[ 0 → 10] ♪♪ [ 10 → 20] ♪♪ [ 20 → 30] ♪♪ [ 30 → 40] ♪♪ [ 41 → 45] Welcome to Episode 5 of Foundations Restored, [ 45 → 47] a Catholic perspective on origins. [ 47 → 49] I'm your host, Keith Jones. [ 49 → 52] This is the first of several episodes [ 52 → 55] evaluating the most common evolutionary claims [ 55 → 57] in high school and college textbooks, [ 57 → 60] including the Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine [ 60 → 62] 2014 textbook, Biology, [ 62 → 66] as well as the National Academy of Science publication, [ 66 → 68] Teaching About Evolution. [ 68 → 71] The evolutionary claims and the episode [ 71 → 74] in which they will be addressed are shown in the table. [ 74 → 77] As we prepare to review the Darwinian icons, [ 77 → 79] note that our discussion assumes [ 79 → 82] a basic understanding of Darwinian processes, [ 82 → 84] and so some viewers may find it helpful [ 84 → 88] to review the summary of Darwinism provided in Episode 1. [ 88 → 91] As viewers make their way through the next several episodes, [ 91 → 93] they will learn that, firstly, [ 93 → 96] textbook and National Academy of Science claims [ 96 → 99] involving these so-called icons of evolution [ 99 → 101] are deceptively presented, [ 101 → 104] and they are contradicted and refuted [ 104 → 107] by information in the scientific literature. [ 107 → 110] And secondly, the textbook claims can be explained [ 110 → 113] by limited variation within a created kind [ 113 → 116] and other readily observable processes. [ 116 → 119] They do not require the unobserved and speculative [ 119 → 122] processes of Darwinian macroevolution. [ 122 → 124] As the icons begin to fall, [ 124 → 126] the obvious question will be [ 126 → 128] why the classroom deception occurs. [ 128 → 131] The answer has already been partially revealed, [ 131 → 134] namely that the philosophies of rationalism [ 134 → 137] and atheistic materialism that dominate academia [ 137 → 140] and the National Academy of Sciences [ 140 → 144] mandate the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative of origins. [ 144 → 146] When it is seen in Episode 12 [ 146 → 149] that the related philosophy of humanism [ 149 → 152] has controlled education since the start of the 20th century, [ 152 → 155] it will be then clear that public schools [ 155 → 158] have been structured to facilitate indoctrination [ 158 → 160] into false worldviews, [ 160 → 162] and that the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative [ 162 → 165] is only one aspect, albeit foundational, [ 165 → 167] to this indoctrination. [ 167 → 170] Unfortunately, many Catholic schools and seminaries [ 170 → 173] have falsely assumed that there is real science [ 173 → 175] behind Darwinian claims, [ 175 → 178] and thus have failed to teach Darwinism critically. [ 178 → 180] And this has produced massive confusion [ 180 → 182] in the minds of Catholic students [ 182 → 184] and our future priests. [ 184 → 186] Since truth always matters, [ 186 → 188] let us now begin a critical review [ 188 → 190] of the Darwinian icons. [ 201 → 203] The Story [ 203 → 205] The peppered moth, having the scientific name [ 205 → 207] Biston betularius, [ 207 → 209] is a spotted moth that can vary in color [ 209 → 212] from mostly black to mostly white. [ 212 → 215] In the mid-1800s, the peppered moth population [ 215 → 217] near industrial cities in England [ 217 → 219] changed dramatically. [ 219 → 221] In 1845, peppered moths [ 221 → 223] were nearly all light in color. [ 223 → 226] As cities such as Manchester and Birmingham [ 226 → 228] transformed into industrial centers, [ 228 → 230] pollution increased, [ 230 → 233] the light-colored fungus called lichen decreased, [ 233 → 236] and the bark of nearby trees darkened. [ 236 → 238] By 1895, [ 238 → 241] 98% of the peppered moth population [ 241 → 243] in Manchester was melanic, [ 243 → 245] or dark-colored. [ 245 → 247] It was presumed that when moths landed [ 247 → 249] on white-colored lichen, [ 249 → 251] the light-colored moths were well-protected [ 251 → 253] from bird predators, [ 253 → 255] but the dark moths were conspicuous. [ 255 → 257] After 1945, [ 257 → 259] the dark melanic moths [ 259 → 261] were camouflaged from predatory birds [ 261 → 263] when they rested on the darkened tree bark. [ 264 → 267] Evolutionists claim this to be a clear example [ 267 → 269] of natural selection [ 269 → 272] and the preservation of favorable characteristics. [ 272 → 274] This icon was popularized [ 274 → 276] through the 1953 experiments [ 276 → 279] performed by Bernard Kettlewell. [ 279 → 281] In these experiments, [ 281 → 283] he marked melanic and light-colored peppered moths, [ 283 → 285] released them into woodlands [ 285 → 287] affected by pollution, [ 287 → 289] and then recaptured the survivors. [ 289 → 291] Recovering twice as many melanic moths [ 291 → 293] as light-colored specimens, [ 293 → 296] he claimed that the results demonstrated [ 296 → 298] a differential mortality rate [ 298 → 301] as birds acted as agents of selection [ 301 → 304] and preyed on the more visible light-colored moths. [ 304 → 306] In 1955, [ 306 → 308] Kettlewell performed the experiment [ 308 → 310] in unpolluted woodlands, [ 310 → 312] and the recapture rate was reversed. [ 312 → 314] Nearly three times as many light-colored moths [ 314 → 316] were recovered as melanic moths. [ 316 → 318] Consequently, [ 318 → 320] the peppered moth story began to be circulated [ 320 → 322] as the clearest example [ 322 → 325] of natural selection ever recorded. [ 335 → 337] Even if Kettlewell's results [ 337 → 339] could be accepted at face value, [ 339 → 341] the peppered moth is not an example of macroevolution, [ 341 → 344] or what could be called molecules-to-man evolution. [ 344 → 346] Rather, the icon is merely an example [ 346 → 348] of natural selection acting upon [ 348 → 350] limited variation within a species. [ 350 → 353] This variation produces the beautiful variety [ 353 → 355] readily seen in species of birds, fish, [ 355 → 357] and all other organisms. [ 357 → 359] Kettlewell's moths were not on their way [ 359 → 361] to becoming anything other than peppered moths, [ 361 → 363] and natural selection acting to change [ 363 → 365] the frequency of light- and dark-colored peppered moths [ 365 → 367] does not suggest macroevolution has occurred, [ 367 → 369] but only that the species genome [ 369 → 371] allows for variability in moth coloring. [ 371 → 373] Beyond this, [ 373 → 375] Kettlewell's experiments were highly flawed. [ 375 → 377] He placed his moths on tree trunks, [ 377 → 379] and this is where the biology textbooks [ 379 → 381] continue to display the moths. [ 381 → 383] This occurs despite the fact that [ 383 → 385] the peppered moths do not normally rest [ 385 → 387] on tree trunk bark. [ 387 → 389] Rory Howlett and Michael Meiris, [ 389 → 391] two leading peppered moth experts, [ 391 → 393] explain. [ 393 → 395] Analysis of the resting positions [ 395 → 397] of moths recorded in the wild [ 397 → 399] demonstrates that Biston betularia [ 399 → 401] does not usually rest in exposed positions [ 401 → 403] on tree trunks, [ 403 → 405] but rather rests on the underside of branches, [ 405 → 407] and trunks in shaded positions [ 407 → 409] just below major branch joints [ 409 → 411] or on foliate twigs. [ 411 → 413] Exposed areas of tree trunk [ 413 → 415] are not an important resting site [ 415 → 417] for any form of Biston betularia. [ 419 → 421] Sir Cyril Clarke, [ 421 → 423] a respected pepper moth researcher, [ 423 → 425] agrees, explaining. [ 425 → 427] In 25 years, we have only found [ 427 → 429] two betularia on the tree trunks. [ 431 → 433] This was also well known to Kettlewell, [ 433 → 435] who conceded in 1955. [ 435 → 437] I admit that under their own choice, [ 437 → 439] many would have taken a position [ 439 → 441] higher in the trees. [ 441 → 443] In so doing, they would have avoided [ 443 → 445] concentrations such as I produced. [ 445 → 447] This factor alone [ 447 → 449] would invalidate Kettlewell's experiments. [ 449 → 451] How, then, do high school textbooks [ 451 → 453] display photos of [ 453 → 455] peppered moths resting on tree trunks? [ 455 → 457] The photos consist of [ 457 → 459] dead specimens that are glued [ 459 → 461] or pinned to the tree bark [ 461 → 463] with their wings opened. [ 463 → 465] This is doubly deceptive, [ 465 → 467] as peppered moths normally close their wings [ 467 → 469] when in a resting position. [ 469 → 471] University of Massachusetts [ 471 → 473] biology professor [ 473 → 475] Theodore Sargent explains [ 475 → 477] that when moths rest, [ 477 → 479] their wings are back in a triangular shape, [ 479 → 481] not spread out. [ 481 → 483] He explains. [ 483 → 485] These are pinned specimens. [ 485 → 487] They are dead. [ 487 → 489] They were pinned up and then taken down. [ 489 → 491] Sometimes they take a live one [ 491 → 493] and let it crawl around and then take a picture of it. [ 493 → 495] But no one has found one [ 495 → 497] on a true trunk. [ 497 → 499] Peppered moths are also nocturnal [ 499 → 501] and most [ 501 → 503] remain inactive during daylight hours. [ 503 → 505] When Kettlewell placed the moths [ 505 → 507] on tree