And, for your birthday I’m going to repost my epic (as in long) series on Darwin and the Voyage of the Beagle. And, to save electrons, each of the following (see above, because this is the blogosphere where everything is upside-down) will be a pointer to the original post. Enjoy!
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Happy birthday to Evolution Science!!
Dear Greg Laden’s Blog:
I really admire Charles Darwin. Despite his early training to become a Church Minister, he remained true to looking at the facts, doing some critical thinking (very rare these days). Although he waited 20 years due to his fear of how the Church would deal with his “Radical Truth” and be critical of his publication he finally was true to himself. He was a man with what I would call “Environmental Ethics”. The R.C. Church said the Sun went around the Earth, the Earth was made in 7 days, our Planet came into being 6000 years ago, we never could have evolved from apes the Church vanity would not permit this. The R.C. Church ignorant people like Galileo and put him under house arrest for going against Church propaganda. You mention that Richard D.(Dawkins I assume, and my Hero) says that Sarah Palin has crawled out of her self-imposed exile from the intelligent and rational World, and now endorses Evolution, or whatever her version is? Keep up the Blog as I love it. My unanswered question to these Fanatical Types is why is the Bible sold on an “All or none basis?) I have yet to get a convincing answer other than I need FAITH, or a Narrow Mind. Thank goodness thousands can no longer accept the “Hypocrisy” and have left. Being a Sexual Predator is fine but don’t ever use a Condom.
Rob Evans (Toronto,Canada, Feb. 13, 2011.
Actually, I’ve found that it is “all or none” until it becomes inconvenient then, suddenly, there’s “Jewish Law” vs. “God’s Law” or some other such garbage.
Bonjour,
Description : Mon Blog(fermaton.over-blog.com), présente le développement mathématique de la conscience humaine.
La Page:BEAGLE DE DARWIN !
LE THÃ?ORÃ?ME DU BEAGLE.
Cordialement
Clovis Simard
Genesis 2:21-22, â??And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. â??
The following are the extracts from the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution pertaining to the introduction of evolution.
The biodiversity of life evolves by means of mutations, genetic drift and natural selection. The process of natural selection is based on three conditions. First, all individuals are supplied with hereditary material in the form of genes that are received from their parents, then passed on to their offspring. Second, organisms tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support. Third, there are variations among offspring as a consequence of either the introduction of new genes via random changes called mutations or reshuffling of existing genes during sexual reproduction.[1][2][3]
From the above extracts, it is clear that biodiversity occurs as a result of the interaction of all the elements, such as, mutations, genetic drift and natural selection. In order for the process of natural selection to occur so as to achieve diversification through evolution, three conditions have to be fulfilled and these include inheriting genes from one generation to another; the multiplication of offspring; and the introduction of new genes via random changes or reshuffling of existing genes.
There are a number of queries have to be raised below pertaining to the phrase, all individualsâ?¦ hereditary material in the form of genes that areâ?¦from their parents then passed on to their offspring, that is extracted above, plays a part for the contribution to the ultimate evolution:
a) If all individual hereditary materials in the form of genes from their parents have to be passed on to their offspring, all their offspring should have some hereditary material in the form of genes that are identical to their common ancestor. Letâ??s assume that banana and bird have the same ancestor. As hereditary material in the form of genes would pass on from their ancestor to the ultimate evolution to banana and bird, there should have certain hereditary material in the form of genes that could be found common among banana and bird. As banana and bird are two different natures without any common genes among them, how could there be common ancestor for both banana and bird? The same is for any kind of plants and animals. As there is no common gene among plants and animals and not even animals, such as, between crocodiles and apes, how could there be any common ancestor among them?
b) If human beings were evolved from apes, which animal would be the one that caused apes to be evolved initially that had the identical genes that would have passed down to them? As none of the animals have the same genes as apes, how could apes be formed through evolution? As apes could not be formed through evolution, how could there be common ancestor between banana and apes as there is no trace between apes and other animals?
The following are the extracts from the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics under the sub-title of â??Origin of Apesâ??:
Biologists classify humans, along with only a few other species, as great apes (species in the family Hominidae). The Hominidae include two distinct species of chimpanzee (the bonobo, Pan paniscus, and the common chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes), two species of gorilla (the western gorilla, Gorilla gorilla, and the eastern gorilla, Gorilla graueri), and two species of orangutan (the Bornean orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus, and the Sumatran orangutan, Pongo abelii)â?¦
As mentioned in the extract above that biologists have found two distinct species of chimpanzee; the common chimpanzee; two species of gorilla; and two species of orangutan to have the same gene as human beings. However, there are a few queries that have to be raised pertaining to the reliability of these sources that have been gathered for the support of evolution:
a) As there are only a few apes have been found to have the same gene as human beings instead of all, would there be such a co-incidence in which only these few apes are so distinctive from other apes at the time of their creation to have the same gene as human beings? Or in other words, it would be that these few apes might have already been created initially to have the same gene as human beings co-incidentally and this was not the result of evolution that would have presumed by Charles Darwin. If these apes would have been created co-incidentally to have the same gene as human beings, it would be irrational to use these apes to prove that human beings would have been evolved from apes? Letâ??s give you an example for illustration. When you examine a stranger that declares to be your missing brother and find out that he has the same blood group of â??0â?? as you, would you simply conclude that this stranger must be your brother. Certainly you could not! This is due to that stranger might not be your brother. The reason that that stranger has the same blood group as you might be simply out of co-incidence. Thus, it might be a co-incidence to have these apes to be created initially to have the same gene as human beings. If it could be a co-incidence, it is irrational to use the reason that these apes that have the same gene as human beings to conclude that human beings were evolved from apes.
b) There would be a possibility that these few apes and human beings could be created distinctively from each other and there should not be any relationship among these few apes and human beings at the time of creation.
c) Charles Darwin might support that human beings were evolved from apes. However, his theory could not have full supported since one might argue why he should insist to choose apes instead of from other animals for evolution. Unless there has been an experiment that has done successfully that could convert the apes as listed above to human beings in the past, it is then rational to support that there is a proven science that human beings could be evolved from apes. To insist that human beings were evolved from apes and yet did not have eye-witness through experiment that human beings could be evolved from apes, the theory is somewhat not tested and simply out of his imagination.
As there could be many alternative reasons that could not come to the conclusion that human beings were evolved from apes and yet Charles Darwin was not the one that was born at the time of the birth of first human beings, to jump into the conclusion that human beings were evolved from apes without any eye-witness of the evolution but simply through comparing gene is a bit speculative.
If these selected few species of apes were evolved from the few chosen apes as mentioned above, i.e. two distinct species of chimpanzee and etc., a few queries have to be raised pertaining to other apes:
a)Why has it been that the rest of the apes could not have the capability in evolving to other human race except the limited groups of apes that have discovered by biologists that have the same gene as human beings?
b)What made the limited apes that have the same gene as human beings to be so distinctive that only these groups of apes could be evolved to human beings? Would there be any eye-witness or experiment to prove that these limited apes that have the same gene as human beings were those that could evolve to human beings? Was there somebody in the past had tested these limited apes that they could be evolved to human beings? If there were no experiment to be done to have the eye-witness that these apes could be evolved to human beings, the theory itself is rather speculative and not tested. Unless someone did test the evolution theory by changing the environment to could suit the apes in evolution and yet they had been successfully performed the test that these apes could transform into human beings, it is then rational to support Charles Darwinâ??s theory and mentions that they are really tested.
Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm under the sub-title of â??Evidence for Evolution â?? The Fossil Recordâ?? in which fossils have been used for the support of evolution. The following are the comments that fossils might not be a reliable source to support evolution:
a) Animals could have been created initially to be that some might have the combination of features for a few groups of animals instead of these should be the result of evolution. If that could be so, there should not be any reason for one to use an animalâ??s fossil that contains the features of a few groups of animals to conclude that the animal in the fossil could be the common ancestor for these few groups of animals.
b) Nobody in this world did have eye-witness that the animals in the fossils would be the one that would evolve to the creature that biologists suspect to evolve to. To jump into the conclusion that the fossil should be the ancestor of a certain group of animals is rather speculative.
Letâ??s elaborate further for the example as indicated in the website address as above. No doubts Archeopteryxâ??s teeth and its claws on its wings might cause biologists to feel that it could be the common ancestor of both reptile and bird. However, there could be a possibility that Archeopteryx might not be the common ancestor of reptile and bird due to these three animals might have been created initially to have these appearances instead of these were the result of evolution. As we were not born at the time of the creation of reptile and bird and did not observe how reptile and bird were formed, there could be a possibility that reptile and bird were formed not as a result of evolution from Archeopteryx. It could be the co-incidence that Archeopteryx was created initially which teeth and claws on its wings seem to look alike as reptile and bird respectively instead of there were the result of evolution.
c) Letâ??s assume that evolution could be established. Animal fossils might not be able to serve as evidence due to the lack of evidence where it would come from or where it would go to. The placing of the animal fossil among animals so as to determine the process of evolution is rather a little speculation.
Letâ??s use Archeopteryx to be the elaboration. There are many different arrangements could be suggested in placing the Archeopteryx among the animals to determine which animal could be the ancestor. Letâ??s suggest the number of possibilities in placing Archeopteryx between bird and reptile:
1) There could be a possibility to place Archeopteryx in the middle of reptile and bird for the proof that reptile would evolve to Acheopteryx and latter to bird.
2) There could be a possibility to place Archeopteryx to be after bird and before reptile just to show that bird could evolve to Acheopteryx and latter to the complete piece of reptile.
3) One might assume Acheopteryx to be the ancestor for bird and reptile so as to place Acheopteryx right before bird and reptile.
d) There could be a possibility that these three animals are not related since their features have existed ever since the creation instead of through evolution.
From the above example, it is obvious that the discovery of fossil does not provide a clear hint about the process of evolution.
Letâ??s assume that Acheopteryx should be the ancestor of both bird and reptile. There are a few query has to be raised why Acheopteryx should be placed to be the ancestor of both bird and reptile:
a) It is irrational to use the teeth of Acheopteryx to comment that it must be the predecessor right before reptile just because both animals have identical shape of teeth. This is due to there would be a possibility that Acheopteryx and reptile would have been created initially with the same outlook of teeth shape instead of it was due to the result of evolution. As there could be a possibility of the initial formation of the existence of teeth for both animals instead of evolution, it is irrational to use Acheopteryx to be the proof that it could be the predecessor right before reptile. The same concept could be applied between Acheopteryx and bird.
b) There are animals, such as, bats, sharks and etc., that could have the same teeth of Acheopteryx as well as wings. To mention that Acheopteryx could be the ancestor of bird and reptile instead of others is a bit speculation.
c)How could Acheopteryx be treated as the ancestor of reptiles despite its body did not look bulky and with four legs as reptiles have? Other than the teeth of Acheopteryx, there is no similarity between this animal and reptiles whether in terms of bodies shape or etc., to jump into the conclusion that Acheopteryx would be the ancestor of reptile is a bit speculation. There has been no eye-witness in the past or any experiment that would have performed to prove that Acheopteryx could evolve to reptile or vice versa. To jump into the conclusion that Acheopteryx would evolve to reptiles is rather subjective or even through wild imagination. This conclusion has been arrived without any eye-witness that Acheopteryx did evolve to reptile. Or in other words, evolution is a bit guessing game to link up various animals through fossil. The same that could a person comment that you must be his son if both of you are so odd that have six fingers per hand? Certainly not! The same has to be applied to Acheopteryx that we could not confirm that it should be the ancestor of reptiles by simply observing its teeth despite its body shape and legs differ from reptile.
