meanings  of  gradualism  Punctuated   equilibrium   is   often   portrayed   to   oppose   the   concept   of  gradualism,  when  it  is  actually  a  form  of  gradualism100.  This  is  because  even  though  evolutionary  change   appears   instantaneous   between   geological   sediments,   change   is   still  occurring  incrementally,  with  no  great  change  from  one  generation  to  the  next.  To  this   end,   Gould   later   commented,   "Most   of   our  paleontological   colleagues  missed  this   insight   because   they   had   not   studied   evolutionary   theory   and   either   did   not  know  about  allopatric  speciation  or  had  not  considered  its  translation  to  geological  time.    Now  let  us  look  at  what  Darwin  has  to  say  on  varying  rate  of  change  as  per  Gould,  Eldredge  (and  even  Stanley).    Charles  Darwin  was  influenced  by  Lyells  Principles  of  Geology,  which  explained  both  uniformitarian  methodology  and  theory.  The  concept  of  gradualism  was  promoted  by  his  friend  Charles  Lyell.  It  is  often  incorrectly  assumed  that  he  (Darwin)  insisted  that  the  rate  of  change  must  be  constant,  or  nearly  so.                                                                                                                    100  Richard  Dawkins,  The  Blind  Watch  Maker  (1996)  page  224-­‐252  
  • 61. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   61  Species  of  different  genera  and  classes  have  not  changed  at  the  same  rate,  or  in  the  same  degree.  -­‐  Charles  Darwin,  Chapter  XI  “On  the  Geological  succession  of  Organic  Beings”  On  the  Origin  of  Species,  Page  345  In  the  fifth  edition  Darwin  wrote    “Many   species   when   once   formed   never   undergo   any   further   change   but   become  extinct  without  leaving  modified  descendants;  and  the  periods  during  which  species  have  undergone  modifications,  though  long  as  measure  by  years  have  probably  been  short   in   comparison   with   the   periods   during   which   they   have   retained   the   same  form.”  -­‐  Charles  Darwin,  Chapter  XV  “Recapitulation  and  Conclusion”,  On  the  Origin  of  Species,  Page  483  So,  to  summarize  what  happened  in  the  last  two  pages  (regarding  Gould,  Stanley)  is  that,  they  have  come  up  with  a  theory  to  explain  observed  fossil  record  with  the  theory   punctuated   equilibrium   –   which   says   the   rate   of   change   due   to   Natural  selection  will  not  be  linear.      I  am  really  shocked  the  way  Hussain  twisted  a  new  explanation  completely  out  of  context.    If  you  remember,  this  review  got  started  with  the  quote  from  Charles  Lyell101  point  no.  6.    This  is  a  classic  example  of  reading  bits  and  pieces  of  info  from  creationist  sites  and  trying  to  create  an  article  out  of  it.  2.3.3   Quantum  evolution    Quantum   evolution  was   a   controversial   hypothesis   advanced   by  Columbia  University  paleontologist  George   Gaylord   Simpson,   who   was   regarded   by   Stephen  Jay   Gould   as   "the   greatest   and   most   biologically   astute   paleontologist   of   the  twentieth   century."   Simpsons   conjecture   was   that   according   to   the   geological  record,  on  very  rare  occasions  evolution  would  proceed  very  rapidly  to  form  entirely  new  families,  orders,   and  classes  of   organisms.  This   hypothesis   differs   from  punctuated  equilibrium  in  many  respects.  First,  punctuated  equilibrium  was  much  more   modest   in   scope,   in   that   it   was   addressing   evolution   specifically   at  the  species  level.  Simpsons  idea  was  principally  concerned  with  evolution  at  higher  taxonomic   groups.  Second,   Eldredge   and   Gould   relied   upon   an   entirely   different  mechanism.   Where   Simpson   relied   upon   a  synergistic  interaction   between   genetic  drift  and  a  shift  in  the  adaptive  fitness  landscape.    According   to   Simpson,   evolutionary   rates   differ   from   group   to   group   and   even  among  closely  related  lineages.  These  different  rates  of  evolutionary  change  were  designated   by   Simpson   as  horotelic  (medium   tempo),  bradytelic  (slow   tempo),  and  tachytelic  (rapid   tempo).   Quantum   evolution   differed   from   these   styles   of                                                                                                                  101  Charles  Lyell,  British  Geologist  and  Lawyer,  (1797-­‐1875)    
  • 62. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    62  change  in  that  it  involved  a  drastic  shift  in  the  adaptive  zones  of  certain  classes  of  animals.  The  word  "quantum"  therefore  refers  to  an  "all-­‐or-­‐none  reaction,"  where  transitional  forms  are  particularly  unstable,  and  perished  rapidly  and  completely.      According   to   Simpson   (1944)   quantum   evolution   relied   heavily   upon  Sewall  Wrights  theory  of  random  genetic  drift.  Simpson  believed  that  major  evolutionary  transitions   would   arise   when   small   populations—isolated   and   limited   from   gene  flow—would  fixate  upon  unusual  gene  combinations    I  have  a  section  dedicated  to  understand  what’s  genetic  drift  and  how  it  compares  with  Natural  Selection.  Over  here  these  scientists  are  trying  to  figure  out  the  real  model  of  evolution  in  genes  and  how  they  can  be  compared  to  macroevolution.    If  some  one  is  focused  on  quoting  scientists  instead  of  trying  to  figure  their  theories  what  results  in  is  nothing  but  a  state  of  words  diarrhea.  People  with  prejudiced  mind  will  never  understand  anything  new.    2.3.4   Creationist  interpretation  on  Gould’s  Punctuated  Equilibrium  Theory    Following  section  (underlined  in  red)  explains  Hussain’s  interpretation  of  Punctuated  Equilibrium  theory.        Under  the  camouflage  of  Punctuated  Equilibria  theory  by  Gould,  Hussain  says  that  all  these  scientists  declared  that  evolution  cant  happen  because  of  Natural  Selection.  If  
  • 63. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   63  Hussain  lived  in  a  developed  country,  he  will  be  sued  for  misrepresenting  the  facts  and  twisting  the  facts.      Here  Hussain’s  proclaims  in  a  sarcastic  tone  that  all  the  work  in  Evolutionary  Biology  is   a   waste   (the   last   line).   If   you   need   to   master   all   the   different   subjects   in  Evolutionary   Biology,   you   will   end   up   having   atleast   a   dozen   different   Ph.   D.s   to  master   everything.   Without   understanding   genetic   science,   without   understand  natural  selection,  right  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  article  he  vociferously  claims  that  all  the  books  on  Evolution  is  nothing  but  a  waste.          Now  let  us  look  what’s  Stephen  Jay  Gould  has  to  say  (the  Author  of  the  Theory)  :  Check  the  statements  from  Stephen  Jay  Gould  “Evolution  as  Fact  and  Theory”  (May  1981)102.    Following  extract  from  "Evolution  as  Fact  and  Theory,"  by  Stephen  Jay  Gould,  May  1981;   from   Hens   Teeth   and   Horses   Toes,   New   York:   W.   W.   Norton   &   Company,  1994,  pp.  253-­‐262.  We   proposed   the   theory   of   punctuated   equilibrium 103  largely   to   provide   a   different  explanation  for  pervasive  trends  in  the  fossil  record.  Trends,  we  argued,  cannot  be  attributed  to   gradual   transformation   within   lineages,   but   must   arise   from   the   different   success   of  certain   kinds   of   species.   A   trend,   we   argued,   is   more   like   climbing   a   flight   of   stairs  (punctuated  and  stasis)  than  rolling  up  an  inclined  plane.  Since  we  proposed  punctuated  equilibria  to  explain  trends,  it  is  infuriating  to  be  quoted  again  and  again  by  creationists—whether  through  design  or  stupidity,  I  do  not  know—as  admitting  that  the  fossil  record  includes  no  transitional  forms.  Transitional  forms  are  generally  lacking  at  the  species  level,  but  they  are  abundant  between  larger  groups.    ……….  I  am  both  angry  at  and  amused  by  the  creationists;  but  mostly  I  am  deeply  sad.    Now  let  us  see  what  Charles  Darwin  has  to  say  on  gradualism.    Species  of  different  genera  and  classes  have  not  changed  at  the  same  rate,  or  in  the  same  degree.                                                                                                                  102  Stephen  Jay  Gould,  "Evolution  as  Fact  and  Theory,"  Discover  2  (May  1981):  34-­‐37;  From  Hens  Teeth  and  Horses  Toes,  New  York:  W.  W.  Norton  &  Company,  1994,  pp.  253-­‐262    103  Stephen  Jay  Gould,  "Evolution  as  Fact  and  Theory,"  May  1981;  from  Hens  Teeth  and  Horses  Toes,            New  York:  W.  W.  Norton  &  Company,  1994,  pp.  253-­‐262.  ]  
  • 64. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    64  -­‐  Charles  Darwin,  Chapter  XI  “On  the  Geological  succession  of  Organic  Beings”  On  the  Origin  of  Species,  Page  345  In  the  fifth  edition  Darwin  wrote    “Many   species   when   once   formed   never   undergo   any   further   change   but   become   extinct  without  leaving  modified  descendants;  and  the  periods  during  which  species  have  undergone  modifications,   though   long   as   measure   by   years   have   probably   been   short   in   comparison  with  the  periods  during  which  they  have  retained  the  same  form.”  -­‐  Charles  Darwin,  Chapter  XV  “Recapitulation  and  Conclusion”,  On  the  Origin  of  Species,  Page  483    Without   understanding   the   theory   of   Punctuated   Equilibrium,   Hussain   concludes  that  Gould’s  theory  is  getting  closer  to  the  concept  of  “God  created  all  the  species”!    On  the  question  of  teaching  Creationism  in  schools    -­‐  Washington  Post104    Its  all  enough  to  set  another  Harvard  man,  the  author  and  Harvard  biology  professor  Stephen  Jay  Gould,  to  vibrating.    "Its  intellectually  so  disappointing  and  so  absurd,"  Gould  says.  "Its  like  teaching  English  but  making  grammar  optional."  There  is  a  central  "truth,"  embraced  by  virtually  every  mainstream  scientist  worldwide:  that  the  cosmos  and  the  Earth  were  created  billions  of  years  ago,  and  that  life  evolved  from  one-­‐celled  animals  to  modern  humans.  That  these  overarching  concepts  are  pockmarked  with  unexplained  gaps  and  phenomena,  and  subject  to  constant  revision  and  debate,  is  but  the  nature  of  the  scientific  method.      N  M  Hussain  has  reached  the  desperate  state  to  declare  Gould  as  a  creationist!      Here  is  Stephen  Jay  Gould’s105  advice  on  debating  with  creationist    Winning  is  not  what  the  creationists  realistically  aspire  to.  For  them,  it  is  sufficient  that  the  debate  happens   at   all.   They   need   the   publicity.   We   dont.   To   the   gullible   public,   which   is   their   natural  constituency,  it  is  enough  that  their  man  is  seen  sharing  a  platform  with  a  real  scientist.  "There  must  be  something  in  creationism,  or  Dr  So-­‐and-­‐So  would  not  have  agreed  to  debate  it  on  equal  terms."  Inevitably,   when   you   turn   down   the   invitation   you   will   be   accused   of   cowardice,   or   of   inability   to                                                                                                                  104  Washington  Post  Sept  6,  1999  Creationism  the  debate  fails  to  evolve  105  Guardian  Newspaper  Aug  19th,  2008  –  Richard  Dawkins  quoting  Gould  while  debunking            Harun  Yahya’s  Atlas  of  Creation  
