RE: Is monogamy genetic? Your fingers may hold a clue
Comparing information across species can prove enlightening in ways that may not be apparent at the outset. This article is just a summary of the research being done by UoL, and the research may reveal information the researchers weren't expecting to find. We know that homo sapeins share a common genetic ancestor with Neanderthals and A. afarensis. Understanding the differences between them and us may help us understand better why we won the evolutionary battle and they lost. For theoretical researchers this is the goal and the purpose: the quest for a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the world in which we live.
Which leads to the dispute over Evolution....
I have heard many very strongly worded and firmly-stated claims that the Theory of Evolution is not based on "fact" or "science", but with no specific backing to support such claims. Vehemence does not constitute scientific evidence. To those who are dogmatically opposed to Evolution (usually on religious grounds), evolutionary biologists may appear dogmatic in their devotion to the theory, but this "dogmatism" on the part of the scientists is merely a natural reaction to mainly rhetorical challenges by people who have clearly not spent their entire adult lives studying and researching the subject in question. Likewise, the system of peer review that is designed to prevent "junk science" from infecting the canon of knowledge might look like a secret society to the ill-informed outsider. The rules of peer review have no requirements that participants accept a set of arbitrary facts, only that the researcher present clear, cogent challenges that can be backed by solid, repeatable, and well-informed research. The system is overwhelmingly fair, reasonable, and designed to natural human fears, the ego, and biases from tainting the quest for an accurate and more complete understanding of the cosmos.
Often the word "theory" is one of key points in arguments against Evolution. In casual English speech "hypothesis" and "theory" are interchangeable. This is not so in science. Evolution is not a hypothesis, although many hypotheses led to the development and ongoing refinement of the theory. At present there is no viable alternative theory to evolution that accurately explains and predicts the diversity of life on earth. There is a hypothesis that some kind of intelligence has played a direct role in the creation and diversification of life on earth; however, this is a question for the theologians and not scientists. Perhaps one could think of the web of life itself as a kind of self-directing super organism with an intelligence we can only vaguely glimpse.
Evolution is the theory that organic life changes over time. All species are defined by a kind of "software code" in the form of an acid known as DNA. We know that it changes with each generation, that the fossil record shows animals that seem similar to, but not the same as those that exist now (i.e. neanderthals, and A. afarensis), and the further back in the fossil record we go, the more unfamiliar and no longer extant the animals and plants tend to be.
As I mentioned above, a scientific theory must be predictive to hold its weight. One can predict that bacteria that are repeatedly exposed to a toxin will eventually die out or genetically adapt and develop resistance. Anyone who has gotten a antibiotic-resistant staph infection in the hospital will confirm that bacterial evolution is both very real and very scary.
Ultimately, the only way to win against the Theory of Evolution is to destroy the scientific establishment and the methods they use to maintain as much objectivity in their work as humanly possible. The best way to do this is to run an orchestrated campaign to create a popular distrust of science and scientists that leverages the general ignorance of the population.