From the above analyses, it seems to be that placing an animalâ??s fossil could be some kind of speculation so as to determine what role, i.e. whether it was an ancestor of an animal or not.
Some biologists might argue that the word, fittest, in biology does not imply that organism that wins some objective contest of toughness, but it simply means that it is best able to survive and reproduce under the conditions it finds itself living under. However, they fail to understand that sometimes there are external factors that are beyond the control of nature in which animals could be facing extinct despite the surrounding environment might be suitable for them to survive and reproduce. The factors that could seriously affect or destroy animalsâ?? lives and to cause natural selection not to be seemed be at work in nature are:
a)The sudden occurrence of natural disasters, such as, famine, Tsunami, Twister, earthquake, forests caught in fire due to extremely hot weather and etc., that could cause animals to be extinct despite animals might well be able to adapt to their surroundings for survivals.
b)Despite animals might have the capability to survive in their surrounding environment, they might be turned up to be extinct due to many hunters might kill them for the sake to use the part of their bodies, such as, skin, for trade or any other purpose.
Refer to the website address http://www.animalsgoingextinct.blogspot.com/ and you would discover many animals are going to be extinct due to natural disasters and some through the fault of human beings.
From the above explanations, it is clear that sometimes it is beyond the control of nature that animals might not be able to survive as a result of natural disasters and the fault of human beings despite they might well fit to survive in their surrounding environments.
Letâ??s assume that evolution could be true. As all animals and plants could be traced back to a common ancestor, the common ancestor must be one that has to be capable in asexual reproduction. The only living things that could be found to be asexual reproduction are archaea, bacteria, protists, algae and fungi. As all these living things are either micro-organisms or the selected plants instead of any other living things, it implies the common ancestor could be either micro-organism or the selected plants. There are a few queries have to be raised pertaining to the reliability of the source that has been used to support the evolution:
a)Biologists did successfully clone animals in the past and even to use the gene to improve the animals. However, what they clone, it just improves the living thing instead of modifying it into different kind of animals. If they would clone any animals, such as cow, they still produce cow at the end of the experiment without causing it to stream out into different kind of animal, such as giraffe or etc. Has there any experiment been performed in the past that could develop into a more complexity of animals, such as, from micro-organism to worm or fly or etc.? If none of the scientists have done the experiment successfully in converting micro-organism into a worm or fly or etc., other than merely a micro-organism, the evolutionary theory is simply a concept without being tested.
b)As the common ancestor could be micro-organism or a selected plant, it is simply without bone structure or could be one that could have either plant embryo or animal. As this common ancestor could be an algae or fungi or archaea or protists or etc., how could it be able to be developed into both plants and animals with complexity of bone structure? Did biologists perform the experiment successfully to convert any of these living things into a more complexity of animal, such as, worm or fly or etc.? Or else, the evolution theory is just a concept without being tested.
c)As this common ancestor could be either plant embryo or animal, how could it be able to stream out into plants as well as animals? Or in other words, how could this common ancestor be able to produce plant embryo as well as animal despite it was simply either micro-organism or plant? Did the biologists perform the experiment in the past successfully to cause micro-organism to be able to convert into both plants as well as animals with complexity of nature?
Refer to the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant under the sub-title of â??Evolutionâ??. A proposed phylogenetic tree of Plantae has been drawn. There are a few queries pertaining to the reliability of the evolution tree:
There is a great work done in joining plants from one to another to determine the process of evolution. However, a query has to be raised whether the tree of evolution has been drawn through fixing the plants that ought to be there due to by comparing of feature of plants instead of through testing and observing the nature that these could occur. Letâ??s give you an illustration: From the chart, it could come to the conclusion that Chlorophyta was the predecessor right before the plants, i.e.Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese and Trebouxiophyoese. Did any biologists see or did perform experiment that Ulvophyoese could transform into Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese as well as Trebouxiophyoese in the past? If they did not do the experiment and just fixed them into the evolution tree due to the feature and/or the nature of these plants, it implies that there was no eye-witness or experiment did in the past to prove that Ulvophyoese could be able to evolve to Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese and Trebouxiophyoese.