  • 65. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   65  defend  your  own  beliefs.  But  that  is  better  than  supplying  the  creationists  with  what  they  crave:  the  oxygen  of  respectability  in  the  world  of  real  science.    The   above   quotes   from   Stephen   Jay   Gould   clearly   show   the   intentions   of  creationists.  They  are  nothing  but  annoying  mosquitos,  which  can  disturb  a  night’s  sleep.  They  come  with  the  mask  of  knowing  science,  however,  when  you  start  asking  them  questions,  they  will  hide  behind  their  respective  religions.    2.4   Motoo  Kimura106    The  next  key  scientist  Hussain  focuses  on  is  the  Motoo  Kimura,  A  Japanese  biologist  best  known  for  introducing  the  Neutral  Theory  of  Molecular  Evolution.            Checkout  the  last  paragraph      Now   before   we   get   into   Motoo   Kimura’s   Neutral   Theory   of   Molecular   Evolution  when   need   to   study   some   fundamentals,   Like   Population   Genetics,   McDonald-­‐Kreitman  test  and  finally  move  on  to  Neutral  Theory  of  Molecular  Evolution.  2.5   Theories  on  Molecular  Evolution  2.5.1   Population  genetics107    It  is  the  study  of  gene  frequency  distribution  and  change  under  the  influence  of  the  four  main  evolutionary  processes:  natural  selection,  genetic  drift,  mutation  and  gene  flow.                                                                                                                  106  Motoo  Kimura,  Japanese  Biologist,  Known  for  Neutral  Theory  of  Molecular  Evolution  107  Statistical  Genetics    
  • 66. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    66  2.5.2   Genetic  Drift108  Vs.  Natural  Selection    The  law  of  large  numbers  predicts  little  change  over  time  due  to  genetic  drift  when  the   population   is   large.   When   the   reproductive   population   is   small,   however,   the  effects  of  sampling  error  can  alter  the  allele  (gene)  frequencies  significantly.  Genetic  drift   is   therefore   considered   to   be   a   consequential   mechanism   of   evolutionary  change  primarily  within  small,  isolated  populations.    Although   both   processes   affect   evolution,   genetic   drift   operates   randomly   while  natural   selection   functions   non-­‐randomly.   While   natural   selection   has   a   direction,  guiding  evolution  towards  heritable  adaptations  to  the  current  environment,  genetic  drift  has  no  direction  and  is  guided  only  by  the  mathematics  of  chance.    In   natural   populations,   genetic   drift   and  natural   selection  do   not   act   in   isolation;  both  forces  are  always  at  play.  However,  the  degree  to  which  alleles  are  affected  by  drift  or  selection  varies  according  to  population  size.  The  magnitude  of  drift  on  allele  frequencies  per  generation  is  larger  in  small  populations.  2.5.3   McDonald–Kreitman  test109      In  statistical  genetics,  the  McDonald–Kreitman   test  looks  for  ancient  selection  over  long   periods,   as   opposed   to   the   steady   accumulation   of   mutations   that   confer  no  selective  advantage  predicted  by  the  neutral  theory.  It  was  first  devised  by  John  H.  McDonald  and  Martin  Kreitman  in  1991,  based  on  an  investigation  of  differences  in  amino  acid  sequence  of  the  alcohol  dehydrogenase  gene  in  Drosophila.    Nucleotide  differences  between  the  coding  regions  of  homologous  genes  of  related  species  are  enumerated  and  sorted  into  four  categories,  as  shown  below:       Fixed   Polymorphic  Synonymous   Ds   Ps  Nonsynonymous   Dn   Pn    Sites  are  classed  as  polymorphic  if  they  show  any  variation  within  species,  while  they  are  classed  as  fixed  if  they  differ  between  species  but  not  within  them.  If  the  ratio  of  fixed   differences   to   polymorphisms   is   much   higher   for   nonsynonymous   changes  (i.e.  Dn/Pn  ≫  Ds/Ps),  this  indicates  that  genetic  changes  have  been  subject  to  positive  selection.    The  McDonald–Kreitman  test  itself  consists  of  the  G-­‐test  performed  on  the  numbers  in   the   table   above,   which   would   indicate   whether   the   two   ratios   are   significantly  different.  As  an  extension  of  this,  Smith  and  Eyre-­‐Walker  proposed  estimating  the                                                                                                                  108  Genetic  Drift    109  McDonald-­‐Kreitman  Test    
  • 67. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   67  proportion   of   base   substitutions   fixed   by   natural   selection,  α110,  using   a   simple  formula:    α  =  1  –  (Ds  Pn  /  Dn  Ps)    Using   this   formula,   the   authors   estimated   that   45%   of   amino   acid   differences  between  Drosophila   simulans  and  D.  yakuba  are   estimated   to   have   been   fixed   by  selection,  while  35%  of  amino  acid  differences  between  primates  are  estimated  to  be  fixed  by  selection.    Now  its  time  we  look  into  what’s  Neutral  Theory  of  Molecular  Evolution  and  see  if  Hussain’s  assumption  is  correct.  2.5.4   Neutral  Theory  of  molecular  evolution111    This   theory   states   that   the   vast   majority   of  evolutionary  changes   at   the  molecular  level  are   caused   by  random   drift  of   selectively  neutral  mutants  (not   affecting  fitness).  Motoo   Kimura  introduced   the   theory   in   the   late   1960s   and   early   1970s.  Neutral  theory  is  compatible  with  Darwins  theory  of  evolution  by  natural  selection:  adaptive  changes  are  acknowledged  as  present  and  important,  but  hypothesized  to  be  a  small  minority  of  all  the  changes  seen  fixed  in  DNA  sequences.    It’s   important   to   understand   the   Population   genetics   (Genetic   Drift   and   Natural  Selection)  to  get  clear  view  of  how  molecular  evolution  works.    A   heated   debate   arose   when   Kimuras   theory   was   published,   largely   revolving  around  the  relative  percentages  of  alleles  that  are  "neutral"  versus  "non-­‐neutral"  in  any  given  genome.  Contrary  to  the  perception  of  many  onlookers,  the  debate  was  not   about   whether   natural   selection   does   occur.   Kimura   argued   that  molecular  evolution  is  dominated  by  selectively  neutral  evolution  but  at  the  phenotypic  level,  changes   in   characters   were   probably   dominated   by  natural   selection  rather  than  sampling  drift.    As  of  the  early  2000s,  the  neutral  theory  is  widely  used  as  a  "null  model"  for  so-­‐called  null  hypothesis  testing.  However,  serious  doubt  has  been  cast  on  the  neutral  theory  by  the  application  of  the  McDonald-­‐Kreitman  test  to  show  that  a  substantial  proportion  of  amino  acid  changes  may  be  due  to  selection.    Now   let   us   relook   at   Hussain’s   conclusion   on   Kimura’s   work,   he   concludes   that  Natural  Selection  has  nothing  to  do  with  Origin  of  Species  as  per  Kimura.                                                                                                                      110  Nick  G.  C.  Smith  &  Adam  Eyre-­‐Walker  (2002).  "Adaptive  protein  evolution  in  Drosophila"    Nature  111  Neutral  Theory  of  molecular  evolution    
  • 68. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    68      He  conveniently  forgets  that,  he  is  talking  about  a  statement  from  Scientists,  which  is   50   years   old!   And   there   wasn’t   any   progress   in   Genetic   science   for   the   last   50  years.   How   blind   someone   can   go?   Latest   genetic   science   supports   with   1000s   of  evidence  for  Natural  Selection.    2.6   Theodosius  Dobzhansky112    It   is   a   1937   book   by   the   Ukrainian-­‐American   evolutionary   biologist  Theodosius  Dobzhansky.   It   is   regarded   as   one   of   the   most   important   works   of   the  modern  evolutionary   synthesis.   The   book   popularized   the   work   of  population   genetics  to  other  biologists,  and  influenced  their  appreciation  for  the  genetic  basis  of  evolution.      2.7   Genetics  and  Origin  of  Species113    Through   his   work   on   the  Drosophila   pseudoobscura  he   was   able   to   identify   that  some  populations  of  this  species  did  not  have  identical  sets  of  genes.  Dobzhansky  used  experimental  breeding  in  laboratories  and  gardens,  and  also  surveys  related  to  species  in  nature  to  help  support  the  aspects  of  organic  evolution.  The  data  in  his  book   shows   the   different   genetic   mutations   and   chromosomal   changes   that   were  observed.   All   of   the   results   from   his   experiments   support   the   theory   of   modern  evolutionary  synthesis.    Now  let  us  look  at  how  Hussain  concludes  Dobzhansky’s  work.                                                                                                                    112  Theodosius  Dobzhansky,  Molecular  Biologist    113  Genetics  and  the  Origin  of  Species:  From  Darwin  to  Molecular  Biology  60  Years  After  Dobzhansky        Genetics  and  Origin  of  Species  
  • 69. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   69      Overall  Genetics   and   the   Origin   of   Species  shows   the   importance   how   genes,  mutations,  and  chromosomal  changes  influence  evolution    Dobzhansky’s   work   was   instrumental   in   spreading   the   idea   that   it   is   through  mutations  in  genes  that  natural  selection  takes  place.    Dobzhansky,  A  constant  defender  of  Darwinian  evolution,  he  was  also,  according  to  his  student  Francisco  J.  Ayala,  "a  religious  man"  who  nonetheless  rejected  belief  in  "the  existence  of  a  personal  God  and  of  life  beyond  physical  death.    What   this   shows   that   a   science,   which   got   developed   almost   after   80   years,  confirmed   Darwin’s   theory   of   Natural   Selection   and   that   too   at   micro   level,  something  un-­‐thinkable  in  Darwin’s  time.    By   this   time   you   will   have   fair   idea   on   how   N   M   Hussain   changed   and   twisted  scientists   words   to   prove   his   theory   of   creationism.   He   pretends   that   he   is   well  versed  in  all  scientific  theories  related  to  Evolution.  However,  some  how  he  is  not  able  to  convey  that  in  his  article.  May  be  the  language  (Malayalam,  a  Language  from  South  India)  he  is  using  doesn’t  have  enough  vocabulary  to  explain  his  understanding  of  all  theories.    Next   section   focuses   on   some   of   the   evidences   for   evolution,   Genetic   and  Macroevolution,   which   will   be   required   for   the   conclusion   segment.   Conclusion  segment  analyze  Hussain’s  article,  the  evidences  in  this  document,  and  on  alternate  theories.  Apart  from  these,  it  has  references  to  key  science  books  from  Cosmology,  Quantum  Physics,  Evolution,  Genetic  Science,  and  Neuro  Science.  Its  not  that  reading  these   books   make   you   an   atheist   or   a   firm   believer   of   creationism,   however,   the  objective  is  to  open  up  your  eyes  to  enjoy  the  beauty  of  the  nature,  grandeur  of  the  universe.  People  like  N  M  Hussain  will  even  say  Big  Bang  is  nothing  but  a  myth  and  with  articles  like  these  they  will  drive  humanity  into  dark  ages.      If  Hussain  is  honest  enough  in  whatever  he  wants  to  do  for  understand  Science  and  its  role,  then  he  needs  to  refer  to  the  latest  scientific  discoveries  and  evidence  and  stop  focusing  on  who  said  what  30-­‐40  years  ago.      
