What evidence is there to genetically link any mdoern species with a prehistoric species?

Question

I read an article recently in the National Geographich that explained why Darwin got it right. I also read Richard Dawkins' "River Out Of Eden". Although I believe in creation, I tried to read these as objectively as possible. It seemed to me that they did not present a successful case. Although each presented a specific argument within the overall case that seemed persuasive, it was on a scientific matter that I only understood a little. These specific points did make me stop and think, though. Unfortunately, I can't actually remember what they were. Many of the arguments presented in each document could be successfully countered. If Evolution is true, why is the evidence not of such a high quality? I think evolutionist have generally not presented their case very well, but what do you think?

Answer 1

First, kudos to you for being so open minded.

I haven't read the Nat'l Geo article yet ... but I have it, and am anxious to read it. Say what you will, the photos are breathtaking (but that's nothing new with Nat'l Geo). And I have read several Dawkins books, but not that one.

But without hearing your specific counter-arguments, I don't know how to address them, or why you find the evidence to be "not of such high quality." The evidence is actually *exceedingly* strong ... and most scientists accept it.

I highly recommend two books in the "Beginners" series. Specifically, "DNA for Beginners" and "Darwin for Beginners". Don't be fooled by the cartoon format of these books ... they are excellent introductions to the science.

But if I can try and guess your point ... if the evidence of genetic linkage with *prehistoric* species is not of "high quality", it's because the DNA molecule (the source of all genetic material for all life on this planet) breaks down rather quickly. Even a few hundred years is enough to start breaking down the DNA in the remains of animals. And fossils rarely contain any genetic material. However, this is not always true. Occasionally, bone tissue can remain in fossils, and some DNA can be extracted (as we have done with Neanderthal, for example). But overall, recovering genetic material from prehistoric animals is difficult.

However, the genetic links can be reconstructed quite well by examining genetic similarities between living descendants of that prehistoric species. If living species A, B, and C all have specific genes in common (code for the same protein, same location in the chromosomes, almost identical amino-acid structure), then this tells us that their common ancestor X had these genes. If there is a fouth species D that has some, but not all the genes shared by A, B, and C ... then this indicates that there is a common ancestor Y that is further back that is the ancestor of all four living species.

Futhermore, there is the concept of the 'molecular clock'. This is the known rate at which transcription errors (basically 'typos') occur in DNA as it gets passed from generation to generation. So the number of minor 'typos' found in the DNA of A, B, and C gives us a strong indication of how long ago their common ancestor X lived. (For more info. see source.)

I hope that helps. It's hard to be more specific without knowing what your specific objections are.

Answer 2

Nuclear DNA would not yield much result however, with a full sequence of the genome of the modern organism, it is possible to do so. However another method is through mitochondrial DNA, the DNA is pass down from your mum as your first mitochodrion was from your mum(the egg cell). Using this it is thus possible to do bio-archaeology. However this merely shows possible links between these organism but it does not prove that one evolve from the other. For example humans have similar DNA to let's say some monkey. From the argument above you can draw 2 conclusions: monkey evolved from humans or vice versa. You also need to look for other evidences to show advancement. Like man having opposable thumbs, that's an advancement for better survival. Next the other thing could be both have similar ancestor. s you can see no matter how concrete DNA evidence there s there are 3 posible cases but there is no way to be sure how to find out which. . If we do, then there would be no more argument about where humans come from.

Answer 3

A lot of evolutionary dogma above I'm afraid.
In fact everyone has exactly the *same* evidence. Evolutionists and Creationists interpret it within a different framework.
Dawkins is completely biased - doesn't even pretend to hide his atheistic (religious) interpretations.

Evolution is in fact easy to refute scientifically - see link.

To answer the specific question is difficult since what do you mean by prehistoric? There is no genetic link between man and any kind of ape/chimp. They are very different and there is no evidence to suggest transition between the two - see link 2 below.
Some people want to believe there is so they interpret the evidence to support their philosophical position. In the past such people have resorted to blatant fraud. Even the Natural History museum in London fraudulently displays a mdel of 'Lucy' with human-like hands and feet, when it is known that austrolopithecine had ape-like hands and feet (since it was an ape!)

As to the age of the earth - most evidence indicates that the earth is young (see link 3) - shame the National Geographic ignores it - but then it is philosophically aligned to evolution, and denies creation a priori (and not on the basis of any evidence).

Darwin got it right in that NAtural Selection occurs (but he wasn't the first to notice this). He got it badly wrong in suggesting that one kind of animal can turn into another. This kind of change would require the addition of new genetic information to an animal's DNA. We observe recombination and so on, which can give different features like long/short hair, etc. We do *not* observe information appearing. We do observe that mutations result in the loss of genetic information - devolution.

Answer 4

I think that there's enough circumstantial evidence to support all the overall tenets of evolution. The problem, of course, is that we can't get a DNA sample from a dinosaur or even from Lucy, our putative ancestor, because DNA degrades rather quickly. Why does the quality of evidence matter? There is no overt evidence of God, other than our presumptions and the Bible. Compare that with the chain of fossil evidence and the clear DNA-linking with the other creatures in the world.

I'll pose a question back. What's more likely for God to do? Is he going to create in a flash, all the animals, including their fossils, and including the obvious DNA linkage between us and the currently living animals to play mind games with us? Why falsify a multimillion year fossil record for a world and universe that's only 6000 yrs old? Don't forget that if evolution is false, then so is astronomy, since that would negate the evidence that the universe is 13 billion years old, based on astronomical studies.

Why would it not be plausible that God simply lit a fuse to the Big Bang and sat back and waited for us to evolve. God surely has the power and wherewithal to concoct the laws of physics and the periodic table so that evolution is an inevitability. He's patient and is in no hurry.

The philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment touched upon this concept when they posited that everything could be predicted for the future and extrapolated backwards for the past, once all variables where known. This was the notion of the universe as a giant clockworks that God created.

Answer 5

I'm going to say "slim pickings" because eukaryotic nuclear DNA, unfortunately, tends to break down, and thus is rarely preserved in fossils or prehistoric remains. A quick Google suggests that even in mammoths, recently extinct, mitochondrial DNA analysis has been favored over nuclear (they suggest the mammoth is closer to the Asian elephant than to the African).

> why is the evidence not of such a high quality?
The evidence is old, but it's the best explanation for the observations, and that's what science is all about.

> what do you think?
Young-Earth Creationism is just plain wrong. There are too many things on our Earth and in our solar system that appear to be older than 6000 years.
We have too much in common with chimpanzees -- the most obvious explanation would be that we're descended from a common ancestor. A Creationist would have to fudge, and say, "God created Man in his own image, and then did the same favor for Chimpanzee" -- and the Bible is silent on the existence of chimps.

Answer 6

You answered your own question when you used the word genetic. DNA is the link. You can correlate similarities in DNA to link species.

This has been done for an array of species. The Siberian Husky is the closet link to the wolf.

Answer 7

A christian as quickly as informed me that she taught Adam and Eve have been apes, and that the Bible would not contradict this. From my viewpoint that's quite sparkling that Adam and Eve ought to stay merely some thousand years in the past. that should propose homo sapiens. yet saying it somewhat is absurd, by using fact then we are ignoring all the fossils exhibiting the evolution of people over hundreds of thousands of years. To me you may besides question me to contemplate that the Teletubbies somewhat existed.

Answer 8

The bones & muscles in the Human Leg Vs the T-Rex

Answer 9

Evolution makes much more sense than a "Godly" creation which made every species that we know today, in a week.

Answer 10

There are huge sections of the genomes of many contemporary species that correspond to those of many long dead species.