The Fact of Evolution
Science Friday guest Sean B. Carroll author of Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution 
offers yet more evidence for the fact of evolution. Now if we can just keep science in the schools the next generation should be decisive in relagating the creationist view of life to the scrap heap of wrong ideas. The younger generation is well disposed to the validity of DNA analysis in the context of criminal investigations, paternity, etc. But DNA also provides a forensic record of evolution. What we call junk DNA is a fossilized record of our evolution and among the strongest evidence yet. Only those who are completely devoid of reason will be spouting creationism and more will look at them and laugh.
5.6MB 25'50 Quicktime Required
offers yet more evidence for the fact of evolution. Now if we can just keep science in the schools the next generation should be decisive in relagating the creationist view of life to the scrap heap of wrong ideas. The younger generation is well disposed to the validity of DNA analysis in the context of criminal investigations, paternity, etc. But DNA also provides a forensic record of evolution. What we call junk DNA is a fossilized record of our evolution and among the strongest evidence yet. Only those who are completely devoid of reason will be spouting creationism and more will look at them and laugh.
5.6MB 25'50 Quicktime Required
Comments
Are the inactive genes that we have in our DNA sometimes reactivated when, for example, certain individuals are born with archaic characteristics like hair on the entire face or primitive facial features? If so, are there any studies that shows why that is? That's something that always remained a mystery to me.
I don't believe so. I think the rule is use them or lose them.
When there's no selection pressure to keep them in good working order they denature pretty quickly to the point where they no longer code correctly to make the amino acids they used to. It's 'easier' to modify a currently working gene than to restore a inactive gene to full-working order again.
So no, I shouldn't have thought so but I confess I'm not certain.
I am fairly sure that there are no instances of evolution working in reverse.
You're talking about an atavism. See this wiki article for how this idea was used by social darwinist types: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism
You may also be confusing this with vestigial structures.
There is no rule that one must "lose them". It simply becomes possible to lose them. Subtrac hominem.
If the genes are not selected for, over time mutations will occur and they will be lost.
Sean Carroll writes,
That is the most fascinating thing I've heard in a long while. The genetic argument for evolution is fantastic, fascinating and inescapable. I'm a science teacher and I'm doing my best to make it common knowledge.
While I find the fossil gene contemplation intriguing, I find this to be fascinating: naturalists, biologists (as well as religion and mankind in general) are so certain we're different from other living beings. But our genomes are virtually superimposable on that of other animals. We are of the same stuff. I agree with Sean that this is the most stunning series of discoveries in recent genetic research.