  • 70. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    70  3.   Evidence  for  Darwin’s  Theory  of  Evolution  3.1   Micro  Evolution  Evidence  3.1.1   Evidence  for  Evolution  in  Human  Time  Frame:  Malaria  Vs.  Homo  Sapiens    Malaria  pathogen  is  a  critical  disease  humanity  facing  today;  it  infects  around  250  million  per  year  and  kills  almost  a  million  every  year.  Number  of  deaths  per  year  is  climbing   alarmingly   and   the   pathogen   is   evolving   into   a   state   where   it   started   to  resist  the  modern  medicine,  unless  we  find  a  new  way  of  curing  malaria  in  the  next  1  year,  malaria  will  ran  over  humans.  Medical  science  is  in  a  desperate  state  to  save  humanity  from  this  deadly  pathogen.    However,   (mostly   in   malaria  infected  region)  humans  evolved  to  tackle  malaria  pathogen  with  the   help   of   a   (point)   mutation,  which   has   its   own   side   affect.  Comparing  to  the  possibility  that  malaria  could  wipe  out  humanity  if  not  checked  this  mutation  still  helps   with   all   its   negative   side  effects.   This   mutation   happens  in   Hemoglobin   and   due   to   the  shape  of  the  cell  after  mutation  its  called  sickle  cell.    The  misshapen  red  blood  cell  on  the  left  is  caused  by  a  missense  mutation  and  an  incorrect  amino  acid  in  one  of  the  two  polypeptides  of  hemoglobin.      ©  2008  by  Sinauer  Associates,  Inc.  All  rights  reserved.      Side  effect  of  sickle  is  only  there  if  the  offspring  has  inherited  sickle  cell  from  both  the  parents.    Single-Base Mutation Associated with Sickle-Cell Anemia114Sequence  for  Wild-­‐Type  Hemoglobin  ATG   GTG   CAC   CTG   ACT   CCT   GAG   GAG   AAG   TCT   GCC   GTT   ACT  Start   Val   His   Leu   Thr   Pro   Glu   Glu   Lys   Ser   Ala   Val   Thr  Sequence  for  Mutant  (Sickle-­‐Cell)  Hemoglobin  ATG     GTG   CAC   CTG   ACT   CCT   GTG   GAG   AAG   TCT   GCC   GTT   ACT  Start   Val   His   Leu   Thr   Pro   Val   Glu   Lys   Ser   Ala   Val   Thr  The  above  mutation  is  found  only  in  the  places  where  malaria  is  wide  spread.    Now  from  a  creationist  perspective  –  how  do  you  explain  this?  From  scientific  perspective  it’s  a  classic  case  of  Darwin’s  Natural  Selection.      I   can   imagine   the   mindset   of   a   creationist   now;   they   are   just   not   in   the   state   of  accepting  facts.  Now  read  the  latest  (2012)  articles  on  Malaria  and  sickle  cell  anemia  from  the  magazine  Nature.  Following  extract  is  from  the  article  published  in  Nature.                                                                                                                    114  Nature  –  Genetic  Mutations  
  • 71. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   71    Natural  Selection:  Uncovering  Mechanisms  of  Evolutionary  Adaptation  to  Infectious  Disease115  By:  Pardis  C.  Sabeti  M.D.,  D.Phil.  (Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  MA)  ©  2008  Nature  Education    Citation:  Sabeti,  P.  (2008)  Natural  selection:  uncovering  mechanisms  of  evolutionary  adaptation  to  infectious  disease.  Nature  Education  1(1)    The  evolutionary  link  between  sickle-­‐cell  trait  and  malaria  resistance  showed  that  humans  can  and  do  adapt.  But  are  the  “bugs”  that  make  us  sick  evolving  as  well?    In  the  1940s,  J.  B.  S.  Haldane  observed  that  many  red  blood  cell  disorders,  such  as  sickle-­‐cell  anemia  and  various  thalassemias,  were  prominent  in  tropical  regions  where  malaria  was  endemic  (Haldane,  1949;   Figure   1).   Haldane   hypothesized   that   these   disorders   had   become   common   in   these   regions  because  natural  selection  had  acted  to  increase  the  prevalence  of  traits  that  protect  individuals  from  malaria.  Just  a  few  years  later,  Haldanes  so-­‐called  "malaria  hypothesis"  was  confirmed  by  researcher  A.  C.  Allison,  who  demonstrated  that  the  geographical  distribution  of  the  sickle-­‐cell  mutation  in  the  beta   hemoglobin  gene  (HBB)   was   limited   to   Africa   and   correlated   with   malaria   endemicity.   Allison  further  noted  that  individuals  who  carried  the  sickle-­‐cell  trait  were  resistant  to  malaria  (Allison,  1954).        Allisons   confirmation   of   Haldanes   hypothesis   provided   the   first   elucidated   example   of  human  adaptation  since  natural  selection  had  been  proposed  a  century  earlier.  Today,  this  and  other  demonstrations   of   natural   selection   help   point   researchers   toward   biological   mechanisms   of  resistance   to  infectious   disease.   Moreover,   such   examples   also   shed   light   on   the   ways   in  which  pathogens  rapidly  evolve  to  remain  agents  of  human  morbidity  and  mortality.  So,  why  has  malaria  exerted  such  strong  selective  pressure?  Scientists  now  know  the  answer.  Malaria  is   arguably   one   of   the   human   populations   oldest   diseases   and   greatest   causes   of   morbidity   and  mortality.  Research  indicates  that  the  malaria-­‐causing  parasite  Plasmodium  falciparum  has  occurred  in  human  populations  for  approximately  100,000  years,  with  a  large  population  expansion  in  the  last  10,000   years   as   human   populations   began   to   move   into   settlements   (Hartl,   2004).  P.   falciparum,  together   with   the   other   malaria   species,  P.   vivax,  P.   malariae,  and  P.   ovale,   infects   hundreds   of  millions  of  people  worldwide  each  year,  and  kills  more  than  1  million  children  annually  (World  Health                                                                                                                  115  Nature  :    
  • 72. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    72  Organization,  2000).  Because  this  disease  is  so  devastating,  humans  have  had  to  evolve  adaptive  traits  to  survive  in  the  face  of  this  infectious  condition  over  the  past  few  millennia  (Kwiatkowski,  2005).  3.1.2   Fighting  the  evolution  of  malaria  in  Cambodia116  -­‐  Berkeley  University    July  2012  Malaria117  infects  more  than  250  million  people  a  year  and  kills  almost  one  million  —  most  of  them  children.  The  disease  is  curable  with  the  right  treatment,  but  this  year  scientists  announced  that  it  may  not  be  curable  for  long.  Strains  of  malaria  that  have  evolved  resistance  to  our  most  effective  drug,  artemisinin,  have  been  discovered  in  western  Cambodia  and  could  spread  to  the  rest  of  the  world.  Understanding   the   environment   that   contributed   to   this   worrisome   evolutionary   step   is   helping  scientists,   doctors,   and   policymakers   develop   effective   strategies   for   keeping   resistant   strains   of  malaria  in  check.    Wheres  the  evolution?    At   the   most   basic   level,   resistance   is   an   evolutionary   phenomenon:   All  populations  —   including  populations   of   disease   pathogens   —   have  genetic   variation.   Some   individuals   have   the  genes  to  handle   particular   environmental   stresses   and   opportunities   better   than   others.   And   when   the  population  is  exposed  to  a  stress,  the  individuals  that  happen  to  carry  the  right  mutated  genes  survive  and  reproduce  at  higher  rates.  Over  many  generations,  individuals  carrying  the  helpful  mutations  will  become  more  frequent  in  the  population.  This  is  basic  natural  selection  at  work,  and  just  as  it  shapes  birds  beaks  to  take  advantage  of  available  seed  sizes,  it  favors  the  evolution  of  pathogen  populations  that  can  resist  the  drugs  in  their  environments.    Scientists  now  have  evidence  that  this  is  exactly  what  has  happened  in  western  Cambodia  —  and  it  has  them  worried  for  several  reasons.  First,  artemisinin  is  the  most  effective  malaria  drug  we  have  left.  The   malaria   pathogen,  Plasmodium   falciparum  has   already   evolved   resistance   to   other   drugs   like  chloroquine.   Second,   Cambodia   seems   to   be   a   harbinger   of   malaria   resistance.   Resistant   malaria  strains   frequently   crop   up   in   Cambodia   before   spreading   to   the   rest   of   the   world.   If   artemisinin-­‐resistant  malaria  strains  become  established  in  Cambodia  and  then  spread,  malaria  deaths  will  likely  skyrocket.  3.1.3   E.  coli  caught  in  the  act  of  evolving118  Following  extract  from  Science  News  published  on  Sep  19th,  2012  By  Tina  Hesman  Saey  October  20th,  2012;  Vol.182  #8  (p.  8)  :  Wednesday,  September  19,  2012    Big  leaps  in  evolution  are  the  products  of  tiny  genetic  changes  accumulated  over  thousands  of  generations,  a  new  study  shows.  E.  coli  bacteria  growing  in  a  flask  in  a  lab  for  nearly  25  years  have  learned  to  do  something  no  E.  colihas  done  since  the  Miocene  epoch:  eat  a  chemical  called  citrate  in  the  presence  of  oxygen.  Evolutionary  biologists  Zachary  Blount  and  Richard  Lenski  of  Michigan  State  University  in  East  Lansing  and  their  colleagues  describe  the  molecular  steps  leading  to  the  feat  online  September  19  in  Nature.                                                                                                                  116  Berkeley  University  –  2012  July  117  Malaria          The  Scientist  –  How  Blood  Cells  Thwart  Malaria  118  Science  News,  October  20th,  2012          Nature  :  Genomic  Analysis  of  a  Key  innovation  in  an  experimental  E.  Coli  population          NCBI  –  US  National  Library  of  Medicine  National  Institute  of  Health  
  • 73. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   73  The  work  demonstrates  that  although  new  traits  seem  to  emerge  in  the  blink  of  an  eye  evolutionarily  speaking,  those  traits  are  actually  the  product  of  thousands  of  generations  of  genetic  tweaks.  “The  ability  to  be  able  to  not  just  talk  about  how  genes  evolve,  but  to  see  it  in  action  is  just  awesome,”  says  Bruce  Levin,  a  population  and  evolutionary  biologist  at  Emory  University  in  Atlanta.  “This  is  really  getting  at  the  nitty-­‐gritty  of  evolution.”  Teasing  out  the  molecular  details  behind  the  evolution  of  citrate-­‐eating  E.  colimay  help  researchers  better  understand  evolution  in  other  organisms.  Learning  to  eat  citrate,  also  called  citric  acid,  is  as  big  an  innovation  for  E.  coli  as  developing  eyes  or  wings  would  be  for  multicellular  creatures,  says  evolutionary  geneticist  Paul  Rainey  of  Massey  University  in  Auckland,  New  Zealand,  and  the  Max  Planck  Institute  for  Evolutionary  Biology  in  Plön,  Germany.  Ancestors  of  E.  coli  and  other  bacteria  may  once  have  been  able  to  eat  citrate  when  oxygen  is  around,  but  E.  coli  lost  the  ability  at  least  13  million  years  ago,  Blount  says.  In  fact,  the  inability  to  grow  on  citrate  in  oxygen-­‐rich  conditions  is  a  defining  characteristic  of  E.  coli  that  helps  distinguish  them  from  other  types  of  bacteria.      
  • 74. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    74  3.1.4   Chromosome119  2  in  Human  DNA120  -­‐  Evidence  for  Common  Descent    All  members  of  Hominidae  except  humans  have  24  pairs  of  chromosomes.  Humans  have  only  23  pairs  of  chromosomes.  Human  chromosome  2  is  widely  accepted  to  be  a  result  of  an  end-­‐to-­‐end  fusion  of  two  ancestral  chromosomes.121    The  evidence  for  this  includes:   The  correspondence  of  chromosome  2  to  two  ape  chromosomes  (12  &  13).  The  closest  human  relative,  the  chimpanzee,  has  near-­‐identical  DNA  sequences  to  human  chromosome  2,  but  they  are  found  in  two  separate  chromosomes.  The  same  is  true  of  the  more  distant  gorilla  and  orangutan.122     The   presence   of   a  vestigial  centromere.   Normally   a   chromosome   has   just   one  centromere,   but   in   chromosome   2   there   are   remnants   of   a   second  centromere.123   The  presence  of  vestigial  telomeres.  These  are  normally  found  only  at  the  ends  of   a   chromosome,   but   in   chromosome   2   there   are   additional   telomere  sequences  in  the  middle.  Chromosome   2   presents   very   strong   evidence   in   favor   of   the  common   descent  of  humans  and  other  apes.  According  to  researcher  J.  W.  IJdo,  "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."                                                                                                                      119  Nature  (2005)  120  Chromosome  2  –  Human  :  Wikipedia  121    Human  Chromosome  2  is  a  fusion  of  two  ancestral  chromosomes  by  Alec  MacAndrew;  18  May                2006.          Evidence  of  Common  Ancestry:  Human  Chromosome  2  (video)  2007  122  Yunis  and  Prakash;  Prakash,  O  (1982).  "The  origin  of  man:  a  chromosomal  pictorial            legacy".  Science  215  (4539):  1525–1530          Human  and  Ape  Chromosomes;  accessed  8  September  2007  123  Avarello  et  all,  (1992).  “Evidence  of  an  ancestral  alphoid  domain  on  the  long  arm  of  human          chromosome  2,  Human  Genetics  
  • 75. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   75  3.1.5   Endogenous  Retro  Virus  –  Evidence  for  Common  Descent124    Endogenous   retroviruses   provide   yet   another   example   of   molecular   sequence  evidence   for   universal   common   descent.   Endogenous   retroviruses   are   molecular  remnants   of   a   past   parasitic   viral   infection.   What   makes   retroviruses   particularly  interesting   is   that   they   are   the   only   viruses   that   have   the   ability   to   splice   foreign  genetic  elements  into  the  host  cell.    A  retro  virus  stores  its  genetic  information  in  RNA  and  not  in  DNA.  Upon  infecting  a  cell   they   convert   their   RNA   genome   into   a   DNA   through   a   process   called   reverse  transcription.  That  DNA  then  inserts  randomly  into  one  of  the  host’s  chromosomes  and   if   the   virus   happens   to   infect   one   of   the   germ   cells   (cells   that   make   egg   or  sperm),   then   the   viral   DNA   will   be   passed   on   to   the   next   generation   and   all  subsequent  generations.    Occasionally,   copies   of   a   retrovirus   genome   are   found   in   its   hosts   genome,   and  these   retroviral   gene   copies   are   called   endogenous   retroviral   sequences.  Retroviruses  (like  the  AIDS  virus  or  HTLV1,  which  causes  a  form  of  leukemia)  make  a  DNA  copy  of  their  own  viral  genome  and  insert  it  into  their  hosts  genome.  If  this  happens  to  a  germ  line  cell  (i.e.  the  sperm  or  egg  cells)  the  retroviral  DNA  will  be  inherited  by  descendants  of  the  host.  Again,  this  process  is  rare  and  fairly  random,  so  finding   retrogenes   in   identical   chromosomal   positions   of   two   different   species  indicates  common  ancestry.                                                                                                                      124  Endogenous  Retro  Virus  –  Talk  Origins  
  • 76. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    76  3.1.6   Molecular  Clocks:  Protein  Evolution125    Proteins  are  molecular  clocks,  and  different  proteins  evolve  at  different  rates.  The  longer  two  species  have  been  evolving  separately,  the  more  amino  acid  differences  accumulate  in  the  their  proteins.  Amino  acid  changes  reflect  mutations  in  the  genes.  The  basic  mutation  rate  is  probably  similar  for  all  genes,  but  natural  selection  filters  out  those  mutations  that  impair  a  protein’s  function.      In  the  course  of  more  than  a  billion  years  of  evolutionary  time,  let  us  look  at  four  proteins  that  have  changed  at  vary  different  rates.  Histone  structure  is  so  rigidly  defined  for  its  DNA-­‐binding  function  that  in  one  billion  years  since  plants  and  animals  separated,  only  one  amino  acid  difference  exists  between  a  pea  and  a  cow.  On  the  other  hand,  Fibrinopeptides  can  take  almost  any  amino  acid  change  and  still  carry  out  their  function  in  blood  clotting,  and  therefore  have  a  fast  rate  of  change.  The  hourglasses  represent  time,  and  the  sand  grains  represent  each  proteins  amino  acids.  The  "clocks"  in  the  upper  right  were  set  at  zero  90  million  years  ago,  when  the  fossil  record  suggests  that  the  major  orders  of  placental  mammals  diverged  from  each  other,  as  represented  here  by  the  horse  and  the  human.  Notice  that  in  the  enlarged  histone  hourglass,  none  of  the  sand  grains  have  dropped,  showing  that  in  the  past  90  million  years  no  amino  acid  substitutions  have  occurred  in  the  histones  of  human  and  horse.  Histones  interact  with  DNA  in  the  chromosomes,  providing  structural  support  and  regulating  DNA  activities  such  as  replication  and  RNA  synthesis.  Their  ability  to  bind  to  DNA  depends  upon  a  particular  structure  and  shape.  Virtually  all  mutations  impair  histones  function,  so  almost  none  get  through  the  filter  of  natural  selection.  The  103  amino  acids  in  this  protein  are  identical  for  nearly  all  plants  and  animals                                                                                                                      125  PBS  –  Protein  Evolution    ©2001  WGBH  Educational  Foundation  and  Clear  Blue  Sky  Productions,  Inc.  All  rights  reserved.  
  • 77. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   77  The  beta  chain  of  hemoglobin  has  146  amino  acids;  26  of  them  differ  in  horse  and  human,  which  is  about  18%.  Hemoglobin  transports  oxygen  in  the  red  blood  cells  from  the  lungs  to  other  tissues  throughout  the  body  and  so  allows  an  efficient  way  to  use  energy.  The  exact  sequence  of  amino  acids  is  not  so  important  in  the  hemoglobin  molecule  as  long  as  it  can  bind  and  release  oxygen.  Because  the  amino  acid  substitutions  do  not  interfere  with  the  proteins  function,  natural  selection  allows  more  changes  in  hemoglobin  than  in  the  previous  two  protein  molecules.  Fibrinopeptides  are  segments  of  the  fibrinogen  molecule  and  have  about  20  amino  acids.  Human  and  horse  amino  acids  differ  in  this  protein  by  86%.  Fibrinopeptides  are  important  in  blood  clotting.  The  segments  simply  act  as  spacers,  keeping  active  sites  of  fibrinogen  apart.  When  bleeding  occurs,  the  Fibrinopeptides  are  cut  out  and  discarded,  leaving  the  sticky  surfaces  free  to  engage  in  forming  clots.  The  actual  sequence  of  amino  acids  is  unimportant  for  this  spacer  function;  so  many  amino  acid  substitutions  have  been  tolerated.  Each  protein,  with  its  characteristic  rate  of  change,  pinpoints  the  timing  of  events  in  different  evolutionary  time  frames.  Histones  time  once-­‐in-­‐a-­‐billion  year  events.  Fibrinopeptides  change  rapidly,  averaging  one  mutation  per  million  years.  Changes  within  the  past  five  million  years  between  closely  related  species  can  be  timed  with  this  clock.  Biologist  Russell  Doolittles  Fibrinopeptides  sequences  in  1970  pointed  out  the  close  relationship  between  chimpanzees  and  humans,  prior  to  its  confirmation  in  the  1980s.            
  • 78. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    78  3.1.7   Cytochrome126  C    It   is   another   classical   example   to   show   biochemical   evidence   for   evolution.   The  primary   structure   of   cytochrome   c   consists   of   a   chain   of   about   100  amino   acids.  Many  higher  order  organisms  possess  a  chain  of  104  amino  acids.  The  cytochrome  c  molecule   has   been   extensively   studied   for   the   glimpse   it   gives   into   evolutionary  biology.  Both  chicken  and  turkeys  have  identical  sequence  homology  (amino  acid  for  amino   acid),   as   do  pigs,  cows  and  sheep.   Both  humans  and  chimpanzees  share   the  identical  molecule,  while  rhesus  monkeys  share  all  but  one  of  the  amino  acids:    Cytochrome   c   is   an   enzyme   necessary   for   the   oxidation   of   food,   the   cells   main  chemical   reaction   for   producing   energy.   Cytochrome   c   is   found   in   all   aerobic  (oxygen-­‐using)  cells,  from  yeast  to  multicellular  animals.  Its  vital  function  limits  the  changes  it  can  accept.  Following  chart  is  prepared  from  the  info  from  Richard  Dawkins  “River  out  of  Eden”  book.                                                                                                                          126  Cytochrome  C  –  Wikipedia    
  • 79. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   79  3.2   Interpreting  the  Fossil  Record  3.2.1   Paleontology    It  is  the  study  of  earlier  forms  of  life  present  in  the  fossil  record.    3.2.2   Paleoanthropology127    It’s  the  study  of  early  forms  of  humans  and  their  primate  ancestors.  Its  focus  is  documenting  and  understanding  human  biological  and  cultural  evolution.    3.2.3   Taphonomy128    It  is  the  study  of  decaying  of  organisms  (plants,  animals,  and  others)  over  a  period  of  time  and  how  they  become  fossilized.    Research  into  these  matters  shown  that  fossilization  is  a  rare  phenomenon,  in  order  for  a  fossil  to  form,  the  body  of  the  organism  must  not  be  eaten  or  destroyed  by  erosion  and  other  natural  forces.  Preservation  would  mostly  occur  if  the  organism  were  buried  quickly  and  deeply.  Organisms  with  soft  bodies  like  jelly  fish,  are  very  uncommon  fossils.  What  most  often  preserved  are  hard  body  parts,  such  as  dense  bones,  teeth  and  shells.  It  is  likely  that  the  vast  majority  of  fossils  will  never   be   found   before   they   are   destroyed   by   erosion.   Even   after   all   these   hardships,   the   large  collection   of   fossils   in   the   museums   of   all   over   the   world   is   quite   extra   ordinary,   it   is   the  demonstration  of  science  and  extra  ordinary  hard  work  by  the  paleontologists  and  fossil  hunters  over  the  past  200  years.    3.2.4   Doing  math  with  species  and  fossils      Its  been  estimated  that  the  current  living  species  is  around  30  million,  i.e.,  1%  of  total  (3  billion)  species  Earth  witnessed.  Assume  for  a  moment  that  all  the  fossils  are  intact  and  just  waiting  to  be  discovered.        Let  us  do  a  math  now.  This  is  for  the  creationists  who  hide  behind  math!       Formula  From  all  over  the  World  fossils  found  and  analyzed  per  day      fd  =  100  Fossils  found  and  analyzed  per  year   fy  =  fd  *  365  =  36,500  Take  1%  of  the  total  species  ever  lived  on  Earth  (1%  of  3  billion129)  s  =  30,000,000      Time  required  to  find  1%  of  fossils  based  on  36,500  fossils  per  year  tr  =  s  /  fy  tr  =  30  million  /  36,500  tr  =  821  years                                                                                                                          127  Paleoanthropology    128  Taphonomy  –  Wikipedia    129  Richard  Dawkins  –  River  out  of  Eden  