Some biologists might comment that evolution tree might be done through thousands and thousands of individual bits of dataâ??observations made in the real world, testable and repeatable by anyone who takes the time to look. Things like the shapes of bones and how they fit together, genetic sequences, behaviors, developmental sequences, shared features with fossil forms and so on. As they did not perform the test whether the plants or animals could be transformed in accordance to the evolution tree that has been drawn, there could be a possibility that the evolution could not be workable as what has been laid out in the evolution tree. Besides, the plants could have been created in the beginning with identical features and they were not the result of evolution.
Jaso AKA Jason Tannery–
Look, kiddo, you’ve made it obvious you don’t *want* to believe in evolution. So, okay, don’t. Put your money in the church collection plate, if you think that’ll get you into heaven.
But if you want to write about evolution, for Pete’s sake, learn something about it, first. Read what has been written by real scientists. Try:
“Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne
“The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins
“Your Inner Fish” by Neil Shubin
Or Google the Talkorigins web site.
Then, if you want to come back here and ask questions– one at a time– you might find out why educators think that the modern theory of evolution is the best-supported theory in the history of science, and that evolution is simply an established fact.
There are quite a number of sophisticated animals in this world could be able to perform asexual reproduction. Could there be any possibility that a common ancestor could be an animal instead of micro-organism or plant?
Letâ??s assume that this common ancestor could be a sophisticated animal since many of these animals in this world could perform asexual reproduction and these include bees, ants, wasps, scorpions, hammerhead, sharks and the Komodo Dragon. Despite these animals could perform asexual reproduction, it is irrational to assume that the common ancestor of all living things could be an animal for the following reasons:
i)It is irrational to assume that the common ancestor could start up with an animal. This is due to the so-called, animal (common ancestor), has to develop backward into micro-organism instead of evolving into a more complexity of living thing. As all living things have been assumed by evolutionists to have a common ancestor, this so-called, animal (common ancestor), would evolve into micro-organism, this certainly contradicts the teaching of evolution theory since this animal (common ancestor) has to be grown backward instead of evolving.
ii)If the common ancestor could be an animal, how could this animal be able to turn up to have its offspring to have plant embryo, animal as well as micro-organism? As it is irrational to have such a common ancestor as animal to reproduce offspring to have plant embryo as well as micro-organism, how could the common ancestor be a sophisticated animal?
iii)If the common ancestor could be a vertebrate animal, how could this animal be able to turn up to have its offspring to develop into invertebrate offspring and vice versa?
iv)According to the evolutionâ??s theory, living things should have been evolved from time to time. It is rational to assume that living things should be started up with micro-organism instead of from the complexity of animal. This is due to it would have started to evolve from the initial living thing to the ultimate complexity of creature.
Biologists have used atavisms and ERVs to support evolution theory.
Refer to the website addresses, http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/atavism-embryology-development-and-evolution-843, pertaining to the explanation of atavisms. The following are the extracts:
Humans do not have tails, but do we have â??what it takesâ? for a tail? Hens donâ??t have teeth, but they have the genes for it. With atavism, it is as if our genomes serve as archives of our evolutionary past.
The following are the possibilities that atavisms might not be the good source to support evolution:
1)The appearance of atavisms among living things in the past might not give the implication that certain animals could be evolved from another due to it might be the result of the poor condition of the genes or DNA or sperms or menses or etc., itself that would have led to the exceptional physical shortfalls or the excessive and extraordinary growth in the physical bodies by accident that have nothing to do with evolution.
Refer to the websites addresses below for abnormal growth of certain parts of their bodies among animals in the past: http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/showthread.php?t=6176, http://www.google.com.sg/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kashvet.org/oasis/wp- http://parkviewgallery.com/abnormal-animal-, picturescontent/uploads/2008/11/image099.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kashvet.org/oasis/pathological/bovine-fetal-mummification/&h=398&w=554&sz=65&tbnid=EDw-IFHW0vusMM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=126&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dabnormal%2Banimals%2Bpictures%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=abnormal+animals+pictures&docid=Dm0Lz2oFMRhfvM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AmN6TpyoH8jjrAePp8CsDw&ved=0CC0Q9QEwAw&dur=703.
From the above pictures of the websites address, could a person come to the conclusion that living things could have their ancestors with more than one head due to pigs and human beings, turtles and etc., could give birth to their offspring with more than a head? Could a person comment that his ancestor could be born with three legs by seeing the horse that has been born with three legs? Could a person mention that his ancestor could be born with eyes balls without eyes pupils just judging that there have been blind men or women that have been born without eyes pupils? Could a person comment that his ancestor could be born with six fingers per hand simply by judging that there are human beings that have been born with six fingers from time to time? Could a person comment that his ancestor, i.e. the animal, could be mentally retarded, by judging that some human beings are born to be so even though their parents are physically healthy? Thus, it is irrational to use the abnormal growth of living thing, such as, fingers, tail, extra bones, and etc., to arrive at a conclusion that this animal should be the ancestor of this or that for the support of evolution. This is due to atavisms might be occurred in accident or as a result of the poor condition as well as malfunction of gene or DNA or sperms or menses that might have led to abnormal growth or the weakness in genes that ultimately might have led to physical shortfalls or the excessive growth of flesh, bones and etc., that would seem to look alike as certain features of other ancestors.
2)Atavisms might also occur as a result of external factors that would influence the genes or DNAs or etc. to cause abnormal growth that would have led to animals with extraordinary feature that could not be found commonly among them, such as, tail from human beings in the past or skeleton that seems to be leg from whale or etc. This might not be able to serve as an evidence if this were merely the cause of flesh and bone that have grown abnormally due to certain bad physical condition of genes and DNA as a result of the influence of external factors, such as, the poor physical bodies of their parents that give rise to poor genes; or the illnesses of their parents that could cause the defect of genes or DNA to the ultimate formation of abnormal living things; or the direct attack and influence of bacteria that could ultimately cause the genes or DNA to be in defect; or etc. This ultimately would lead to animals to have given birth to offspring to have the co-incidence that have the feature that could not be found commonly among their kind of animals instead, from others.
Refer to the website address, http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=3914, pertaining to the evidence that ERVs could be used as an evidence to support evolution theory. The following are the reasons that ERVs might not be suitable to be used as an evidence to support evolution theory:
1)There could be a possibility that a living thing would have been created initially to have the identical feature or ERVs or genes or DNA or pattern or anatomy or genomes or etc., as others co-incidentally instead of by means of evolution. If that could be so during the creation, it is irrational to arrive at the conclusion that this animal could be the ancestor of the others by means of comparing the similarities of genes or DNA; or the similarities of loci in the genomes; or etc.
2)As there are only a few animals in the fossils, such as, dinosaurs fossils, could be dug out by archeologists and yet the population of the animals that are in the fossils in the past should be more than hundred or million especially at the place where the fossils have been dug out, there places a possibility about the missing fossils in which many animals, such as, dinosaurs, would have their bones and skulls to turn into dust and vanished in the ground. If that could be so, the arrangement of animals in the timeline of homo sapiens would be in question. For instance, how could we know that human beings were once alive prior to 15 Ma? Biologists have placed human beings after the apesâ?? period was due to they could not locate any human skulls prior to 15 Ma. What if human beings did exist prior to 15 Ma and yet their bones and skulls would have been vanished under the ground and this would have resulted that no evidence could prove the existence of human beings prior to 15 Ma. This certainly would turn the timeline upside down that biologists might suggest that human beings would evolve to apes. Thus, the possibility of missing fossils has placed the reliability of timeline of homo sapiens into question.
