♪♪
Welcome to Episode 5 of Foundations Restored,
a Catholic perspective on origins.
I'm your host, Keith Jones.
This is the first of several episodes
evaluating the most common evolutionary claims
in high school and college textbooks,
including the Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine
2014 textbook, Biology,
as well as the National Academy of Science publication,
Teaching About Evolution.
The evolutionary claims and the episode
in which they will be addressed are shown in the table.
As we prepare to review the Darwinian icons,
note that our discussion assumes
a basic understanding of Darwinian processes,
and so some viewers may find it helpful
to review the summary of Darwinism provided in Episode 1.
As viewers make their way through the next several episodes,
they will learn that, firstly,
textbook and National Academy of Science claims
involving these so-called icons of evolution
are deceptively presented,
and they are contradicted and refuted
by information in the scientific literature.
And secondly, the textbook claims can be explained
by limited variation within a created kind
and other readily observable processes.
They do not require the unobserved and speculative
processes of Darwinian macroevolution.
As the icons begin to fall,
the obvious question will be
why the classroom deception occurs.
The answer has already been partially revealed,
namely that the philosophies of rationalism
and atheistic materialism that dominate academia
and the National Academy of Sciences
mandate the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative of origins.
When it is seen in Episode 12
that the related philosophy of humanism
has controlled education since the start of the 20th century,
it will be then clear that public schools
have been structured to facilitate indoctrination
into false worldviews,
and that the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative
is only one aspect, albeit foundational,
to this indoctrination.
Unfortunately, many Catholic schools and seminaries
have falsely assumed that there is real science
behind Darwinian claims,
and thus have failed to teach Darwinism critically.
And this has produced massive confusion
in the minds of Catholic students
and our future priests.
Since truth always matters,
let us now begin a critical review
of the Darwinian icons.
The Story
The peppered moth, having the scientific name
Biston betularius,
is a spotted moth that can vary in color
from mostly black to mostly white.
In the mid-1800s, the peppered moth population
near industrial cities in England
changed dramatically.
In 1845, peppered moths
were nearly all light in color.
As cities such as Manchester and Birmingham
transformed into industrial centers,
pollution increased,
the light-colored fungus called lichen decreased,
and the bark of nearby trees darkened.
By 1895,
98% of the peppered moth population
in Manchester was melanic,
or dark-colored.
It was presumed that when moths landed
on white-colored lichen,
the light-colored moths were well-protected
from bird predators,
but the dark moths were conspicuous.
After 1945,
the dark melanic moths
were camouflaged from predatory birds
when they rested on the darkened tree bark.
Evolutionists claim this to be a clear example
of natural selection
and the preservation of favorable characteristics.
This icon was popularized
through the 1953 experiments
performed by Bernard Kettlewell.
In these experiments,
he marked melanic and light-colored peppered moths,
released them into woodlands
affected by pollution,
and then recaptured the survivors.
Recovering twice as many melanic moths
as light-colored specimens,
he claimed that the results demonstrated
a differential mortality rate
as birds acted as agents of selection
and preyed on the more visible light-colored moths.
In 1955,
Kettlewell performed the experiment
in unpolluted woodlands,
and the recapture rate was reversed.
Nearly three times as many light-colored moths
were recovered as melanic moths.
Consequently,
the peppered moth story began to be circulated
as the clearest example
of natural selection ever recorded.
Even if Kettlewell's results
could be accepted at face value,
the peppered moth is not an example of macroevolution,
or what could be called molecules-to-man evolution.
Rather, the icon is merely an example
of natural selection acting upon
limited variation within a species.
This variation produces the beautiful variety
readily seen in species of birds, fish,
and all other organisms.
Kettlewell's moths were not on their way
to becoming anything other than peppered moths,
and natural selection acting to change
the frequency of light- and dark-colored peppered moths
does not suggest macroevolution has occurred,
but only that the species genome
allows for variability in moth coloring.
Beyond this,
Kettlewell's experiments were highly flawed.
He placed his moths on tree trunks,
and this is where the biology textbooks
continue to display the moths.
This occurs despite the fact that
the peppered moths do not normally rest
on tree trunk bark.
Rory Howlett and Michael Meiris,
two leading peppered moth experts,
explain.
Analysis of the resting positions
of moths recorded in the wild
demonstrates that Biston betularia
does not usually rest in exposed positions
on tree trunks,
but rather rests on the underside of branches,
and trunks in shaded positions
just below major branch joints
or on foliate twigs.
Exposed areas of tree trunk
are not an important resting site
for any form of Biston betularia.
Sir Cyril Clarke,
a respected pepper moth researcher,
agrees, explaining.
In 25 years, we have only found
two betularia on the tree trunks.
This was also well known to Kettlewell,
who conceded in 1955.
I admit that under their own choice,
many would have taken a position
higher in the trees.
In so doing, they would have avoided
concentrations such as I produced.
This factor alone
would invalidate Kettlewell's experiments.
How, then, do high school textbooks
display photos of
peppered moths resting on tree trunks?
The photos consist of
dead specimens that are glued
or pinned to the tree bark
with their wings opened.
This is doubly deceptive,
as peppered moths normally close their wings
when in a resting position.
University of Massachusetts
biology professor
Theodore Sargent explains
that when moths rest,
their wings are back in a triangular shape,
not spread out.
He explains.
These are pinned specimens.
They are dead.
They were pinned up and then taken down.
Sometimes they take a live one
and let it crawl around and then take a picture of it.
But no one has found one
on a true trunk.
Peppered moths are also nocturnal
and most
remain inactive during daylight hours.
When Kettlewell placed the moths
on tree bark in the daytime,
they were sluggish and became easy prey.
This created an artificial feeding tray scenario
and did not reflect natural conditions.
Recognizing the flaw
in his approach, he tried to release the moths
at dawn in one experiment,
but discontinued this effort because at that hour
the specimens were so cold that he had to heat them
over his car's engine before they could move.
Further problems arise.
As Kettlewell knew,
bats account for perhaps 90%
of adult moth predation.
As highly specialized nocturnal hunters,
bats employ sonar
to stalk their prey.
Kettlewell dismissed this factor,
claiming that it was the differential
predation from birds that mattered.
Even this claim is potentially spurious
since bird vision
differs markedly from that of humans
and raises the possibility
that what may seem to be
an obvious contrast between
a moth wing and tree bark
may not be obvious to a predatory bird.
There were more serious problems.
During the first six days
of Kettlewell's experiment,
the recapture rate of marked moths
was low and statistically insignificant.
Curiously, however,
the recapture rates increased dramatically
on Day 7.
Many who have reviewed his study
question the pattern, wondering what caused
the increase in recapture rates
and why Kettlewell was silent on the question.
In recent decades, many additional studies
have been performed.
Some roughly support Kettlewell's conclusions
while others do not.
Some regions of England actually experienced
increases in the proportion of melanic,
or dark moths, when lichen-covered
or light tree trunks remained plentiful.
Some melanic populations remain relatively low
in polluted areas where they should have increased.
Neither outcome fits
with Kettlewell's predictions about the effects
of natural selection.
Summarizing all the evidence,
Sargent et al. contend
There is little persuasive evidence
in the form of rigorous and
replicated observations and experiments
to support the classical
evolutionary explanation
at the present time.
Another study in the Biological Journal
of the Linnaean Society concluded
We need to know much more
before we can be confident
of our understanding of the evolution
of industrial melanism.
A Nature Review of Melanism
Evolution in Action concludes
For the time being,
we must discard biston
as a well-understood example
of natural selection in action.
Understanding selection in biston
will require much more information
about the animal's habits.
We must stop pretending
that we understand the course
of natural selection as soon as
we have calculated the relative fitness
of different traits.