  • 80. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    80  3.3   Macro  Evolution  Evidence  3.3.1   Evaluating  the  Design  of  Giraffe130    The   complexity   and   intricacy   of   the   bodies   of   living   organisms   seems   like   the  epitome  of  art  and  science  coming  together  in  an  explosion  of  perfection.  But  that  appearance  is  deceiving,  and  it  has  given  rise  to  the  popular  but  erroneous  belief  that  such  delicacy  must  be  inevitable  result  of  design  and  foresight  on  the  part  of  some  Intelligent  Designer.    The  recurrent  (inferior)  laryngeal  nerve  (RLN)  is  a  branch  of  the  vagus  nerve  (tenth  cranial  nerve)  that  supplies  motor  function  and  sensation  to  the  larynx  (voice  box).  The  recurrent  (inferior)  laryngeal  nerve,  which  branches  off  the  Vagus  nerve  at  the  base  of  the  brain,  travels  down  the  neck,  around  the  arteries  of  the  heart  and  travels  back   up   the   neck   to   ennervate   the   larynx,   or   voice   box,   thereby   providing   motor  function.        This  path  is  suboptimal  even  for  humans,  but  for  giraffes  it  becomes  even  more  suboptimal.  Due  to  the  lengths  of  their  necks,  the  recurrent  laryngeal  nerve  may  be  up  to  4m  long  (13  ft.),  despite  its  optimal  route  being  a  distance  of  just  several  inches.    The  image  on  the  right  illustrates  this  clearly.  The  required  route  is  from  A  to  B.      This  is  a  clear  case,  which  shows  that  there  is  no  so-­‐called  “intelligent  designer”  because  the  pathway  of  this  nerve  is  completely  illogical  —  unless,  of  course,  you  accept  that  evolution  is  the  reason  for  this  nerve’s  convoluted  pathway  through  the  body.                                                                                                                    130  Richard  Dawkins  –  Showing  the  pathway  of  recurring  (inferior)  laryngeal  nerve  
  • 81. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   81  3.3.2   Evolution  of  Italian  Wall  Lizards131    In   1971,   ten   Italian   wall   lizards   (Podarcis   sicula)   were  introduced  to  the  island  of  Pod  Mrčaru  from  a  neighboring  island.  The  lizards  were  left  for  decades,  and  compared  to  the  colony  from  which  they  were  taken.  The  wall  lizards  on  Pod   Mrčaru,   having   passed   through   a   tiny   genetic  bottleneck,   were   found   to   have   thrived   and   adapted   to  their  new  island.  They  were  found  to  have  shifted  from  a  mainly  insectivorous  diet  to  one  heavy  in  vegetation.  This  diet  change  seems  to  have  driven  dramatic  changes  in  the  lizards.   The   head   of   the   Pod   Mrčaru   lizards   is   larger,   and  has  a  far  greater  bite  force.  These  are  key  adaptations  for  dealing   with   chewing   leaves.   The   most   exciting   sign   of  evolution  is  the  development  of  cecal  valves,  muscles  used  to  separate  portions  of  the  intestine.  These  serve  to  slow  the  passage  of  food  through  the  intestine  and  give  time  for  the  bacteria  in  the  gut  to  breakdown  the  plant  matter  for  absorption.   This   is   an   entirely   novel   development   in   the  Italian  wall  lizard,  and  a  major  adaptation.      3.3.3   Evolution  of  Whales:  From  Land  Animal  to  the  Giant  of  the  Ocean    The  nearest  ancestors  of  Earths  largest-­‐ever   animals   were   tiny   deer   like  creatures  that  jumped  into  rivers  to  flee  prehistoric   predators,   a   new   study  suggests.   These   semiaquatic,   raccoon-­‐size   mammals   dubbed  Indohyus  lived   in  southern  Asia  some  48  million  years  ago.  In  order  to  understand  the  biology  of  the  archaeocetes,   it   is   important   to   first  consider  what  sort  of  terrestrial  animals  cetaceans   originally   evolved   from.   For   a  long   time,   palaeontologists   speculated  that  whales  were  in  fact  close  relatives  of  mesonychians,   an   extinct   group   of  hoofed   carnivores   that   indeed   included  the   largest   terrestrial   carnivore  (Andrewsarchus)   ever.   They   based   this  assumption   on   the   rather   limited   fossil  material   they   had   of   both   the  mesonychians  and  early  whales.                                                                                                                    131  Wikipedia  –  Italian  Wall  Lizards  
  • 82. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    82  But   in   1994,   Dan   Graur   and   Desmond   Higgins,   two   scientists   working   on   cetacean   gene  sequences  dropped  a  bombshell.  Reviving  a  claim  that  had  been  made  as  early  as  the  1950s,  they  suggested  that  whales  were  in  fact  most  closely  related  to  modern  artiodctyls.  Although  further   molecular   studies   supported   their   results,   many   scientist   were   rather   reluctant   to  accept   this   novel   claim   and   a   lively   dispute   as   to   whether   or   not   mesonychians   should  continued  to  be  viewed  as  the  ancestors  of  whales  kept  many  cetologists  busy.  But  in  2001,  a  crucial  bit  of  evidence  came  to  light  that  ended  the  discussion.  One  of  the  most  diagnostic  features   found   in   the   skeleton   of   artiodactyles   is   the   shape   of   the  astragalus,   which  somewhat   resembles   that   of   a   double-­‐pulley.   Exactely   this   type   of   bone,   which   has   never  been  found  associated  with  mesonychian  remains,  was  found  to  be  part  of  two  archaeocete  skeletons.   With   both   molecular   and   morphological   evidence   now   supporting   a   cetacean-­‐artiodactyl   relationship,   the   traditional   order   Cetacea   was   merged   with   Artiodactyla,   thus  forming  the  now  widely  accepted  order  Cetartiodactyla.      Read  more  on  Whale  Evolution  from  Bristol  University,  UK…    Following  data  from  www.transitionalfossils.com      Indohyus  ~48  million  years  ago  Although  only  a  cousin  species  of  the  ancestor  of  whales,  Indohyus  had  bones  denser  than  normal  mammals,  indicating  it  was  partially  aquatic:  heavy  bones  are  good  ballast  (Thewissen  et  al,  2009).  Its  ears  shared  a  feature  with  modern  whales:  a  thickened  wall  of  bone  which  assists  in  underwater  hearing;  non-­‐cetaceans  dont  have  this  (Thewissen  et  al,  2009).  Pakicetus  ~52  mya  Perhaps  the  actual  ancestor,  Pakicetus  was  probably  semi-­‐aquatic;  like  Indohyus,  it  had  dense  bones  for  ballast  (Thewissen  et  al,  2009).  Its  body  was  "wolf-­‐like"  but  the  skull  had  eye  sockets  adapted  for  looking  upwards,  presumably  at  objects  floating  above  it  (Thewissen  et  al,  2009).  Although  initially  known  from  just  a  skull,  many  more  bones  were  found  later  (Thewissen  et  al,  2001).  Ambulocetus  ~50  mya  With  a  streamlined,  elongated  skull  and  reduced  limbs,  Ambulocetus  probably  spent  most  of  its  time  in  shallow  water.  Its  reduced  limbs  meant  it  could  only  waddle  on  land  (Coyne,  2009).  It  resembled  a  crocodile  in  some  ways.  Rodhocetus  ~45  mya  The  nostrils  of  Rodhocetus  have  started  to  move  backwards  (towards  the  blowhole  position)  and  the  skeleton  indicates  a  much  stronger  swimmer  (Coyne,  2009).  On  land  it  would  struggle,  moving  "somewhat  like  a  modern  eared  seal  or  sea  lion"  (Gingerich  et  al,  2001).  Its  teeth  were  simpler  than  its  predecessors  (Futuyma,  2005),  a  trend  that  continued  to  the  present.  Maiacetus  ~47  mya  Seems  similar  to  Rodhocetus.  One  fossil  was  found  with  what  appeared  to  be  a  foetus,  in  a  position  indicating  head-­‐first  birth  (Gingerich  et  al,  2009)  unlike  modern  whales.  However  this  is  disputed;  the  "foetus"  might  just  be  a  partially  digested  meal  (Thewissen  and  McLellan,  2009).  Basilosaurus  ~40  mya  
  • 83. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   83  The  whale-­‐like,  fully  aquatic  Basilosaurus  had  almost  lost  its  (tiny)  hindlimbs,  but  they  had  not  yet  vanished  entirely  (Prothero,  2007).  Dorudon  ~40  mya  Also  fully  aquatic,  Dorudon  also  had  tiny  hind  limbs,  which  "barely  projected  from  the  body"  (Futuyma,  2005).  Aetiocetus  ~25  mya  The  blowhole  in  Aetiocetus  is  about  halfway  to  its  position  in  modern  whales  on  top  of  the  head.  Aetiocetus  also  represents  the  transition  from  toothed  whales  to  the  filter-­‐feedingbaleen  whales,  being  similar  to  baleen  whales  in  most  respects,  but  possessing  teeth  (Van  Valen,  1968).    From  Land  to  Water:  the  Origin  of  Whales,  Dolphins,  and  Porpoises132    •    J.  G.  M.  Thewissen,  Northeastern  Ohio  Universities  College  of  Medicine,  USA  •    Lisa  Noelle  Cooper,  Northeastern  Ohio  Universities  College  of  Medicine,  USA  •    John  C.  George,  Department  of  Wildlife  Management,  AK,  USA  •    Sunil  Bajpai  IIT  Roorkee,  India    Whales  evolved  relatively  quickly.  As  Coyne  (2009)  explains,  "adapting  to  life  at  sea  did  not  require  the  evolution  of  any  brand-­‐new  features  -­‐  only  modifications  of  old  ones".  Thewissen  et  Cooper,  George  &  Bajpai  (2009)  give  a  good  overview  of  whale  evolution,  which  is  freely  available.    Articles on Whale Evolution1. Bristol University - Whale Evolution2. Berkeley University - Whale Evolution3. BBC News - Whale Evolution4. Discovery Science - Whale Time Line5. National Geographic - Whale Evolution6. Smithsonian - Whale Evolution7. PBS - Whale Evolution8. IIT Roorkee - Evolution of Whale - By Bajpai, Thewissen, Sahni9. Talk Origins - Whale Evolution10. BBC Prehistoric Life11. WHO Children mortality RateVideos on Whale Evolution1. Nature - Whale Evolution2. National Geographic - Whale Evolution                                                                                                                132  Springer  Link  –  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12052-­‐009-­‐0135-­‐2    
  • 84. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    84  Creationist Answers to Whale Evolution1. Creation Ministries - Refuting Evolution2. DarwinismRefuted.com - Myth of the Walking Whale      
