Explain how genetics supports Darwin's theory.?

Answer 1

It doesn't at all. If I cut off my arms because I no longer need them, my kids are not going to be born without arms. If I convince all my kids to cut off their arms because they don't need them their kids will not be born without arms. Even if my entire familly has been cutting off their arms for the past 999,999,999,999 billion years, guess what? Their kids will still be born with arms!!! The reason is we all have the genes to produce arms, some may be short or long or small or large, but we are gonna be born with arms. I don't care how much time the evolution religion gives it, humans will never be armless. We will never produce lobster claws to replace the arms because we don't have the genes for lobster claws.

Answer 2

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Explain how genetics supports Darwin's theory.?

Answer 3

The mechanisms of genetics (DNA) were discovered after Darwin. Even if not a single fossil had ever been discovered, they provide *overwhelming* evidence in favor of Darwin's theory with every new discovery.

This support comes in many ways:

1. The mechanics of genetics confirms exactly how new traits enter the gene pool of a species (mutation), exactly how organisms maintain variation within the species, and exactly how these traits are passed on to offspring. Those three things confirm exactly the way that natural selection occurs.

2. The material for genetics, DNA, provides a precise roadmap of similarities between all organisms. It isn't just that species A is similar to B ... but that A is *more* similar to B than it is to C, and by *how much*. We can literally trace the base-pairs in the genes for, say, the insulin molecule between a chimp, a gorilla, and a rhesus monkey, and see precise base-pairs in common between the chimp and gorilla insulin, and the differences in the rhesus insulin. This kind of mapping can be done with ALL organisms in life.

3. This similarity even extends into junk DNA ... the DNA that doesn't code for anything. These are essentially 'typos' that get made at some point in evolution, and get carried along for the ride, neither advantageous, nor disadvantageous. They are like *markers* for when two branches of evolution split.

4. We can even compute the *time* that this split, this branching, occurred. We do this because we can measure the rate at which random mutations appear in a genome (say 2 such 'typos' every 1,000 years) and just count those 'typos'. The computed times correspond perfectly with other evidence, such as when the split appears in the fossil record.

There are other ways as well ... but I'll leave it at that.

---

But D'archangel:. I have read *many* of Stephen Jay Gould's books, cover-to-cover, and I doubt you have read a single one ... or if you did you didn't understand a word of it! PE is not an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution ... Gould was an absolute Darwinist and PE is absolutely consistent with it. When Gould talks about 'slow' vs. 'rapid' change, he is still talking about geological timescales of tens of thousands to millions of years.

And of Darwin, you wrote: "I also suggest that you pick up Darwin's _On the Origin of Species_ and read chapter 6, where Darwin himself discusses some of the weakness in his theory."

What is painfully obvious is that you have not read Chapter 6 yourself. If you had, you would know that Darwin discusses *objections* to his theory, and shows one-by-one how they are NOT weaknesses.

The fact that your description of the works of Gould and Darwin to be precisely the *opposite* to what they said, demonstrates that either (a) you either never actually read these sources; or (b) you are completely incapable of understanding them; or (c) you are just lying. Which is it?

---

fastest73torino: OMG you don't understand genetics AT ALL! It is genetics 101 that *acquired* traits (such as cutting off your arms) cannot be passed on to offspring ... and evolution doesn't require it! Invididuals can only pass on traits they are BORN with ... but if those traits help them survive and reproduce ... then *on average* in the population those very traits will get passed on to the next generation in greater numbers. More of them will be BORN with those traits and pass them on to their offspring ... and so on.

Sheesh ... this is *basic*, 10th-grade biology! Were you asleep?

Answer 4

The genetic code is universal in all organisms; strong implication of common descent. Even in viruses, we see either DNA or RNA. If their was another code found, or made of different material, then the evidence would point another way; but there is not.
PS
D' Archangel. You are seriously confused about Punctuated equilibrium. Gould claimed no such thing, though he did promote his theory ( Eldridge too ). I suggest you get someone to explain it to you.

Answer 5

Genetic variation provides a mechanism to explain how natural selection can lead to changes in organisms over time. It was known from empirical observation for thousands of years that offspring tend to look more like their parents than other members of the species. It was Mendel who demonstrated that specific traits were heritable by specific and predicatble patterns.

Genetics explains *how* one gene trait varies from other similar genes, and how new traits can arise from modification (i.e. mutation) of existing genes. In addition, the newer science of genetic controls clarifies how the activation and expression of genes can be modified by environmental factors and other gene products. Thus, changes in traits may also arise from influences other than actual gene mutations; this allows for natural selection to operate by influencing the expression of existing (but latent) genetic potential.

Answer 6

Orangutans have 97% similar DNA to humans.

Wait... which one of his theories?

Proof of evolution, not God.

Answer 7

It doesn't, not really. Genetic inheritance supports the idea of natural selection; organisms whose qualities enhance their ability to survive are more likely to pass those traits on to offspring. But genetic inheritance doesn't really support Darwin's idea of the origin of species. That's why the currently favored theory among evolutionary scientists isn't Darwinian evolution, it's punctuated equilibrium.

PE is the theory formulated by the late Dr. Stephen J. Gould. Instead of the constant rate of slow change proposed by Darwin Gould suggested that equilibrium (the usual rate of slow change) is periodically interrupted by punctuations (brief periods of rapid change). In geology this means cataclysms like floods and volcanic eruptions. In biology this means mutations. Gould formulated PE as a response to the failure of Darwin's theory to adequately explain how certain biological features could arise solely by means of gradualistic evolution (insect wings, for example).

I suggest that you look up Dr. Gould's books on evolution -- your local library either has some of them or can get them for you. I also suggest that you pick up Darwin's _On the Origin of Species_ and read chapter 6, where Darwin himself discusses some of the weakness in his theory.

Answer 8

Survival of the fittest, those with superior DNA will live to reproduce and will adapt to their environment.