• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
Donkeys, Horses, Mules
 
and Evolution
 
The Phenotypic Effects of Chromosome Variation
 
Sean D. Pitman M.D.
© August 2003
 
Last update: February 2008 
 
 
 
Table of Contents
 
•
Introduction
•
The Same Information in Different Places
•
Types of Chromosomal Alterations
o
Non- Disjunction
o
Robertsonian Fusion
o
Tandem Fusion
o
Translocations
o
Pericentric Inversions
o
Paracentric Inversions
o
Drastic Rearrangements
•
Discussion
•
The Key Differences Between Humans and Apes
Home
 
Introduction
 
Much is made of DNA or protein sequence analysis as a way of determiningevolutionary ancestry. Branchingphylogenetic treesare based on such sequenceanalysis and are used to suggest various evolutionary relationships between differentcreatures on the "Tree of Life." Even so called "pseudogenes" are often used to showsupposed evolutionary relationships. However, although sequence analysis isinteresting by itself and may in fact say a lot about common ancestry, such analysisdoes not necessarily favor the theory of common descent in many cases. Certaindifferences between the DNA sequences of various creatures can easily be explained
 
by the mindless naturalistic processes of random mutation and natural selection whileother differences cannot be so easily explained.Not all differences are created equal. Some differences are neutral while others arefunctional. In fact, most mutations are thought to be neutral with respect tosurvival/reproductive advantage. Natural selection is not required to achieve neutralgenetic variations. Because of this, neutral variations arise relatively rapidly. Functionalvariations, depending on the complexity of the functions in question, might take a lotlonger to evolve since there are a so many more non-functional, detrimental, or neutralsequences that could evolve when compared to the relatively few beneficial functionsavailable to a given creature in a particular environment. So, a simple statement thatchimps and humans are 94% to 98% identical as far as DNA is concerned is deceptivein that it says nothing about the type of differences involved (neutral or functional) or if such differences are statistically possible to achieve in the amount of time allotted.After presenting this argument, I am occasionally asked why I would lean towardclassifying horses and donkeys as the same "kind" or as having a common ancestor while at the same time classifying humans and chimps as different "kinds" not having acommon ancestor (thought by most scientists to have lived some 5 to 8 million yearsago)?This is not an easy question. While there may not be sufficient genetic evidenceyet to answer this question, an answer does appear to be on the horizon. Somedifferences are obvious. For example, gross chromosomal differences are easily noted.Humans and chimps differ not only in chromosome number, but also by nine pericentricchromosomal inversions and one centric fusion. We also know that both humans andchimps do have unique genetic sequences, but our knowledge has been rather limitedas far as exactly how the many differences affect the overall phenotypic function of thetwo species. Because of this limited knowledge, it has been very difficult to say whether or not such differences in genetic function can be achieved via random mutation andnatural selection given a few million years (since there certainly are limitsto the level of  functional complexity that can be achieved by such "evolutionary" processes). However,certain key functionally unique genetic differences are coming to light (see further discussion below).I am not a believer in design theory because of I have a problem with humanssharing a common ancestor with chimps. This possibility really does not bother me atall. What bothers me is that I know of various functions in different creatures that areseparated by largenon-beneficial gapsin function. These non-beneficial gaps cannotbe crossed except by completely random mutations. These random mutations arerandom because they cannot be guided by the forces of natural selection toward anyparticular genetic sequence over any other particular genetic sequence - be itbeneficially functional or not. Such random drift simply takes too long to produce thevarious independent functions that we do observe in living things. It is this problem thathas convinced me of the truth of design theory and of the implausibility of commondecent as an overriding explanation for the huge range in the form and function of livingthings that we see in the natural world. A selection mechanism that is phenotypicallybased cannot direct neutral or even detrimental genotypic changes toward a novelpotentially beneficial target or targets. This is my problem with the theory of evolution. Ido not have a problem with the idea of the common decent of anything, but I do have a
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
emmanuel72

Thank you for the document, greetings from MexCity

reply11 / 12 / 2008
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...