  • 85. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   85  3.4   Transitional  Fossils    One   of   the   key   arguments   for   creationists   for   more   than   a   century   is   to   ask   the  question  –  “where  are  all  the  transitional  fossils  to  describe  common  descent?”  On  February  12th,  2009,  200th  birthday  of  Charles  Darwin,  National  Geographic133  asked  prominent  scientists  to  pick  up  critical  transitional  fossils.    Transitional  fossil  shows  an  in  between  species,  species  which  has  features  of  two  different  species.  For  example  if  fish  evolved  into  a  land  animal,  then  a  transitional  fossil  between  fish  and  land  animal  should  share  features  of  both  the  species.      Following  are  the  7  Key  fossils  presented  in  National  Geographic    Key  Transitional  Fossil   Significance  of  this  fossil  1. Tiktaalik   –   Found   in   Artic   Canada   in  2004,  375  million  years  old.  Tiktaalik   is   a   key   fossil   when   the   aquatic  ancestors   started   their   journey   towards   land.  This  is  the  key  link  for  Fish  to  Tetrapods  2. Archaepteryx   –   Found   in   Germany   in  1861,  150-­‐145  million  years  old.  Found   2   years   after   publication   of   Origin   of  Species,   this   species   shares   features   with   both  meat-­‐eating   dinosaurs,   in   the   wrist,   snout,   tail,  and   pelvis   and   birds,   such   as   asymmetrical,  vanned  feathers  and  very  long  feathered  wings.  3. Amphistium   –   Found   in   2008,   50  million  years  old.  The   fossils   flatfish   eyes   are   not   quite   on  opposite  sides  of  its  body  and  note  quite  in  their  modern  asymmetrical  arrangement.  4. Ambulocetus   –   Found   in   Pakistan   in  1992,  50  million  years  old.  This  fossil  shows  something  with  a  whale’s  head,  the   beginnings   of   an   aquatic   lifestyle   with  webbed   hands   and   feet,   but   still   fully  quadrupedal.  5. Homo   Ergaster   –   Found   in   1984   in  Kenya,  1.6  million  years  old  Fred  Spoor  of  University  College  London  said  that,  whereas  fossils  of  our  earliest  human  ancestors  "can  very  much  be  seen  as  apes  who  adopted  a  bipedal  gait,"  Turkana  Boy  "is  a  true  intermediate  between  modern  humans  and  other  primates."  6. Hyracotherium   /   Eohippus   –   Fox   like  horse   found   in   US   1867,   55   million  years  old.  There  was  no  hard  evidence  to  show  how  an  existing  animal  had  evolved  from  prehistoric  species—until  Hyracotherium,  kicked  off  a  series  of  fossil  discoveries  depicting  the  evolution  of  horses  over  55  million  years.  Paul  Sereno  of  the  University  of  Chicago  says  Hyracotherium/Eohippus  is  up  there  historically  with  Archaeopteryx.  The  paleontologist  named  Eoraptor—the  small  transitional  dinosaur  at  the  root  of  the  dinosaur  family  tree—with  Eohippusin  mind.  7. Thrinaxodon   –   Fossils   from   S.   Africa  and  Antarctica,  245  million  years  old.  A  perfect  intermediate  between  reptiles  and  mammals.  It  was  a  cat  size  burrower  that  had  scales  and  laid  eggs.  But  like  mammals,  it  had  whiskers,  warm  blood.                                                                                                                    133  National  Geographic  –  7  Missing  links  since  Darwin  
  • 86. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    86  3.4.1   Tiktaalik134:  Fish  to  Tetrapods  (Amphibians,  Reptiles,  Mammals)    Transition  Fossil  –  Tiktaalik  discovered  in  2004  in  Artic.      Following  extract  is  from  PBS  Nova135  web  site    Eusthenopteron  looked  and  behaved  a  lot  like  modern  fish,  but  hidden  within  its  fins  were  the  precursors  of  the  arm  and  leg  bones  of  four-­‐limbed  land  animals.  The  later  Tiktaalik  took  a  further  step  toward  terrestrial  life  with  early  wrist  and  finger  bones  that  allowed  the  animal  to  prop  itself  up  and  poke  its  head  from  the  water  of  the  shallow  swamps  it  favored.  Tiktaaliks  skeleton  indicates  that  it  probably  breathed  both  through  gills,  like  Eusthenopteron,  and  through  a  lung-­‐like  structure,  like  the  laterIchthyostega  and  modern  amphibians.  Ichthyostegas  even  stronger  limbs  probably  developed  so  that  it  could  maneuver  around  thick  vegetation  in  its  marshy  habitat  and  even  haul  itself  along  muddy  banks  when  necessary.    Image  not  to  the  scale                                                                                                                          134  Tiktaalik  –  Wikipedia    135  PBS  Nova  -­‐  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-­‐nf.html    
  • 87. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   87  3.4.2   Thrinaxodon136  :  Reptiles  to  Mammals    Following  extract  from  PBS  Nova137  web  site      Despite  its  distinctly  lizard-­‐like  appearance,  Dimetrodon  possessed  a  suite  of  traits  more  common  to  later  mammals  than  to  its  close  relatives,  the  true  reptiles.  Most  notably,  the  sail  protruding  from  Dimetrodons  back  allowed  the  animal  to  partially  regulate  its  body  temperature,  marking  what  could  have  been  a  major  point  in  the  transition  to  warm-­‐bloodedness.  The  later  Thrinaxodon  didnt  have  a  sail  but  was  probably  covered  in  fur  and  might  have  been  warm-­‐blooded  like  the  early  mammal  Morganucodon.  Another  documented  shift  toward  mammals  took  place  in  the  mouth:  Dimetrodon  had  differentiated  teeth  and  a  strong  bite,  although  it  gulped  its  prey  whole  like  true  reptiles  do  even  today.  Thrinaxodon  developed  a  stronger  lower  jaw  and  could  chew,  but  it  was  Morganucodon  that  sported  both  sharp  teeth  and  grinding  molars  like  we  have  today.    Image  not  to  the  scale                                                                                                                                136  Thrinaxodon  -­‐  Wikipedia    137  PBS  Nova  -­‐  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-­‐nf.html  
  • 88. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    88  3.4.3   Archaeopteryx138  :  Reptiles  To  Birds    Following  extract  from  PBS  Nova139  web  site    Few  topics  spark  as  much  controversy  among  paleontologists  as  the  transition  from  reptiles  to  birds.  Experts  dont  know  what  Archaeopteryxs  closest  dinosaur  ancestor  looked  like—fossils  havent  yet  been  found—but  they  think  it  might  have  looked  somewhat  like  Velociraptor  (hence  our  showing  it  here,  despite  its  much  later  age).  Archaeopteryx,  the  first  known  bird,  did  share  a  common  ancestor  with  Velociraptor  as  well  as  traits  this  ancestor  would  have  had:  sharp  claws  for  grasping  prey  and  long  hind  legs  and  a  stabilizing  tail  for  running,  for  example.  Yet  Archaeopteryx  also  had  feathers  indicative  of  early  flight,  although  the  orientation  of  its  shoulder  joint  and  its  lack  of  a  bony  breastbone  imply  the  animal  was  more  of  a  glider  than  many  modern  birds—it  couldnt  lift  its  wings  above  its  back  or  flap  them  for  extended  flight.  Archaeopteryxs  later  bird  relative,  Yanornis,  had  a  bone  structure  more  conducive  to  bird  flight  as  we  know  it  today.  It  could  flap  its  wings  and,  like  many  modern  birds,  it  had  a  short,  aerodynamic  tail.  Like  Archaeopteryx,  however,  Yanornis  did  retain  some  dinosaurian  features,  including  teeth.    Image  not  to  scale                                                                                                                              138  Archaeopteryx  –  Wikipedia    139  PBS  Nova  -­‐  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-­‐nf.html  
  • 89. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   89  3.4.4   Ambulocetus140  :  Land  Mammals  To  Ocean  Giant    Following  extract  from  PBS  Nova141  web  site      Pakicetus  may  have  looked  somewhat  like  a  dog  with  hoofs,  but  it  was  actually  an  early  cetacean—a  group  that  comprises  the  dolphins,  porpoises,  and  whales.  The  proof,  scientists  say,  lies  in  Pakicetuss  ears,  which  were  intermediate  between  those  of  terrestrial  and  fully  aquatic  mammals,  and  in  its  triangular,  whale-­‐like  teeth.  Pakicetus  and  its  relatives  were  possibly  fish-­‐eating  scavengers  that  ventured  into  the  water  to  find  live  prey.  Although  the  later  Ambulocetus  had  tiny  hoofs  on  its  hind  legs  and  could  probably  walk,  its  toes  were  webbed  like  those  of  modern  mammals  adapted  for  swimming.  Its  fossilized  bones  suggest  that  Ambulocetus  undulated  its  spine  vertically  in  the  water  like  the  still  later  Basilosaurus  (as  well  as  modern  otters  and  whales)  and  not  side-­‐to-­‐side  like  fish.  Although  Basilosaurus  had  tiny,  weak  hind  "legs"  left  over  from  its  evolutionary  past,  the  animal  was  probably  fully  aquatic.  Its  sturdy  front  flippers  were  particularly  adapted  for  the  water,  though  they  still  had  an  arm-­‐like  bone  structure  as  in  those  of  modern  cetaceans.       Image  not  to  the  scale                                                                                                                          140  Ambulocetus  –  Wikipedia    141  PBS  Nova  -­‐  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-­‐nf.html  
  • 90. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    90  3.4.5   Quadrupedal  Primates  to  Bipedal  Primates    The  most  hotly  debated  and  controversial  subject  for  creationist  is  to  accept  that  Humans   are   evolved   from   Ape.   That’s   completely   against   the   belief   of   Abrahamic  religions,  which  says  that  Humans  are  created  in  the  image  of  God.  The  fact  remains  there  were  atleast  half  a  dozen  human  species  lived  in  this  planet  and  there  was  a  time  atleast  2-­‐3  human  species  lived  together.  When  I  say  human  species,  I  mean  species  like  Homo  sapiens  with  following  features    1. Had  a  spoken  language  2. Engaged  in  Cave  arts  and  sports  3. Cooked  their  food  4. Buried  the  dead  body  of  fellow  humans    Now  its  time  we  need  to  look  at  the  different  groups  of  Humans.  Following  images  from  Smithsonian  Museum:        This  is  the  latest  finding  based  on  the  fossil  evidence.  The  above  fossils  clearly  show  that   we   (Homo   Sapiens)   were   not   the   only   intelligent   species   on   this   planet.  Unfortunately  due  to  various  circumstances  rest  of  the  intelligent  species  got  wiped  out.  One  theory  says  we  might  be  the  reason  for  wiping  out  Neanderthal’s.      Let  us  first  take  a  look  at  the  first  group  that’s  the  Homo  Group  and  figure  out  different  species  in  that.          
  • 91. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   91  Following  image  zooms  in  to  the  Homo  Group  first.      Homo  Group    Paranthropus  Group    Astralopithacus  Group    Ardipithecus  Group        Following  extract  from  PBS  Nova142  web  site    The  early  ape  Dryopithecus  was  probably  a  common  ancestor  to  humans  and  the  other  great  apes.  Although  Dryopithecus  lived  mainly  in  trees,  fossil  evidence  shows  that  the  animal  walked  on  all  fours  whenever  it  descended  to                                                                                                                  142  PBS  Nova  -­‐  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-­‐nf.html  
  • 92. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    92  the  forest  floor.  In  fact,  humans  more  recent  ancestor,  Australopithecus  afarensis,  retained  some  remnants  from  its  quadrupedal  past,  such  as  hind  toes  suited  for  climbing  and  a  wrist  joint  indicating  it  sometimes  knuckle-­‐walked.  But  Australopithecus  probably  stood  upright  most  of  the  time:  Its  femur  was  shaped  similarly  to  that  of  the  later  Homo  erectus  and  could  bear  the  stress  of  habitual  upright  movement.  Both  protohumans  femurs  were  also  angled  inward  to  an  almost  knock-­‐kneed  position.  This  helped  Australopithecus  and  H.  erectus  maintain  their  balance  on  two  legs,  just  like  we  do  today.                
