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.

Because I am taking biology (I’ve already taken physics and chemistry) and the section I am doing now is all about Darwin’s theory of evolution, I have decided to have a discussion of evolution on my blog, in light of the recent Intelligent Design controversies. From 2nd grade to 8th grade, I went to a Baptist-run but non-denominational school, so our science books were unsupportive of evolution. But, now I am being officially taught about it for the first time.

Anyway, here is how I understand evolution-

• There is genetic diversity.
• Animals with certain genes do better in a certain environment than others do.
• Those animals that have the better suited genes survive (survival of the fittest.)
• When one species has multiple environments, it begins change in multiple, separate directions.
• Eventually, the different sections of the original species change so much that they can no longer interbreed, and are no longer a single species with each other.

While I believe that evolution is at least a possibility, I recognize that atheistic evolution is unreasonable. Something cannot come out of nothing unless someone puts it there.

Also, a fellow member of the Western Alliance (Bill Lama of palosverdesblog) has been posting on certain claims of evolution.

So, is there anyone willing to take it from here?