I remember learning
of the peppered moth experiment
when I was a young student
and I completely accepted
the story on faith.
After all, this is science.
But I believe that
a great harm has resulted
from blindly accepting
these deceptive claims about origins.
And I believe that as we make
our way through the textbook claims,
it is very important for us
to reassess whether
what we were taught,
even in Catholic schools,
was correct.
And so, given the information
we have just reviewed,
what is the verdict about textbook claims
for the peppered moth?
I believe the answer is clear.
Textbook Claims
The Story
In developing his theory,
it is claimed that Darwin utilized
observations of the finches
that he encountered on the Galapagos Islands.
Today,
13 species of Galapagos finches
are generally recognized,
based on their different behavioral
and physical characteristics,
including the variation in
average beak size.
It is claimed that over time
and as droughts and wet periods
have occurred on the islands,
natural selection has worked
to favor finches with specific
characteristics and has produced
the multiple finch species
in a process called
adaptive radiation.
Thus, variation
plus natural selection
plus time equals
Darwinian evolution.
Some biology textbooks
support the finch claim by
citing the 1994
Pulitzer Prize winning book
The Beak of the Finch,
which details the recent work of
scientists Rosemary and Peter Grant
of Princeton University.
The Grants have documented
that during extended droughts,
finches with large beaks
fare better than those with small beaks,
as they can more easily crack
the dry, hard-shelled seeds
that are more plentiful.
Small-beaked finches, on the other hand,
seem to flourish during periods
of wet weather, when soft-shelled
seeds are common.
When the long-term weather patterns change,
the frequency of large
and small-beaked finches
and the overall finch population
is altered. While doing their
studies during a period of drought,
the Grants observed an increase
of about 5% in the
average beak size of medium-ground
finches. Extrapolating
this trend, the Grants
speculate that recurring droughts
could lead to the emergence of
new finch species.
The Beak of the Finch describes
the process of natural selection
observed among Galapagos finches
as
the best and most detailed
demonstration to date of the power
of Darwin's process.
The central issue
surrounding the story of the finches
is whether they are examples of changes
that can produce macroevolution,
or if they merely demonstrate limited
variation within a created kind,
which occurs in all kinds of organisms.
Although the finch species
vary in habitats and appearance,
all are clearly finches.
These creatures become evidence for
macroevolution in the minds of some,
only by extrapolating observed examples
of limited variation to infer that
such changes will continue indefinitely
until something other than a finch
has arisen. But there is no support
for such an inference. Genetic
recombination, loss of genetic
information, and limited change within
animal groups due to selective environmental
pressures, all of which are easily
observable, differ greatly from
the addition of functional genetic
information, which would be needed to
effectively change one kind of organism
into another kind. This latter
process has not been observed.
In science, an adequate explanation
that requires no unobserved
processes should always be
preferred over alternatives requiring
speculation and unobserved
processes. What's more,
the Grant's own research contradicts
the story of the finches that is commonly
told in textbooks. For example,
the Grants have observed that interbreeding
among most finch species produces
fertile offspring. Therefore,
most are of the same species
if we accept the logical definition
of species being that they
produce fertile offspring.
Even Peter Grant concedes,
at the extreme, six species would
be recognized, and an additional
study might necessitate
yet further reduction.
This means that despite historical
references to the finches as 13
species, it is more accurate to
refer to the Galapagos Island finches
as consisting of somewhere between
one and six species.
Continued designation
of the finches as separate species
is justified only if species
are to be defined based on differing
size, diet, place of habitat,
rather than on the ability
to produce fertile offspring.
But this approach is clearly not
appropriate, as even modern man
could be classified as consisting
of multiple species using these alternative
criteria, which is of course absurd.
Taking this point one step further,
the Grant's research has shown
that rather than branching into an
increasing number of species,
the Galapagos finches are interbreeding,
and the resulting hybrids
are flourishing. After the
heavy rains of the early 1980s,
the Grant's found that a cross
between the G. fortis and
either the G. fuliginosa or
G. scandens finch does
the genes of fortis a
favor. Likewise,
in a 1992 science
article, the Grant's concluded,
hybrids exhibit
higher fitness than the parental species
over several years.
Some ten years
later, the Grant's indicated
in science that they had observed
two finch species interbreeding
with G. fortis,
and, in both cases, there
is generally little or no
fitness loss. If these
trends continue, the number of
species or varieties may be
reduced, not increased,
and the Grant's even project that
if crossbreeding between G. fortis
and G. fuliginosa continues,
all morphological differences
could disappear in less
than a century or two.
Next, it should be
noted that the observed changes
in beak length that the Grant's
recorded are not the stable
progressive development required
for forward evolution.
Following severe droughts,
when the average finch beak length increases,
the average finch beak
length tends to revert back
to its original size,
experiencing an average decrease
that is statistically indistinguishable
in magnitude from the drought
induced increase.
In other words, the trend towards a new
finch species is lost
once heavy rainfall occurs.
So how do the Grant's extrapolate
their data to argue that a new
species of finch could arise in a
200 year period if droughts
occur every decade? By assuming
that the changes are cumulative
over time and that there is no
reversion back to the original finch beak
size. Again, this is a
very poor assumption since it
contradicts the Grant's own research.
For example,
following heavy El Nino rainfalls
in the early 1980s,
natural selection prompted
such a reversal. The Fortis
finches born after heavy rainfall
have beaks
measurably narrower than the beaks
of the generation before them,
down from 8.86 mm
at the time of the flood
to 8.74 mm now.
Thus,
the real story of the finch beaks
is one of stability over time,
not change.
An article in the April 26,
2002 issue of Science
supports this conclusion,
as it contains a graph showing the body
size, beak size, and beak
shape for two finch species,
G. fortis and G. scandens,
indicating oscillations
around long-term values.
This is evidence
against evolution, as it suggests
stability of species over time.
And yet, because evolutionists
equate Darwinism with any
kind of change, they conclude
that the oscillations just described
conclusively prove that the
fortis have evolved.
This is an incredibly misleading
statement. To summarize,
not only do Darwin's finches
fail to provide evidence for
Darwinism, but this icon
confirms that it is inappropriate
to simply define evolution
as change, and to then claim
that the observations of change support
Darwinian evolution. The finches
demonstrate limited variation
within a created kind. To go beyond
that, and claim the finches
are an example of Darwinian evolution,
is to go far beyond the data.
Once again,
when we look at all of the
facts regarding a famous icon of
evolution that virtually no one
questions, it fails to
support macroevolution.
But it is never questioned
in the textbooks, because supposedly
this is science.
But I hope you see the need
to make a sharp distinction
between authentic science
and the fairy tale called Darwinism.
When we start to critically
evaluate Darwinian claims,
such as the finches,
we will come to the conclusion
that the textbook claims are deceptive.
They are a myth.
...
The Claim
...
In the late 1990s,
the Intelligent Design
or ID movement began
to make inroads into the public
perception of origins with several
insightful books, including
Phil Johnson's Darwin on Trial
and Michael Behe's
Darwin's Black Box.
To combat the ID movement,
the frontline evolutionists,
such as Ken Miller, needed to produce
evidence that would convince observers
that evolution was true.
Fortunately for Miller,
he could leverage the information contained
in the NAS document
Teaching About Evolution, which
devoted more space to the story of whale
evolution than to any other Darwinian
icon and used this
drawing to bolster its claim
that whales evolved from
land mammals.
The alleged sequence begins
with a sketch of hoofed land
animals called masonicids.
From this mammal, the NAS
explains that a creature called
Ambulocetus evolved
and the animal is described as
...
It is claimed that this animal
...
The NAS sequence continues
by claiming that
...
This species,
Rhodocetus, probably did not venture
onto land very often, if at all.
The fourth
species in the sequence
is Bacillosaurus, described
as ...
...
Ken Miller also cites
Ambulocetus as one of several
intermediate forms, providing
certain evidence for whale evolution
in finding Darwin's god.
In fact, he calls PhD
scientists Michael Behe
and Dean Kenyon foolish
for predicting that no fossil evidence
for whale evolution would be found.
In the Miller
and Levine textbook, Biology,
six specimens leading to
modern whales are illustrated
and are alleged to show
how whales evolved from ancestors
that walked on land.
The claimed transitional forms
include the NAS examples of
Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus
and Bacillosaurus.
But Miller shows Pakicetus
as the land animal preceding
Ambulocetus, and a creature called
Dorodon is placed after
Bacillosaurus, but before
modern whales.
...
The Full Story
...
The problems with this evolutionary
icon are many. Perhaps
this is why there's not a single reference to
the scientific literature in the NAS's
teaching about evolution, and why
Ken Miller references only one article
in Finding Darwin's God.
Because our time is limited, I will limit
my comments to ten primary criticisms
that are readily apparent from the scientific literature,
though certainly more could be made.
One.
There are several problems with the overall presentation
of the sequence by the NAS.
In the first place, all four specimens
are shown as approximately the same size,
with no scale of measurement
or even a footnote explaining that the
specimens are drawn completely out of scale.
Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus
had respective lengths of about 7 and 9 feet,
versus Bacillosaurus's
50 to 70 foot length.
Obviously, divulging the real sizes of these
creatures would raise doubt about any close
evolutionary relationship.
Two. In another omission,
the NAS fails to include
a timeline for the creatures in its proposed sequence,
probably because many of the claimed
transitional forms lived at the same time,
according to evolutionists' own dating results.
The Nature article
announcing Rhodocetus contained
the dated Pachycetus between 49
and 52.5 million years ago,
Ambulocetus at between
48.5 and 52 million
years ago, and Rhodocetus
at between 46.5 and
49.5 million years ago.
Thus, according to evolutionists'
own dating results, the three species
may well have coexisted for more than
half a million years, something that
is not supposed to happen in the struggle for
survival among closely related species.
Three. We now discuss
issues with the individual species
in the sequence.
Bacillosaurus was included as a member of the whale
sequence in teaching about evolution
due to claims that the hind limbs were nonfunctional.
In other words, the species was
portrayed as a good intermediate between
the land-abiding mammals that are placed before
it in the sequence and the fully aquatic mammals
that are placed after it.
But the scientific literature disagrees with the NAS
portrayal. In a science article
announcing new specimens, Gingrich
concludes,
Maintenance of some limb function is likely
for several reasons, including
as accessories facilitating
reproduction used as guides during
copulation which may otherwise have
been difficult in a serpentine
aquatic mammal.
Bacillosaurus
further fails as a whale intermediary
as it has now been identified as
a fully aquatic serpentine creature.
According to paleontologist
Barbara Stahl, it could
not possibly have been ancestral
to any of the modern whales
due to morphological reasons.
Some of the prominent websites promoting
the whale sequence have even removed
Bacillosaurus from their displays.
4. Durodon was
similar in shape to Bacillosaurus
and also had small hind limbs that the
scientific literature explains were likely
used to facilitate reproduction.
Durodon was only 16 feet
long, which initially caused some
evolutionists to think it was a juvenile
Bacillosaurus. But,
as with Bacillosaurus, there is no reason to
view Durodon as a transitional form.
Both had hind limbs that were likely functional
and both lacked the ability to echolocate
as do modern toothed whales.
5. Now turning to rhodocetus,
the NAS statement that the animal did
not walk on land directly contradicts
the 1994 announcement of
rhodocetus in nature, which stated
that the creature was likely able to
support its body weight on land.
And yet, as of 2018, the
NAS publication remains available online
and contains no corrections to the
incorrect portrayal of rhodocetus.
6. The NAS drawing
of rhodocetus also shows a perfectly
formed whale-like tail fluke, but
fails to mention that the drawing is completely
speculative, as at the time
no direct fossil evidence existed.
Such speculation was warned against
in the Nature article that clearly stated,
We cannot assess the possible
presence of a caudal, whale-like
fluke, but it is reasonable
to expect development of a fluke
to coincide with shortening of the neck,
flexibility, and reduction
of hind limbs first observed
in rhodocetus. This idea can
be tested when a more complete
tail of rhodocetus is found.
In 2001, added finds
showed the NAS evolutionary predictions
were misplaced. While much of the
tail of the second rhodocetus was also missing,
Philip Gingrich and his colleagues
concluded that,
The forelimbs and hands could not be extended
as broad pectoral flippers,
which would be required to control recoil
from undulation or oscillation
of a caudal fluke. Hence,
it is doubtful that rhodocetus
had such a fluke.
The creature is also described as an
otter-like pelvic paddler,
and the article repeatedly suggests the animal
was more like an otter, seal,
or sea lion than
an archaic whale.
7. Ambulocetus,
the purported precursor to rhodocetus,
was announced in Science Magazine
as providing a glimpse of the transitional
morphologies between four-legged whale
ancestors and their fin descendants.
The discovery team assigned
the new fossil to the whale family based on
skull and spinal features said to allow
locomotion by means of
undulations of its vertebral column.
Looking closer, however, ambulocetus
is found wanting as a transitional form.
The same issue of Science includes
an editorial delicately reminding readers
that of the five characteristics
paleontologists used to define whales,
three could not be evaluated based on
the fossil recovered, and the
other two characteristics, which concern
dental features, are so variable
that several early whales, known only
from teeth, were originally described as
mesonychids. Related to the
skull and spinal features, the article stated,
Before these purported
whale characters can be used in
a phylogenetic definition of whales,
the possibility that some of them
may have a broader distribution,
for example in mesonychids,
needs to be examined.
Also, because there was
no pelvic girdle preserved, the editorial
noted that this hinders the interpretations
of locomotion in this animal.
Eights, in addition,
like rhodocetus, ambulocetus,
actually most closely resembled
a type of seal or otter, not whales.
The following description is provided
in Science.
The fossil indicates that they swam
by, forcing their feet up and
down in a way similar to modern
otters. The movements on land
probably resembled those of
sea lions to some degree.
Ambulocetus was the size of a male
sea lion. Ambulocetus had
a long tail and thus probably
lacked a tail fluke. The back
muscles primarily powered the hindlimbs
as in faucet seals.
Propulsion of the hindlimbs on land
may have been accomplished by extension
of the back, reminiscent of the hindlimb
motions of fur seals.
Ambulocetus certainly
was able to walk on land, probably
in a way similar to modern sea
lions or fur seals.
In water, it combined aspects
of the locomotion of
modern seals, otters,
and cetaceans.
Nine, the mesonychids, the catch-all
genus of land mammals purported to be
ancestral to whales, were discussed
by scientist Robert L. Carroll
in Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution.
He stated,
It is not possible to identify a sequence
of mesonychids leading directly
to whales. All adequately
known mesonychids were terrestrial
in most aspects of the skeleton.
Ten,
finally, there is mounting genetic
evidence that mesonychids did
not lead to modern whales.
An article in Nature explains that
molecular studies produce different results
than does speculation based on the fossil
evidence, as some molecular studies
suggest that mesonychids are not
closely related to cetaceans.
Due to the increasing reliance of evolutionists
on molecular studies over the fossil
evidence, more and more evolutionists
reject the notion that modern
whales evolved from the mesonychids
and instead are most closely related to the
hippopotami, which are said to have branched
off from land-dwelling arteriodactyls
at some point. And yet,
evolutionists realize that this new evolutionary
sequence is also problematic.
According to one science editorial,
substantial discrepancies
exist with such a scenario as this.
The new sequences would
require the similar cranial
and dental morphologies of mesonychids
and cetaceans to be attributed to
two unrelated evolutionary events,
or convergent evolution,
which is always the explanation of last resort
whenever a logical evolutionary sequence
cannot be identified.
I realize that the NAS and
Kenneth Miller want us to blindly accept
on their authority
that the evidence for whale evolution
is extremely sound.
After all,
this is science.
And scientists don't lie.
But given the real evidence,
let us be willing to reassess
our blind faith in Darwinism
and pronounce the
proper verdict on textbook
claims for whale evolution.
Thanks for watching!
The Claim
The 60 million year evolutionary history
of the modern horse is revealed
in the fossil record.
This sequence begins with the
four-toed Eohippus,
followed in evolutionary succession
by a number of three-toed species,
Mesohippus,
Meohippus, and Protohippus,
and then by the single-toed
Pliohippus, and finally
the modern horse species, Equus.
During this development,
the horse is said to have steadily
increased in stature, from perhaps
the size of a dog to the size
seen today.
The Full Story
The horse sequence dates
to 1876, when
O.C. Marsh of Yale University
crafted drawings of certain
fossils to accompany a lecture
on evolution by Thomas Huxley.
Since that time, the horse series
has been widely acclaimed, and yet
for decades, evolutionists
have conceded that this sequence
is highly flawed.
The horse series implies slow, continuous,
directional evolution
from a small size to a large one,
based on a widely held view of evolution
called Cope's Rule.
Nevertheless, as one science
article notes,
Although the 55 million
year old fossil horse sequence
has been used as a classic example
of Cope's Rule, this notion
is now known to be
incorrect.
This is old news to the scientific
community, as the article's author,
Bruce J. McFadden,
acknowledged back in 1992
The horse fossil record is one of the
common exceptions to the rule of
irreversibility of evolution,
as equine body size frequently
fluctuates and reverses trend.
The actual
record of horse fossils also
shows that horses have always demonstrated
a high degree of variability
regarding the number of toes,
not the uniform reduction
implied by artist's renderings.
As McFadden writes,
The toes of modern horses
have fascinated paleontologists
for two centuries. Numerous
instances have been described in the literature
in which modern horses have had
extra toes. Normally
equus is monodactyl,
and the lateral metapodials, side
toes, are tiny, vestigial
side splints that are homologous
to the functioning toes in fossil
horses. Marsh,
1879-1892
wrote two articles on
polydactyl horses in which
some have one extra toe
on each foot, others two,
and still others have different
numbers on different feet.
The traditional
horse series is troubled further by the fact
that fossils of the three-toed
genera Maricopus are found
in the same fossil beds as the
single-toed Pliohippus.
Moreover, Pliohippus is known
to have coexisted with the three-toed
Protohippus for several million
years. All this refutes widely
circulated illustrations of
an orderly evolutionary progression
from three-toed species to single-toed
species. Furthermore,
even though Myohippus is claimed
to have replaced Mesohippus,
McFadden reports,
these genera were contemporaneous
for about five million years.
Furthermore, at most sites,
three-to-five coexisting species
usually are found. By the middle
Oligocene time period, the
genus Mesohippus became extinct,
and species of Myohippus
continued into the middle and late
Oligocene, when they overlapped
with a more derived assemblage which
included various contemporaneous
species.
Leading evolutionists Stephen J.
Gould and Niles Eldridge agree,
explaining that one set of beds
in Wyoming has yielded three
species of Mesohippus and
two of Myohippus, all
contemporaries. Writing in
Bioscience, Stephen Stanley
summarizes the actual evidence
implied by horse fossils.
The horse is the classic story
of one genus turning into another,
turning into another.
Now it's becoming apparent that there's
an overlap of these genera,
and that there were many species belonging
to each one. It's a
very bushy sort of pattern.
There isn't just a simple gradual
transition from one horse to another.
This is now becoming
fairly well known.
McFadden, meanwhile,
concludes,
Intermediate genera within this sequence,
when illustrated, usually are depicted
as morphologically transitional,
thus conveying the notion of gradual
progressive change.
Since the turn of the century,
most of the foremost paleontologists
involved in original research on fossil
horses have recognized that
the gradual progressive trends depicted
for fossil equity are at best
oversimplifications to illustrate
general evolutionary patterns.
The problem in the interpretation
of these occurs when
other scientists and the lay public,
themselves far removed from the original
data, seize the simplified
essence of these general patterns.
And consequently, many
of the details get lost in this
process.
Finally, the first animal in the horse
sequence is Eohippus, meaning
dawn horse.
In Darwin's day, Eohippus was believed
by scientists such as Richard Owen
to be related to the hyrax,
a four-toed creature still found
in Asia today.
Many evolutionists now agree with
Owen's assessment, or think it to be more
closely related to a taper
or rhinoceros than a horse.
Thus, the first step on the horse's
evolutionary ladder is rejected
as a horse predecessor by many
evolutionists, while the subsequently
claimed intermediaries
appear in the fossil record at the same
time and demonstrate a size
and morphology that are generally
within the boundaries observed
in the modern horse, Equus.
It is therefore arguable
that the so-called intermediaries
could be considered part of the same
species.
Fossil horses are shown
in textbooks as definitive proof
that Darwinism is true,
and most students never critically
evaluate the evidence.
After all, this
is science. But
given the real evidence,
what verdict should we hand down
on textbook claims for horse
evolution?
The Claim
Archaeopteryx,
a 150-million-year-old
species, is transitional
between dinosaurs and modern birds,
as demonstrated by its combination
of reptilian and avian
bird features. This claim
is based on fossil discoveries that
date to an 1861 find
in Germany. Due to its composite
features, the specimen was named
Archaeopteryx, meaning
ancient wing. To date,
a total of 10 such finds
exist. These range from a
single well-preserved feather
to two complete skeletons,
designated the Berlin specimen
and the London specimen.
Certain features of Archaeopteryx
appear reptilian, including
its teeth, claws,
head shape, and its long bony tail.
Consequently, although
Archaeopteryx had feathered wings,
some evolutionists continue
to argue that the creature was likely
incapable of flight, and its
foot claws were indicative of a
ground dweller. They additionally
claim it makes an ideal candidate
for the transition from dinosaurs
to birds, which will be discussed
more fully in the next icon.
The Full Story
Rather than being a composite form,
it is now almost indisputable that
the evidence points to the fact that
Archaeopteryx was a true bird,
fully capable of flight.
Even most evolutionists now concede
this point. In the first place,
the feathers of Archaeopteryx were
completely modern, even to the
microscopic level, according to
Scientific American. The modern
features included regular spacing
and regular impressions of barbules.
This is important because in flying birds,
the individual hairlike barbs and
barbules bind together, forming
a vein structure that is one of the things
that makes flight possible.
Virtually all of the scientific literature
agrees that based on the feather structure
of Archaeopteryx, the feathers of modern
birds have not changed in 150
million years. As science
explains, a second feature of
the Archaeopteryx feather points
to flight.
The primary flight feathers of Archaeopteryx
conform to the asymmetric
pattern in modern flying birds.
The asymmetry has aerodynamic
functions.
This statement refers to the central
feather shaft, called a rachis,
from which the individual barbs of a
feather radiate. The rachis
is sometimes positioned in the center
of a feather, symmetrical,
or it can be off to one side,
asymmetrical. In Archaeopteryx,
as with modern flying birds,
the rachis is asymmetrical
in the primary wing feathers, and
is closest to each feather's leading edge.
This positioning helps
produce lift when the wing is flapped.
The modern structure of
the feathers discount claims that
Archaeopteryx could only use its wings
to trap insects, or as a
canopy to shade the water and reduce
glare when fishing in shallow water.
While science
explains that this evidence for flight
in Archaeopteryx has been available for more than
100 years, the high school science
textbooks reviewed do not mention
that the species possessed aerodynamic
feathers. The wing
of Archaeopteryx is also
completely modern and compatible with
flight. According to evolutionist
Alan Fiducia, an ornithologist
who rejects the dinosaur
to bird claim,
Archaeopteryx exhibited the classic
elliptical wing of modern woodland
birds. This wing design
is very efficient at low to
moderate speeds. Its tail
was designed to provide lift in
flight.
The most knowledgeable evolutionists
on Archaeopteryx agree.
In 1985, the
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
reported that at the
International Archaeopteryx Conference,
the consensus among the evolutionists
in attendance was that
Archaeopteryx was a bird
that could fly.
Historically, some evolutionists
concluded that Archaeopteryx was not
a flying bird due to the lack of fossil
evidence for a breastbone or bony sternum
to which wing muscles could attach.
However, in a
1979 Nature article,
Fiducia and Storrs Olson
explained that this idea was based
on a fundamental misunderstanding
of bird anatomy. They noted
that another anatomical structure
called the furcula or wishbone
was sufficiently robust in
Archaeopteryx to provide a suitable
point of origin for a well-developed
pectoralis muscle needed
for the recovery stroke of the wing
in flight. They also concluded
that the sternum and related structures
believed to be missing and thus
prohibiting flight in Archaeopteryx
constitute a single
functional complex that is not a requisite
of flight but merely a refinement
in later birds already
capable of full flight.
For this reason, the main
evidence for Archaeopteryx having been a
terrestrial cursorial running predator
is invalidated.
There is nothing in the structure of the
pectoral girdle of Archaeopteryx
that would preclude its having been
a powered flyer.
The shape of Archaeopteryx's
foot claws also suggests
flight capability and indicates
that the bird spent time
perching in trees. In a 1993
science article, Fiducia
compared the curvature of Archaeopteryx's
claws with those from a
large sample of modern birds
and found that its claws were well
suited to grasp tree branches.
It was also noted
that Archaeopteryx possessed a
large backward-facing toe claw
the hallux, which was ideally
structured and positioned to grasp
limbs, yet would be a tremendous
obstacle to running on
the ground. Furthermore,
one can infer from the claw arc
measurements of Archaeopteryx that it was
a perching bird.
Archaeopteryx had a fully reversed
large rear toe with a strongly
curved claw, which is typical
of modern perching birds and
unlike any known theropod dinosaur.
Archaeopteryx probably
cannot tell us much about the early
origins of feathers and flight in true
proto-birds because Archaeopteryx
was, in the modern
sense, a bird.
Another point of evidence
for its transitional status was the
presence of claws on the wing of Archaeopteryx.
But the species is not alone
among birds in its possession of such
claws. Modern birds such as
the watsin, the swan,
the ostrich, and the ibis
are all characterized by clawed wings.
Bird expert Stuart Straw
remarks that this feature is not
so much an indication of a primitive
transitional form as it is
of a highly specialized bird.
Fiducia agrees,
stating that the wing claws,
manus claws, are a perfect
adaption as they would have allowed the bird
to climb tree trunks.
They are, in fact, very similar
to the foot claws of modern trunk
climbing birds.
If you compared the claws of a woodcreeper
with the manus claws of Archaeopteryx,
you'd be hard-pressed to tell
them apart.
Evolutionists also like to point to
Archaeopteryx's teeth and skull shape
as evidence that it is a reptile
to bird transitional species.
Yet teeth are found in a number
of extinct bird species,
while many reptiles lack teeth.
Also,
both the upper and lower jaws
of Archaeopteryx moved,
as with most modern birds,
while most reptiles can move only
the lower jaw.
Finally, in 1983,
it was reported that
Evaluations of the London specimen
in which the cranium was removed
from its limestone slab
painstakingly prepared by mechanical
means have found that the skull
is much broader and more
bird-like than had been thought.
In 2004
and 2005,
studies were performed on one of the
newest Archaeopteryx specimens
in order to determine if the creature
had a brain case in an inner ear
structure thought to be necessary
for flight, and these studies
also concluded that it could fly.
In sum, Archaeopteryx
exhibits an interesting blend of features,
but they were all bird-like features,
and some of them incredibly specialized
in modern, as two of the most prominent
evolutionists of the past half-century agree.
Stephen Jay Gould
and Niles Eldridge, discussing
the lack of transitional forms,
intermediaries, in the entire
fossil record, noted that
Intermediates are almost
impossible to construct, even
in thought experiments.
There is certainly no evidence for them
in the fossil record.
Curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx
do not count.
Likewise, according to Fiducia,
Paleontologists have tried
to turn Archaeopteryx into an
earthbound feathered dinosaur,
but it's not.
It is a bird, a perching
bird, and no amount
of paleobabble is
going to change that.
Archaeopteryx is
touted in the National Academy
of Sciences book,
teaching about evolution as an example
of a missing link, which is
no longer missing. And who would
dare to question this claim?
After all, this is science.
And evolutionists
at the NAS don't lie.
But given the real evidence,
what is the verdict about
textbook claims for
Archaeopteryx?
Music
The Claim
Birds evolved from theropod, small bipedal dinosaurs.
Scales turned into feathers, or feathers independently appeared.
And dinosaurs may have achieved flight when they learned how to flap their arms or, according
to Scientific American, as they, "...ran along the ground and stretched out their arms
for balance as they leaped into the air after insect prey or, perhaps, to avoid predators."
Those backing the dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary sequence can point to a number of recent fossils
discovered in China.
Some evolutionists are so confident of these finds that they declare the issue closed.
The following statement, taken from biological reviews, is typical.
There is no longer reasonable scientific doubt that birds evolved from small theropod carnivorous
dinosaurs sometime during or shortly before the Middle to Late Jurassic, over 150 million
years ago.
The full story The truth is that the supposed theropod-to-bird
evolutionary sequence is hotly debated in the scientific literature, where evolutionists
backing theropod origin of birds constitute a majority.
But a vocal minority of evolutionists has challenged every claim as false dogma stemming
from poor methodology, misleading statements, and an opposition to alternative theories.
Today's dominant theory is known as the Cursorial or Running Model.
Central to the Cursorial Model is the ground-up theory of flight, which speculates that feathers
first evolved on theropod dinosaurs and initially provided selective benefits independent of
flight, such as providing warmth or aiding in the trapping of insects.
As more sophisticated feathers evolved, aerodynamic flight became possible.
During the 1980s, a vocal minority of evolutionists came forward to dispute every aspect of the
Cursorial Model.
The leading dissenter, ornithologist Alan Fiducia, warned,
"...the theropod origin of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment
of paleontology of the twentieth century."
Another opposing voice, Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, concurred,
"...to tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with
those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it."
The primary evolutionary alternative, a theory known as the Arboreal Model, includes the
top-down theory of flight, according to which the avian predecessors benefited from gravity
when learning to fly.
The Arboreal Method suggests that birds may have evolved from cold-blooded tree-dwellers.
The intermediate ancestor of birds, the theory goes, was a glider, perhaps one with a membrane
connecting its arms and legs, which eventually grew feathers that would have softened the
landings of these proto-birds during leaps to the ground by slowing their descent.
Gliding could have evolved out of these slow falls, eventually leading to full flight.
Scientists from both camps criticized each other's theories in the scientific literature.
Until the late 1990s, the debate seemed to be something of a draw.
According to New Scientist in 1997, "...both models have a problem.
Neither their hypothetical ancestor nor transitional forms linking it to known fossil birds have
yet been found."
In recent years, however, many have been swayed to the ground-up model due to the presence
of claimed feathers and less-evolved proto-feathers, or dinofuzz, on fossil finds.
According to the cursorial model, the feather's evolution began with the emergence of a hollow,
unbranched, follicle-like structure on theropods.
Sinosauropteryx is said to have demonstrated this, as it had "...vertical fibers running
from the base of the head, along the back, and around the tail, extending forwards almost
to the legs."
Over time, a tuft of fused hair-like filaments appeared, said to be present in Sinosauropteryx
and in Sinornithosaurus.
Eventually, the structure evolved into a central shaft, or rachis, which was connected to the
hair-like filaments that had evolved into fused, locking barbs, also claimed in Sinornithosaurus.
Secondary barbs then appeared, helping to create a closed, penetrious vein, Protarchyopteryx,
and Caudipteryx.
And finally, the asymmetrical, aerodynamic flight feather emerged with the movement of
the rachis to the leading edge of the feather, Confuciusornis.
So is the recent evidence for bird evolution sound?
First, recalling that Archaeopteryx, a true bird, dates to 150 million years ago, virtually
all of the recent fossil finds claimed to support the theropod ancestry of birds date
to less than 150 million years ago, which is why the recent finds are not generally
claimed to be on the direct evolutionary path to modern birds.
Bambi raptor, one of the recent finds, is dated to 75 million years ago, half the age
of the true bird Archaeopteryx.
It could not, therefore, be a transitional link to modern birds, which had been in existence
75 million years by the time Bambi raptor arrived on the scene.
Likewise, Sinosauropteryx prima dates some 29 million years younger than the fully feathered
Archaeopteryx.
Archaeopteryx also predates Sinornis by some 15 million years.
Two of the most highly publicized Chinese fossils, Protarchyopteryx and Caudipteryx,
are also eliminated as direct ancestors of birds, as they are estimated to be between
5 and 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx.
Another highly touted find, Sinornithosaurus, was dated to approximately 125 million years
ago.
Microraptor gui is also 25 million years younger than Archaeopteryx.
And Mononychus, which has very short forelimbs, nothing like a flying wing, is dated to the
late Cretaceous, 65 million years ago to 144 million years ago.
Taking the discussion of contemporary status one step further, there exists a serious issue
with regards to feather evolution.
For example, if a fossil sporting primitive proto-feathers is dated at approximately the
same age as another specimen with modern feathers, then it makes little sense to assert that
the proto-feathers are on the evolutionary path to the modern feather, because again,
according to the dating results, the species possessing primitive proto-feathers existed
side by side with the specimen having modern feathers.
At most, proto-feathers could suggest that a specimen may be on an evolutionary side
branch that shared a common ancestor with a contemporary having modern feathers, and
it could be claimed that the proto-feathers are indicative of the evolutionary path that
feathers may have taken when the feathers first evolved.
But this is speculative, as there is no accepted fossil record of feather evolution before
the fully formed modern feathers of the Archaeopteryx.
This problem also affects the important find, Sinornithosaurus, dated to 125 million years
ago.
An article in Nature explained that this specimen is not a bird, and possessed no modern feathers,
no central shaft, or rachis, rather, it had
"...filaments joined in a basal tuft, and several filaments joined at their bases in
series along a central filament."
It therefore joins other recent dinosaur finds displaying similar filamentous feather-like
structures.
Yet, Microraptor gui and Caudipteryx, described as having modern feathers, are also dated
to approximately 125 million years ago.
Similarly, Confuciusornis and its close relative, Changchangornis, dated to this same general
period, are described in the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History as among
the oldest known birds, with well-preserved plumage, wherein "...shafts and barbs are
visible in many flight feathers, and there is clear evidence of asymmetric veins."
Thus, in addition to Archaeopteryx, multiple specimens having modern feathers were contemporary
with or preceded specimens with so-called proto-feathers.
Evolutionists are therefore forced to qualify their theory.
Cynosauropteryx, for example, is referred to as a possible descendant of the dinosaur
that gave rise to birds.
This general line of reasoning is highly dependent on a concept called cladistics, which is examined
in more detail in Episode 7, Part 2.
While such logic dominates the thinking of those holding to the cursorial model, it is
a highly speculative assumption based not on evidence but on the belief that evolution
and the cursorial model must be true.
Beyond issues of fossil dating, a close evaluation of proto-feathers indicates that the recent
fossil finds can be divided into two groups.
The first consists of specimens having modern feathers, and the second consists of what
appears to be hair-like structures bearing little resemblance to a theoretical intermediate
feather.
It is widely accepted that this second group of fossils possesses intermediate feathers
of various stages, but this assumption results from questionable speculation and misleading
headlines rather than sound analysis.
In science, Cynosauropteryx was depicted as having a mane of feathers, implying that it
was well on its way to becoming a fully-fledged bird, yet the article in Nature announcing
the find cautioned that "...much more work needs to be done to prove that the integumentary
structures of Cynosauropteryx have any structural relationship to feathers.
There are no structures showing the fundamental morphological features of modern bird feathers."
Similarly, Scientific American described the proto-feathers as "...fringed filamentous
structures along its backbone and on its body surface, which may have been precursors to
feathers.
Yet the animal is far from a bird.
It has short arms.
It may be related to the theropod Compsognathus, which is not especially close to birds."
The proto-feathers of Cynonythosaurus were described as filamentous integuments, but
"...the filaments are not in their original positions, but are distributed as patches
underneath or close to most bony elements, including the skull.
The anatomical structure of these filaments is not discernible."
Microraptor Jowianus had patches of integuments extending primarily from the hind legs and
running almost perpendicular to the bone.
It was speculated that some impressions could indicate the presence of a rachis, although
these impressions were parallel to other filaments and were labeled uncertain identification
in the Nature article announcing the find.
Only when the rhetoric is dismissed, there is little reason to believe that dino-fuzz
has anything to do with the evolution of the feather.
With this, the gap between other contemporary specimens that had fully developed feathers,
such as Caudipteryx and Microraptor gui, becomes apparent.
Evolution is true, and birds evolved from dinosaurs.
This is taught to children from early grade school, and seldom is any doubt expressed.
After all, this is science.
But given the lack of true evidence, we have a right and a duty to think critically about
Darwinian claims and to make up our own mind about dinosaurs-to-bird evolution.
The Claim
Many animals have non-functioning organs or structures that are vestiges, traces of functional
organs from their evolutionary ancestors.
Supposed evidence for this claim includes certain unused organs or features in humans,
including the tailbone and appendix, and evidence of legs in Bacillus saurus, an alleged evolutionary
ancestor of the whale.
Like most evolutionary proofs, the claim that vestigial organs are evidence for evolution
dates to Darwin.
In The Origin of Species, he wrote,
Organs or parts in this strange condition bearing the stamp of inutility are extremely
common throughout nature.
In The Descent of Man, he asserted,
In order to understand the existence of rudimentary organs, we have only to suppose that a former
progenitor possessed the parts in question in a perfect state, and that under changed
habits of life they became greatly reduced, either from simple disuse or through natural
selection.
Writing this wave of Darwinian thought, German anatomist R. Wietersheim wrote in 1895 that
humans have 86 vestigial organs.
However, as with Heckel's recapitulation theory that will be discussed shortly, the vestigial
organ argument is a carryover based on ignorance of function, not sound science.
Many statements about vestigial structures are simply not true.
Recall that Bacillus saurus, a supposed evolutionary ancestor to the whale, was inserted into the
whale evolutionary sequence primarily because its hind limbs are asserted to have been
Too small to have assisted in swimming, and they could not possibly have supported the
body on land.
Evolutionists reason that as the land-to-water transition occurred, hind limbs eventually
disappeared or were reduced to small non-functional bones, thus they became vestigial organs.
The National Academy of Sciences teaching about evolution even claims that they were
thought to have been non-functional.
This is then said to be evidence that they are an evolutionary carryover.
The claim is intentionally misleading, however, and misrepresents the conclusions of the scientists
who discovered and described Bacillus saurus.
Paleontologist Philip Gingrich, who described new specimens in science, concluded that maintenance
of some function is likely and may have assisted with reproduction.
Another evolutionary claim is that whales possess a vestigial pelvis, the remnant of
legs from evolutionary ancestors such as Bacillus saurus.
Again, however, this claim stems from ignorance, rather than evidence of a real vestigial structure.
In truth, the bones are different in males and females, and they appear to help protect
the reproductive organs.
With regards to the human body, as medical knowledge has increased, the number of vestigial
organs has been steadily reduced.
And even evolutionists now admit the number may be zero.
Thus it has become increasingly obvious that the vestigial argument is faceless, a false
argument founded on ignorance of how the body functioned.
Following a detailed study of Wietersheim's vestigial organ claims, S. R. Scadding concluded.
As our knowledge has increased, the list of vestigial structures has decreased.
Wietersheim could list about 100 in humans.
Recent authors usually list four or five.
Even the current short list of vestigial structures in humans is questionable.
Anatomically, the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function.
The coccyx serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments.
The semilunar fold of the eye aids in the cleansing and lubrication of the eyeball.
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the
structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that vestigial organs provide
no special evidence for the theory of evolution.
To repeat, even organs that are frequently removed from humans likely have a purpose.
In its November 2001 issue, for example, Scientific American addressed the function of the human
appendix, noting that it
contains a significant amount of lymphoid tissue.
These tissues are involved in the body's ability to recognize foreign antigens, molecules to
which the immune system can respond in ingested material.
A growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does, in fact, have a significant
function as a part of the body's immune system.
The appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its highest
state of development shortly after birth.
Further problems exist.
Given that over the course of a century the number of vestigial human organs has fallen
from 100 to 0, an unbiased observer would likely reason that so-called useless organs
and structures in animals may, in fact, serve a purpose, even if that purpose is not now
recognized or understood.
The opposite conclusion, that such organs and structures are remnants from evolutionary
ancestors, would be logical only if direct evidence were found which demonstrated that
an undisputed evolutionary ancestor possessed such an organ or structure, and that it served
a useful function in that ancestor but no longer serves any function in the derivative
species.
For humans, however, as with all other species, such evidence cannot be established, for there
exists no convincing evidence of common descent.
One reason that textbooks still include treatments of vestigial organs is because evolutionists
believe this icon provides an argument against the alternatives to naturalistic evolution,
intelligent design, and creationism.
This tactic originated in Darwin's era, when many scientists professing belief in
creation and directed purpose in nature thought that all animals were created in a perfectly
functional state.
Evolutionists reasoned that if useless organs were found, it would constitute evidence for
naturalism and against design.
Indeed, as Gatting rightly observes, the vestigial organ argument is essentially a theological
rather than a scientific argument since it is based on the supposed nature of the creator.
Evolutionists continue to equate such concepts with the claims of scripture as it is much
easier to argue against outdated concepts than to honestly debate scientific evidence.
While this strategy has deluded many into believing that the evidence best supports
naturalism, it is disingenuous.
Scientists are told that vestigial organs are evidence of our evolutionary past, and
few question this claim because, after all, this is science.
But given the real evidence, the verdict on textbook claims for vestigial structures is
crystal clear.
The Claim
Homology, traditionally defined as the similarity in physical structures between organisms,
was a term coined in the 1840s by British anatomist Richard Owen.
It originally was a concept that aided taxonomists in assigning organisms to the proper family,
genus, and species when organisms were being classified according to the Linnaean system.
But after the publication of The Origin of Species, the term was co-opted by evolutionists
who redefined it as similarity in structure due to a shared common ancestor.
The claim by evolutionists, then, is that homology provides evidence of common descent
or macroevolution.
Homology is one of the most widely used arguments for evolution in the high school science textbooks.
A graphic comparing similar limb structure in bats, whales, humans, and other vertebrates
is generally included, with a caption that states that the structural similarities indicate
a shared evolutionary past.
Yet, as with all other proofs, homology falls short of demonstrating evolution, so much
so that, as will be explained, evolutionists have subtly changed its definition, even though
the revised meaning uses flawed circular reasoning.
The Full Story
Problems arise when one begins to examine claims concerning supposedly homologous features.
One of the most obvious, and yet most overlooked, is that in order to truly claim that two
features are homologous, one would need a similar feature in a common ancestor from
which the two features could have arisen, yet the common ancestors are generally missing.
Let me give an example.
Evolutionists claim that bat and whale limbs have similar limb structures, and point to
this as evidence of common descent.
However, as we saw in the whale sequence, it is questionable to assert that whales evolved,
and the fossil record has provided no links, not even tenuous ones, that would indicate
where bats came from.
They seem to have popped onto the scene without any predecessors.
There is certainly not any evidence identifying a specific common ancestor from whom whales
and bats could have derived their specific forelimb plan.
Such an ancestor is only an a priori requirement of evolution theory.
A creature that must have existed for the evolutionary narrative to be true, not a substantiated
fact.
Without a specific identifiable common ancestor that exhibits an ancestral form of any so-called
homologous features, it becomes impossible to make sound inferences about homology and
anatomic structures.
I can only fit the evidence into my already formed theories about which organisms might
have been related to each other.
There are also instances in which common ancestry is not claimed when structures are similar.
The eyes of the human and the octopus are very similar, and if similar structures are
truly an indication of common descent, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that
humans and octopi descended from a common ancestor.
Yet, evolutionists do not envision a close evolutionary relationship.
They instead defer to their only available alternative, convergent evolution, a theoretical
process said to give rise to analogous structures rather than homologous ones.
These analogous structures share a similar form because they are said to have evolved
independently to perform the same function.
In this case, the octopus eye is claimed to have evolved in an aquatic environment while
the human eye evolved in a terrestrial environment.
However, if there is no known mechanism able to produce an organ as complex as an eye,
even once, see the discussion about mutations, it is doubly implausible to believe that evolution
could produce such a complex organ twice through independent lines of evolution.
If evolutionists accept both convergent evolution and common ancestry as acceptable explanations
for the similarity of structures, and if claims of common ancestry cannot be traced through
the fossil record, then there is little basis on which to determine whether convergent evolution
or common descent is responsible for the similarity of structures.
Addressing this problem, an article in Nature stated,
"...similarities between species can arise in two ways.
Either each species has retained the trait in question from their common ancestor, or
each has acquired it independently.
Although the first possibility might seem far more likely, convergence is sufficiently
common and detailed in its manifestations for more than one unwary biologist to have
been duped.
Indeed, life abounds with cases of convergence.
The wings of birds and bats and the eyes of octopuses and humans are among the most familiar
examples from an immense and varied casebook."
In the wake of homology's inability to confirm evolutionary relationships among species,
Jonathan Wells observed, in Icons of Evolution, that evolutionists have redefined homology
to include evolution as part of its definition.
Rather than defining homology in the traditional manner, as similarity between structures,
leading evolutionist Ernst Mayr describes it this way,
"...a feature in two or more taxa is homologous when it is derived from the same or a corresponding
feature of their common ancestor."
In other words, this brings us back to our aforementioned slippery slope, with another
unpleasant consequence.
If evolutionists now claim that two groups with similar structures are said to be homologous
because they descend from a common ancestor, then turn around and claim that such homology
proves the same two groups' common descent, they begin to commit the logical error of
circular reasoning.
The evidence cannot independently support the explanation when the explanation has been
developed specifically to account for the evidence.
It would be like arguing that a lack of miracles in the world disproves the existence of God,
and therefore, since God does not exist, there is no such thing as miracles.
Evolutionists ignore the error of circular reasoning, as the current definition effectively
removes alternative explanations, such as design, from consideration.
Moreover, most high school students fail to recognize the fallacy unless it is explicitly
pointed out to them.
But there is a deeper scientific problem with homology, and this arises due to the mechanism
of descent with modification chosen by Darwin to explain evolution theory and the explanation
of this descent with modification as intimately linked to mutations by the neo-Darwinian biologists
of today.
If homologous structures were truly developed from a common ancestor, and mutations were
truly the mechanism of descent with modification, as is claimed by neo-Darwinists, one would
expect to see that the development of purportedly homologous structures were coded for by similar
or homologous genes.
As early as 1971, evolutionary biologist Gavin DeBeer had identified the development
of a homologous trait from non-homologous genes with his work in fruit fly eye development,
and since then, more have been discovered.
Segments in fruit flies are formed using genes that are different from segment formation
in other insects, even though all insect segments are thought to be homologous, and the gene
for sex determination in fruit flies is also different from supposedly closely related
species.
What is even more common, however, is the development of non-homologous structures from
genes that are extremely similar in structure and have been labeled by evolutionists as
homologous.
One of the most striking examples is a gene called distalis, a sequence found in a broad
group of animals and responsible for limb formation in many of these groups.
It is implicated in the development of structures as diverse as butterfly wings, the spines
of sea urchins, and the feet of mice.
No evolutionary biologist would claim that these structures, as different as they are,
were directly inherited from a common ancestor and show close relationships of common descent,
yet they are coded for by genes that are strikingly similar across all the different species.
This discrepancy presents a thorny problem for evolutionists.
If their mechanism of descent with modification through mutation is correct, they have no
means of accounting for the homology of structures observable among organisms.
If homology of structures is truly evidence for evolution, it gives the lie to their mechanism,
for it did not come about through genetic means.
Homology is one of the most widely used arguments for evolution in textbooks.
And why would students question it?
After all, this is science.
Given the lack of evidence for differentiating common descent or convergence, let us be willing
to base our verdict on textbook claims for homologous structures on the evidence.
The Claim
According to Haeckel's biogenetic law, as an embryo develops, it retraces the adult
forms of its species' evolutionary history.
The claim is that all embryos are alike in the early stages of development, and differentiation
occurs only during later stages, as the embryo climbs its species' evolutionary tree, so
to speak.
Early in its development, for example, the human embryo is claimed to have gill slits
as it passes through the fish stage of its evolutionary development.
As the embryo then advances to retrace its reptilian phase, a tail is added.
This process, termed recapitulation, continues until the embryo finally becomes human.
This claim dates back to the production of numerous drawings by Ernst Haeckel, a German
naturalist of the 19th century.
In one rendering, he portrayed three stages of embryonic development for the fish, the
salamander, the tortoise, and the chicken.
All were nearly identical in the initial stage of development, having long curved tails
and gill slits under the head.
Haeckel wrote,
If you take the young embryos of a dog, a chicken, and a tortoise, you cannot discover
a single difference among them.
This allowed him to claim that all vertebrates had a common ancestry, as evidenced by his
drawings of the first stage of embryonic development.
The argument is similar to that of homology, but applied specifically to prenatal stages
of development.
In Darwin's 1871 book on human evolution, The Descent of Man, he relied heavily on Haeckel's
recapitulation theory and wrote,
The embryo itself, at a very early period, can hardly be distinguished from that of other
members of the vertebrate kingdom.
He concluded that because humans and other vertebrates
pass through the same early stages of development, we ought frankly to admit their community
of descent.
Today, drawings or photographs of fish, reptile, bird, and mammal embryos routinely appear
in textbooks and are still sometimes labeled as having gill slits.
One high school textbook explains,
Comparing embryos can reveal their evolutionary relationships.
The presence of gill slits and tails in early vertebrate embryos shows that they may share
a common ancestor.
The Full Story
Haeckel's work had an enormous influence.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote that Haeckel's books
appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any
other scientist, including Darwin and Huxley, in convincing people throughout the world
about the validity of evolution.
Gould stated that Haeckel's drawings are
an evolutionary notion exceeded only by natural selection itself for impact upon popular culture.
This is most unfortunate, as Haeckel's drawings were inaccurate and, many evolutionists admit,
faked.
In some illustrations, he grossly exaggerated similarities.
In others, he copied the same figure and represented it as the early embryo stage of multiple species.
As Gould explained,
To cut to the quick of this drama, Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations
and omissions.
He also, in some cases, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent, simply copied
the same figure over and over again.
As reported in Science, he also portrayed the embryos as if they were the same size,
even though they were actually tenfold differences in size.
The fraudulent nature of Haeckel's drawings has been revisited within the scientific literature
in recent years, due largely to the work of Michael K. Richardson of the Department
of Anatomy and Developmental Biology at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London.
In 1999, he explained Haeckel's belief that evolution acted mainly by adding new stages
to the end of development.
Consequently,
Haeckel, in 1891, published a series of comparative drawings showing different animals arising
from virtually identical somite stage embryos.
Earlier editions of this work, example 1874, had even more implausible figures in which
fish embryos were drawn to look almost the same as human ones.
These famous images are inaccurate and give a misleading view of embryonic development.
Elsewhere, Richardson concluded,
It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.
Haeckel's drawings of 1874 are substantially fabricated.
In support of this view, I note that his oldest fish image is made up of bits and pieces from
different animals, some of them mythical.
It is not unreasonable to characterize this as faking.
Sadly, it is the discredited 1874 drawings that are used in so many British and American
biology textbooks today.
In addition to its deceptiveness, Haeckel's concept has been discredited by modern science,
which has conclusively demonstrated that human embryos do not pass through a fish stage in
which they sport gills.
In fact, pre-born humans do not pass through any evolutionary stages at all.
Pre-born humans are always human and change only in their level of physical development.
Haeckel has programmed according to the designs of human DNA, which is present from the moment
of conception.
Clearly, there are important moral issues related to the question of when human life
begins, and Haeckel's deceptive drawings are stubbornly maintained in many classroom
textbooks to further the pro-abortion agenda of the NEA and many educational theorists.
Generation after generation has been fed the lie of Haeckel's embryos, and few have
questioned the biology textbooks.
After all, this is science.
But ideas have consequences, and given that the view of a human embryo as a non-human
has led to the desensitization of society to the full humanity of the unborn child from
the moment of conception, it is time for all people, especially instructors in Catholic
schools, to answer the question, given the real evidence, what is the verdict of sound
science on textbook claims for Haeckel's embryos?
In the following six episodes, viewers will continue to see that virtually everything
they were taught about evolution was a deception, and that the errors of Descartes and Darwin
have infected not just biology, but also the fields of paleoanthropology, geology, and
cosmology.
As you watch, I hope that you are willing to consider that virtually all of us were
duped about evolution when we were young, trusting students, and that this lie has
shaped much of our worldview.
While the falseness of evolutionary claims is easy to demonstrate, the difficulty, even
for many Catholics, will be to purge one's mind of long-held errors and embrace the only
viable alternative to naturalism, supernatural creation.
For instructors in Catholic schools and seminaries, I pray that you will consider the duty to
teach the truth about origins.
This does not mean that we jettison Darwinism from the science classroom, but that we teach
it critically in response to our Christian duty to present the truth in all subject areas.