  • 93. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   93  3.5   Final  nail  in  the  coffin  of  the  creationists  3.5.1   Three  stages  of  Evolutionary  Biology    1. Charles  Darwin  –  Natural  Selection  2. Modern  Synthesis    3. Evo  Devo  –  Evolutionary  Developmental  Biology    Most  of  the  time  creationist’s  arguments  revolve  around  missing  fossils.  This  is  an  irrational   argument   as   every   new   fossil   discovered   is   enhancing   the   evidence  supporting  Evolution,  because  no  fossil  till  to  date  went  against  the  Geological  time  line.    If  Evolution  is  wrong  it’s  much  easy  to  find  fossils  all  over  the  geological  time  line  without  any  logic  or  common  sense.      Another  misconception  by  creationists  is  that,  a  new  scientific  theory  eliminates  old  scientific   theory.   The   best   examples   of   these   are   misinterpretation   of   Stephen  Gould’s   Punctuated   Equilibrium   and   Genetic   Science.   Natural   selection   is   a   very  critical  part  on  both  theories.            
  • 94. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    94  3.5.2   Creationists  buried  for  ever    The  most  exciting  thing  about  evolution  is  the  synchronization  of  the  data  between  completely  three  different  domains  as  follows:    1. Earth’s  Geological  Time  Line  (4.5  years  of  History)  2. Fossil  records  starting  from  3.5  billions  years  to  current  3. Molecular  clocks  (Evolution  of  proteins)    When  you  combine  the  above  three  data  sets  together  it  clearly  shows  the  pattern  on  gradual  evolution  (in  geological  time  frame).  Consider  the  following  table  on  fossil  record.    Type   Bacteria143   Jelly  Fish144   Fish145   Amphibians146   Reptiles147   Mammals148  24  hour  Time  Scale     8:48  pm   9:00  pm   10:00  pm   10:45  pm   11:40  pm  Fossil  Record   3.4  bya   530+  mya   530  mya   397149  mya   340  mya   195  mya            Now  compare  this  with  Geological  time  line  and  the  Molecular  clocks.  The  case  is  closed.                                                                                                                    143  Discovery  Channel:  Oldest  fossil  of  bacteria,  living  3.4  billion  years  were  found  in  Australia  144  National  Geographic:  Oldest  Jelly  Fish  fossil  record,  half  a  billion  years    145  BBC  News:  Oldest  fish  fossil  record  530  million  years  ago  146  Berkeley  University:  Oldest  Amphibian  fossil  record  368  million  years  147  New  York  Times:    Oldest  Reptile  fossil  record  340  million  years  148  Harvard  University:  Oldest  Mammal  fossil  record  195  million  years  149  National  Geographic  –  Oldest  land  walker  tracks  found  Jan  6,  2010  
  • 95. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   95  4.   Conclusion  4.1   Summarizing  the  critical  mistakes  from  the  article    The   mistakes   by   Hussain   in   the   first   chapter   of   his   Evolution   and   Genetic   Science  series:    1. Not  describing  the  basic  concepts  of  Darwinism.  For  Hussain,  Darwinism  is  nothing  but  Natural  Selection  with  a  linear  gradual  selection.  He  doesn’t  talk  about  Common  Descent  and  Single  Origin  of  Life.  2. Hussain  quotes  lot  of  Scientists  (Evolutionist)  who  turned  as  Anti  Evolutionist  because  of  the  failure  of  Darwin’s  evolution  theory,  in  reality  it  turned  out  to  be  Hussain’s  failure  in  understanding  the  writings  of  those  scientists.  3. Hussain’s  lack  of  understanding  of  Punctuated  Equilibrium  Theory  proposed  by  Stephen  Gould,  Niles  Eldredge.  4. Hussain’s   lack   of   understanding   of   Neutral   Theory   of   Molecular   Evolution  proposed  by  Motoo  Kimura.  5. The   worst   part   is   twisting   the   theories   completely   out   of   context   and  incorrectly  to  support  Hussain’s  own  version  of  creationism!  6. There  is  something  even  more  worse  is,  Hussain’s  lack  of  understanding  of  Darwin’s  theory  itself.  Hussain  emphasize  that  Natural  Selection  is  a  linear  process,  where  Darwin  himself  stated  it’s  NOT  necessarily  a  linear  process.  7. As  per  Hussain,  Darwin’s  theory  is  only  Natural  Section,  however,  if  you  study  deeply  you  will  understand  that  “On  Origin  of  Species”  is  a  collection  of  very  profound  and  insightful  theories  to  understand  the  Evolution  of  the  Species.  8. These  conclusions  prove  that  Hussain  is  an  ardent  fan  of  creationism,  which  is  nothing   but   faith,   which   is   a   strong   belief   in   God   or   in   the   doctrines   of   a  religion,  based  on  spiritual  apprehension  rather  than  proof.    Evidence   provided   in   this   document   is   a   tip   of   the   iceberg150,  Hussain   will   have   a   hard   time   to   refute   all   these   evidence   from  micro  and  macro  world.  I  never  expected  someone  would  go  to  such  a  length  (misquoting  scientists,  twisting  the  new  theories)  to  prove  creationism!  Like  I  said  before,  you  don’t  need  to  prove  or  disprove  anything  to  hold  your  faith  (faith  in  God).      Creationist  feasts  like  a  cunning  wolf  when  there  is  a  controversy  on  any  scientific  evidence.  The  best  example  of  this  the  case  of  IDA151  fossil  (it  moved  under  Lemur  branch).  If  we  have  to  go  through  all  the  evidences  collected  in  the  last  150  years,  a  room  full  of  shelves  will   not   be   good   enough   to   keep   the   books   on   empirical   data  supporting  Evolution.                                                                                                                    150  R.  Dawkins  –  The  Ancestors  Tale,  The  blind  Watchmaker,  Selfish  Gene,  Climbing  Mount  Improbable            Sean  Caroll  –  The  making  of  the  Fittest,  Endless  Forms  Most  Beautiful  151    IDA  Fossil  –  Wikipedia              New  Scientist  –  Why  IDA  is  not  the  missing  link.  May,  2009            PLOS  –  Complete  Primate  skeleton,  Morphology  and  Paleobiology  (IDA)  
  • 96. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    96  4.2   Analyze  Creationism,  Intelligent  Design  and  Evolution  4.2.1   Analyzing  the  Micro  and  Macro  Evidence    1. The  recurrent  (inferior)  laryngeal  nerve  of  Giraffe  is  a  classic  case  of  terribly  bad   design.   Even   a   bad   human   engineer   will   not   think   about   such   a   bad  design.   There   is   another   similar   bad   design   in   the   male   anatomy   of   many  vertebrates.  2. The  fight  between  Humans  and  Malaria  is  a  classic  case  of  Natural  Selection.  It’s   a   case   at   the   molecular   level.   Hussain,   made   fun   of   the   imaginary  examples  of  Darwin’s  wolf  case  (which  talks  about  the  pressure  to  survive  will  leads  to  natural  selection  and  gets  better  in  surviving),  and  asserted  that  we  don’t  see  any  such  evidence  right  in  front  of  our  eyes.  The  case  of  survival  fight  between  Humans  and  Malaria  (for  the  last  100,000  years)  is  classic  case  of  Natural  Selection  and  arms  race  between  two  species.    3. Natural  selection  picks  up  the  mutation,  which  is  beneficial  for  the  current  crisis  the  species  is  facing.  Even  if  that  mutation  solves  the  current  crisis,  it  can  be  potentially  harmful  in  the  future.  Which  shows  that  Natural  Selection  doesn’t  do  long  term  planning  something  a  designer  keeps  in  mind  when  the  designer  designs  something.  The  classic  example  is  the  Sickle  Cell  mutation  to  combat  malaria  by  the  Humans.  However,  we  know  that  inheriting  sickle  cell  from  both  parents  is  fatal.  4. Transitional  fossils  and  Genetic  evidences  shows  spectacular  evidence  in  the  evolution  of  Whales,  which  is  an  astonishing  story  of  a  land  mammal  similar  to  a  wolf,  evolving  into  the  giant  of  the  ocean.  Of  course,  its  unbelievable,  truth  is  stranger  than  fiction.    4.2.2   Analyzing  Intelligent  Design    1. Fossil   records   shows   appearance   and   disappearance   of   species   especially  when   they   branch   of   into   a   new   species.   Applying   this   fossil   record   on  Intelligent  Design,  it  looks  like  the  designer  start  with  some  species  and  then  realized   that   it   cant   adapt   to   the   new   environment   (I   assume   even   the  environment   also   is   designed   by   the   Intelligent   Designer),   so   the   Designer  does  some  modifications  so  that  a  new  species  arise  while  the  less  adaptable  species  vanishes  (destroyed  by  the  designer).  This  is  something  like  a  trial  and  error  method  the  designer  is  doing  for  the  past  3  billion  years  in  the  history  of  planet  Earth.  In  software  industry,  a  designer  like  this  will  be  known  as  a  very  bad  programmer/designer.    2. The   fundamental   concept   of   Intelligent   Design   is,   some   things   are   so  beautiful   in   its   design   (which   means   we   don’t   understand   its   workings   or  origins),   has   to   be   designed.   Just   because   we   don’t   understand   something  now   doesn’t   mean   that   we   can   replace   that   with   a   much   more   complex  entity   (Designer).   How   will   you   ever   figure   out   the   internal   structure,  workings  of  a  designer?  Oh,  you  are  not  supposed  to  ask  such  questions.  3. By  applying  the  above  logic,  how  can  there  be  bad  designs?  The  best  example  is  the  case  of  the  recurrent  (inferior)  laryngeal  nerve  of  Giraffe.  That’s  one  of  the  worst  designs.  So,  does  it  mean  that  the  same  designer  created  such  a  
  • 97. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   97  worse  design  too?  Or  does  it  mean  there  were  two  designers?  One  creates  good  design  and  the  other  one  creates  bad  designs?  4. Intelligent   design   is   creationism   under   a   new   umbrella,   masquerading   as  Science.   Intelligent   design   proponents   pretend   to   be   sleeping   when   they  encounter  bad  design.  They  can  only  see  design,  which  looks  good  in  their  eyes  and  ignores  the  concept  that  they  are  replacing  something  complex  with  something  exponentially  complex  (Designer).  5. If   you   want   break   evolution   just   find   one   fossil,   which   will   destroy   the  evolutionary  time  line.  Just  one  that’s  all  it  required.  4.2.3   Analyzing  Creationism    1. Creationism   is   a   pure   religious   concept.   There   will   be   inaccuracies   in   the  description   of   creationism   in   various   religious   texts   because   none   of   these  are  authentic  scientific  analysis,  and  the  purpose  of  these  religious  texts  are  not  to  give  a  scientific  explanation  to  the  workings  of  the  nature.  2. Believing  in  these  texts  are  by  pure  faith  rather  than  questioning  such  faith.    3. Faith  is  strong  belief  in  God  or  in  the  doctrines  of  a  religion,  based  on  spiritual  apprehension  rather  than  proof.  4. Science   and   religion   simply   deal   with   different   realms.   Science   deals   with  natural  causes  for  natural  phenomena,  while  religion  deals  with  beliefs  that  are  beyond  the  natural  world,  that’s  why  in  religion  it’s  OK  to  invoke  Super  Natural  powers  to  solve  complex  issues.  In  science,  the  moment  you  invoke  Super  Natural  powers  then  its  NOT  science  anymore!  5. If   you   want   break   evolution   just   find   one   fossil,   which   will   destroy   the  evolutionary  time  line.  Just  one  that’s  all  it  required.    4.2.4   Questions  to  Creationists  and  Intelligent  Design  Proponents    1. How  do  you  explain  bad  design,  does  it  mean  there  is  a  bad  designer?  2. How  do  you  explain  Chromosome  2  or  ERV  in  Human  DNA?  3. How   do   you   explain   the   History   of   Earth   along   with   fossil   record   with   the  extinction  of  species?  4. How  do  you  explain  the  extinction  of  Dinosaurs  and  the  very  late  entry  of  Humans?  The  intelligent  Designer  did  that,  so  that  the  Designer  can  bring  in  Humans?  5. How  do  you  explain  3-­‐4  different  species  of  Intelligent  Humans  lived  at  the  same  time,  of  course  on  planet  Earth?  6. Do  you  expect  other  habitable  planets  (like  Earth)  in  this  Galaxy?  7. If  there  are  habitable  planets,  then  do  you  expect  intelligent  life  forms  on  those  planets?  8. If   there   are   intelligent   life   forms   on   those   planets,   do   you   expect   them   to  have  a  religion?  9. What’s  your  theory  on  how  Earth  formed  and  Origin  of  species  on  Earth?      
