Questions for creationists, and evidence for evolution via common descent:
[thanks to yellownumber5, IG forums, RRS member for below]
What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution?
Endogenous retroviruses are a great example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's 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.
There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance.
Kent Hovind was asked this when he called into IG.com - he had no answer.
What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?
The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.
In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.
Also, there are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.
All of this points to a common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.
Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.
Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.
The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.
What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized “missing links” now?
http://img388.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hominids2big9eq.jpgWe should expect related species to look similar.
What do you have to say about these observed speciation events?
Salamanders and Songbirds:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTLMore details on the salamanders, with additional links:
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htmLondon mosquitos:
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.htmlAnother article on Himalayan song birds:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stmSpeciation by reinforcement:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041123114452.htmLots of examples here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlMore examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.htmlSpeciation models:
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/21.Models.HTMLLinks on examples and models:
http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/freemanea2/chapter12/destinations1/deluxe-content.htmlMore on the London mosquitos:
http://www.astmh.org/newsltr/news10-98/scinotes.htmlRinged-speciation model and examples, plus links:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html#PrimerIn Drosophila (fruit flies) :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm-------
How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?
An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus?
You can see about 100 medically recorded instances of this phenomena here:
PubMed links:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=7430236And just so there is no misunderstanding, these are true tails, with vertebrae extending from the human tail bone as shown in this x-ray:
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4548/tail6yz.jpgWhat about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent?