Earlier this year, a DNA study suggested that human and chimp ancestors may have interbred to create hybrids. In the above article, biologist Eric Lander said that “The genome analysis revealed big surprises, with major implications for human evolution.”

This lead me to ponder why we are not hearing of more DNA studies of species assumed to be closely related. It would seem to me that studying the DNA would be superior to saying that some aquatic animal’s fin looks like a mammalian leg if you squint really hard.

All right, that’s an exaggeration, but still, isn’t it true that studying the DNA would give us more definitive answers than categorizing according to more subjective factors, such as body structure? After all, although evolution (through natural selection) acts mostly on the phenotype, it is the DNA that records the changes, however they occurred. Thus, evolution is more or less the process of altering the DNA code. To use an analogy, using the body structure to map evolution is like examining food to find the ingredients instead of simply looking at the recipe card. Yes, you can probably find out a bit by examining it, but you can know for sure by reading the information directly.

So if we do compare DNA as a method of mapping evolution, what would we come up with? Let’s look at a factor, say, chromosome number. How has the chromosome number changed over the course of evolution? How can a lobster have more than 100 pairs of chromosomes, a fruitfly have 4 pairs, and humans have 23?

It is looking at the DNA, in my opinion, that will make or break evolution. We need to get past the other arguments and get to the source, the DNA.

With all the media attention on this subject lately, I thought I would comment on a few things that have come to mind.

First, the bill that Bush vetoed on would have expanded federal funding embryonic stem cell research. I’m sure to many people, it sounds like the issue was whether or not to allow embryonic stem cell research. However, that would be wrong.

Secondly, several news organizations have categorized the debate as “Science against Religion”. This statement is false. Believing that the unborn should be protected is no more religious than believing that two-year-olds should be protected. The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics has outlined the scientific argument against embryonic stem cell research here. [PDF]

Thirdly, let’s review the cures that have been discovered using embryonic stem cell research. None, and this despite the $3 billion California is spending on researching embryonic stem cells. Some people may say that this is because it’s “too soon” to expect cures. Yet, “adult stem cells and cord blood cells are already being used to safely and effectively treat more than 60 conditions”.

Welcome to the new site of Stand Up and Speak Out. My former site, www.standupandspeakout.blogspot.com, will remain as is for a few days. However, after that, I will then close the comments and direct visitors to this site.

Feedback is greatly appreciated!