  • 98. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    98  If  you  have  only  ONE  answer  to  all  the  above  questions  is,  its  Gods  plan,  then  my  answer   to   you   is,   thank   you,   I   will   have   that   (Creationism   or   Intelligent   Design  concept)  in  a  religious  place  rather  than  in  a  classroom.  Classrooms  are  meant  ONLY  for  science  (even  an  arts  or  sports  student  need  to  learn  the  basic  math).      Else   If   your   answer   is   religion   is   not   suppose   to   answer   any   of   these   questions  because  it’s  beyond  human  comprehension  to  understand  the  purpose  of  God,  then  I  agree  that  as  long  as  it’s  in  the  realm  of  Faith  and  stays  there.      However,  when  you  masquerade  Intelligent  Design  as  a  Science  then,  people  with  curious  mind  will  like  to  know  how  the  nature  behave  in  a  certain  fashion  and  why  it  behaves  like  that  (I  am  not  asking  for  a  purpose,  because  that’s  a  human  construct).      So,  to  sum  it  up,  Science  has  a  job  to  do,  to  unravel  the  mysteries  of  the  nature  and  that’s  NOT  the  job  of  religion.    4.2.5   Some  more  interesting  questions  to  creationists  of  Abrahamic  faith.    If   you   take   all   the   holy   books   of   three   Abrahamic   religions   (Jews,   Christians   and  Muslims),  it  talks  about  a  great  flood  and  Noah’s  ark.  To  save  all  the  species,  God  asked  Noah  to  take  two  of  every  species  into  the  Ark.  The  problem  starts  when  you  do  literal  interpretation  of  the  text.  Here  are  some  interesting  questions  based  on  the  Flood,  Ark  and  Earth.    1. If  God  asked  Noah  to  take  two  of  every  species,  so  that  they  can  survive,  why  do  we  see  so  many  extinct  species  fossils  (99%  of  the  species  ever  lived  were  already  extinct)?  2. What   explanation   do   the   creationists   have   on   extinction   of   species?   Until  recent  time  they  never  accepted  the  concept  of  species  extinction.  3. According  to  both  Holy  Bible  and  Holy  Qur’an  the  Earth  is  created  in  6  days.  Is  this  right?    According  to  N  M  Hussain  Big  Bang  is  a  myth,  and  contribution  of  modern  science  is  nothing  but  dreaded  diseases  like  cancer.  Here  is  Human  population  chart  for  the  last   500,000   years.   Checkout   the   last   500   years   and   see   how   the   population  exploded  after  scientific  revolution.      
  • 99. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   99  5.   Explore  (Videos  and  Books)  5.1   Glossary    Adaptation    -­‐  A  genetically  controlled  trait  that  increases  an  individuals  fitness.  Alleles    -­‐  Variations  of  a  given  gene.  Balanced  Polymorphism    -­‐  A  situation  in  which  it  is  beneficial  for  a  population  to  maintain  two  different  alleles  creating  different  phenotypes  within  the  population.  DNA    -­‐  Abbreviation  for  deoxyribonucleic  acid,  the  genetic  material  of  most  organisms.  Fitness    -­‐  The  probability  that  an  individual  will  contribute  its  genes  to  the  next  generation  Gene  pools    -­‐  All  of  the  genes  of  all  of  the  individuals  in  a  population  make  up  a  gene  pool.  Genotype    -­‐  The  genetic  make-­‐up  of  an  individual.  Compare  with  phenotype.  Heterozygote  Advantage    -­‐  A  situation  in  which  a  single  disadvantageous  allele  is  not  selected  out  of  a  population,  because,  when  a  person  is  heterozygous  for  that  allele  (the  person  has  one  disadvantageous  allele  and  one  normal  allele),  the  person  gains  some  sort  of  local  advantage  by  having  the  disadvantageous  allele.  For  example,  the  allele  for  sickle-­‐cell  anemia  offers  resistance  to  malaria.  If  a  person  in  an  area  high  in  malaria  is  heterozygous  for  sickle-­‐cell  anemia,  the  resistance  they  gain  to  malaria  outweighs  the  disadvantage  of  having  heterozygous  sickle-­‐cell  anemia.  A  person  with  two  sickle-­‐cell  anemia  cells  in  such  a  region  is  will  not  have  a  greater  advantage,  even  if  they  are  completely  resistant  to  malaria.  Whats  the  use  of  being  resistant  to  malaria  if  youre  blood  cant  carry  oxygen?  Independent  assortment    -­‐  The  inheritance  of  different  genes  independently  of  each  other.  Lamarckism    -­‐  The  theory  of  evolution  stating  that  species  change  over  time  and  that  this  change  occurs  through  use  and  disuse  and  the  inheritance  of  acquired  traits.  Modern  synthesis    -­‐  Also  called  Neo-­‐Darwinism  and  the  synthetic  theory  of  evolution,  the  theory  of  evolution  that  combines  Darwinism  with  information  gained  from  modern  experimental  geneticists,  population  biologists,  mathematicians,  and  paleontologists.  Mitosis  –  It  is  a  process  of  nuclear  division  in  eukaryotic  cells  that  occurs  when  a  parent  cell  divides  to  produce  two  identical  daughter  cells  Natural  Selection    -­‐  The  theory  holding  that  competition  exists  within  species,  determining  which  species  live  to  have  offspring  and  pass  their  traits  on  to  those  offspring.  Phenotype    -­‐  The  traits  or  characteristics  an  individual  displays.  Compare  with  genotype.  Polygenic    -­‐  A  phenotype  that  is  controlled  by  more  than  one  gene  is  said  to  be  polygenic  Populations    -­‐  A  group  of  genetically  similar  individuals  that  live  in  the  same  area  and  usually  interbreed.  Recombination    -­‐  The  rearrangement  of  genes  on  a  chromosome  that  takes  place  during  sexual  reproduction.  Speciation    -­‐  The  creation  of  a  new  species.  
  • 100. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!    100  5.2   Videos  5.2.1   Evolution  and  Genetics    1. Howard  Hughes  Medical  Institute152:  2011  Holiday  Lectures  –  Bones,  Stones  and  Genes.  The  Origin  of  Modern  Humans  a. Lecture  1:  Human  Evolution  and  the  Nature  of  Science,  By  Tim  D.  White,  Ph.  D.  b. Lecture  2:  Genetics  of  Human  Origins  and  Adaptation,  By  Sarah  A.  Tishkoff,  Ph.  D.  c.  Lecture  3:  Stone  Tools  and  the  Evolution  of  Human  Behavior,  By  John  J.  Shea,  Ph.  D.  d. Lecture  4:  Hominid  Paleobiology,  By  Tim  D.  White,  Ph.  D.  2. Howard  Hughes  Medical  Institute153:  2006    a. Fossil,  Genes  and  Mousetraps,  By  Kenneth  Miller,  Ph.  D.  3. Howard  Hughes  Medical  Institute154:  2005  Holiday  Lectures  –  Evolution:  Constant  Change  and  Common  Threads  a. Lecture  1:  Endless  Forms  Most  Beautiful,  By  Sean  B.  Caroll,  Ph.  D.  b. Lecture  2:  Selection  in  Action,  By  David  M.  Kingsley,  Ph.  D.  c. Lecture  3:  Fossils,  Genes,  and  Embryos,  By  David  M.  Kingsley,  Ph.  D.  d. Lecture  4:  From  Butterflies  to  Humans,  By  Sean  B.  Caroll,  Ph.  D.      5.3   Websites  on  Evolution  5.3.1   Universities    1. Berkeley  University  –  Evolution  101,  Understanding  Evolution  2. Harvard  University  –  Evolutionary  Developmental  Biology  3. MIT  –  Evolution  of  the  Immune  System  4. University  of  Utah  –  Learn  Genetics    5. University  of  Utah  –  Variation,  Selection  and  Time  a. Recipe  for  Evolution:  Variation,  Selection  &  Time  b. Evolution  Starts  with  DNA  c. Evolution  in  Action  d. Change  over  Time  5.3.2   Web  Sites    1. PBS  Web  Site:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/    2. New  Scientist:  http://www.newscientist.com/topic/evolution  3. Trust  Sanger  Institute  –  Human  Genome  Project    4. Nature  –  Genetics:  http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic/genetics-­‐5    5. Nature  –  Evolutionary  Genetics:  http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic/evolutionary-­‐genetics-­‐13                                                                                                                    152  HHMI  -­‐  http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html    153  HHMI  -­‐  http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html  154  HHMI  -­‐  http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html  
  • 101. Evolution  and  Genetic  Science,  Critical  review  of  creationists  ranting!   101  5.4   Books  5.4.1   Cosmology  and  Quantum  Physics    1. A  Brief  History  of  Time,  Stephen  Hawking  2. The  Grand  Design,  Stephen  Hawking  3. The  Elegant  Universe,  Brian  Greene  4. The  Fabric  of  the  Cosmos,  Brian  Greene  5. The  4%  Universe,  Richard  Panek  6. The  Holographic  Universe,  Michael  Talbot  7. Parallel  Universe,  Michio  Kaku  8. Hyperspace,  Michio  Kaku  9. A  Universe  from  Nothing,  Laurence  M  Krauss  10. The  inflationary  universe,  Alan  Guth  11. The  Tao  of  Physics,  Fritjof  Capra  12. Massive,  The  hunt  for  God  Particle,  Ian  Sample  5.4.2   Evolution  and  Genetics    1. Endless  Forms  Most  Beautiful,  Sean  B  Caroll  2. The  making  of  the  Fittest,  Sean  B  Caroll  3. The  Greatest  show  on  Earth,  Richard  Dawkins  4. The  Blind  Watchmaker,  Richard  Dawkins  5. The  Selfish  Gene,  Richard  Dawkins  6. Climbing  Mount  Improbable,  Richard  Dawkins  7. The  Ancestors  Tale,  Richard  Dawkins  8. The  River  out  of  Eden,  Richard  Dawkins  9. On  Origin  of  Species,  Charles  Darwin  10. Acquiring  Genomes,  Lynn  Margulis  &  Dorion  Sagan  11. Genetics  and  the  Origin  of  the  Species,  Theodosius  Dobzhansky  12. Modern  Synthesis,  Julian  Huxley  13. Punctuated  Equilibria,  Stephen  Jay  Gould  14. Edge  of  Evolution,  Michael  Behe  15. Darwin’s  Black  Box,  Michael  Behe  5.4.3   Neuro  Science    1. The  phantoms  in  brain,  V  S  Ramachandran  2. Tell  a  Tale  Brain,  V  S  Ramachandran  3. Free  Will,  Sam  Harris  5.4.4   Others    1. The  God  Delusion,  Richard  Dawkins  2. The  Moral  Landscape,  Sam  Harris  3. Why  I  am  not  a  Christian?  Bertrand  Russell  4. Religion  and  Science,  Bertrand  Russell