3)Biologists did not perform experiment to ensure that human beings could be evolved from animals. Besides, nobody in this world did have eye-witness that animals could evolve from one to another. Thus, their theory simply is not tested. This places the reliability of evolution theory to be in question.
4)The irregularity of probabilities of genes as well as DNA in the website address, http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof83.htm, pertaining to DNA sequence in the genome of other organisms has placed the reliability of evolution theory into question.
The probabilities of human gene sequence that codes for protein are extracted from the website address above as follows: Chimpanzee (100%); Dog (99%); Mouse (99%); Chicken (75%); Fruitfly (60%); and Roundworm (35%). From the list of the probabilities of the human gene sequence that codes for protein, it is obvious that there is an irregularity of human gene among these animals. The probability for roundworm (35%) is lesser than fruitfly (60%) despite the size of the roundworm might be comparatively bigger than the fruitfly. Not only that, mouse should be smaller in size than chicken and yet its probability could be far as high as 99%. In comparison of the capability to adapt the environment or in terms of size, dog could be no much better than chimpanzee and yet the probability of the dog could be as high as 99%. As there is an irregularity of probability of human gene sequence that codes for protein among the animals above, it places the query about the reliability of evolution theory into question. This is due to it is rational to think that the smallest animals could have the lowest probability of human genes than the biggest as a result of evolution. The initial common ancestor might well be small in size. As and when the animals keep on evolving, the creatures would turn up to be bigger in size in each evolution with the improvement in the development of gene. As the probabilities of human gene sequence that codes for protein show irregular genes among animals, it does not seem to provide a clue that existing animals would have been formed from evolution. Why should there be an irregularity of human gene that codes for protein among animals?
The probabilities of human random DNA segment between genes could not code for proteins among different animals are listed below: Chimpanzee (98%); Dog (52%); Mouse (40%); Chicken (4%); Fruitfly (-0%); and Roundworm (-0%). Again, despite the mouse is smaller in size as compared to chicken, yet the probability of human DNA that could be located in mouse is much higher than it. The dog is slightly bigger in size as compared to chicken and yet the probability of human DNA could be as high as 52%. Thus, the probabilities of human random DNA segment between genes among animals are irregular. As there are irregularities of probability of DNA among the animals, it is hard to use these variations to conclude animals would have been evolved from time to time.
Some biologists might comment that the adverse evolution from complexity of animals to simplicity was merely the result of genetic deletion. The following are the website addresses for the proof that biologists did perform successfully in causing the change of feature of animals through genetic deletion or insertion or duplication or even amplification:
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_65878.asp, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/269/5221/230.short,
http://physiolgenomics.physiology.org/content/37/3/249.full, http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/17460913.2.3.309?journalCode=fmb, http://sommeil.univ-lyon1.fr/articles/valatx/jsr_99/print.php
Despite genetic deletion or insertion or amplification or etc. has been performed successfully upon mice or even bacteria, they could only alter the feature of the living thing, such as, changing its characteristics or behaviour or etc. However, they could not transform that living thing, such as, bacteria, into another type, such as, bee or etc. Or in other words, when a genetic deletion or insertion or etc. would be performed on a specific animal, such as, mice, the end result still remains as that animal, i.e. mice, instead of creating a new creature. As they could not transform the more complexity of animals into simplicity through genetic deletion or vice versa, it is irrational to use genetic deletion or insertion or amplification or etc. to support that animals could be evolved from one to another through one of these methods since biologists could only change the feature of animals instead of creating new creatures through these experiments.