bark in the daytime, [ 507 → 509] they were sluggish and became easy prey. [ 509 → 511] This created an artificial feeding tray scenario [ 511 → 513] and did not reflect natural conditions. [ 513 → 515] Recognizing the flaw [ 515 → 517] in his approach, he tried to release the moths [ 517 → 519] at dawn in one experiment, [ 519 → 521] but discontinued this effort because at that hour [ 521 → 523] the specimens were so cold that he had to heat them [ 523 → 525] over his car's engine before they could move. [ 525 → 527] Further problems arise. [ 527 → 529] As Kettlewell knew, [ 529 → 531] bats account for perhaps 90% [ 531 → 533] of adult moth predation. [ 533 → 535] As highly specialized nocturnal hunters, [ 535 → 537] bats employ sonar [ 537 → 539] to stalk their prey. [ 539 → 541] Kettlewell dismissed this factor, [ 541 → 543] claiming that it was the differential [ 543 → 545] predation from birds that mattered. [ 545 → 547] Even this claim is potentially spurious [ 547 → 549] since bird vision [ 549 → 551] differs markedly from that of humans [ 551 → 553] and raises the possibility [ 553 → 555] that what may seem to be [ 555 → 557] an obvious contrast between [ 557 → 559] a moth wing and tree bark [ 559 → 561] may not be obvious to a predatory bird. [ 561 → 563] There were more serious problems. [ 563 → 565] During the first six days [ 565 → 567] of Kettlewell's experiment, [ 567 → 569] the recapture rate of marked moths [ 569 → 571] was low and statistically insignificant. [ 571 → 573] Curiously, however, [ 573 → 575] the recapture rates increased dramatically [ 575 → 577] on Day 7. [ 577 → 579] Many who have reviewed his study [ 579 → 581] question the pattern, wondering what caused [ 581 → 583] the increase in recapture rates [ 583 → 585] and why Kettlewell was silent on the question. [ 585 → 587] In recent decades, many additional studies [ 587 → 589] have been performed. [ 589 → 591] Some roughly support Kettlewell's conclusions [ 591 → 593] while others do not. [ 593 → 595] Some regions of England actually experienced [ 595 → 597] increases in the proportion of melanic, [ 597 → 599] or dark moths, when lichen-covered [ 599 → 601] or light tree trunks remained plentiful. [ 601 → 603] Some melanic populations remain relatively low [ 603 → 605] in polluted areas where they should have increased. [ 605 → 607] Neither outcome fits [ 607 → 609] with Kettlewell's predictions about the effects [ 609 → 611] of natural selection. [ 611 → 613] Summarizing all the evidence, [ 613 → 615] Sargent et al. contend [ 615 → 617] There is little persuasive evidence [ 617 → 619] in the form of rigorous and [ 619 → 621] replicated observations and experiments [ 621 → 623] to support the classical [ 623 → 625] evolutionary explanation [ 625 → 627] at the present time. [ 627 → 629] Another study in the Biological Journal [ 629 → 631] of the Linnaean Society concluded [ 631 → 633] We need to know much more [ 633 → 635] before we can be confident [ 635 → 637] of our understanding of the evolution [ 637 → 639] of industrial melanism. [ 639 → 641] A Nature Review of Melanism [ 641 → 643] Evolution in Action concludes [ 643 → 645] For the time being, [ 645 → 647] we must discard biston [ 647 → 649] as a well-understood example [ 649 → 651] of natural selection in action. [ 651 → 653] Understanding selection in biston [ 653 → 655] will require much more information [ 655 → 657] about the animal's habits. [ 657 → 659] We must stop pretending [ 659 → 661] that we understand the course [ 661 → 663] of natural selection as soon as [ 663 → 665] we have calculated the relative fitness [ 665 → 667] of different traits. [ 667 → 669] I remember learning [ 669 → 671] of the peppered moth experiment [ 671 → 673] when I was a young student [ 673 → 675] and I completely accepted [ 675 → 677] the story on faith. [ 677 → 679] After all, this is science. [ 679 → 681] But I believe that [ 681 → 683] a great harm has resulted [ 683 → 685] from blindly accepting [ 685 → 687] these deceptive claims about origins. [ 687 → 689] And I believe that as we make [ 689 → 691] our way through the textbook claims, [ 691 → 693] it is very important for us [ 693 → 695] to reassess whether [ 695 → 697] what we were taught, [ 697 → 699] even in Catholic schools, [ 699 → 701] was correct. [ 701 → 703] And so, given the information [ 703 → 705] we have just reviewed, [ 705 → 707] what is the verdict about textbook claims [ 707 → 709] for the peppered moth? [ 709 → 711] I believe the answer is clear. [ 715 → 717] Textbook Claims [ 717 → 719] Textbook Claims [ 719 → 721] Textbook Claims [ 721 → 723] Textbook Claims [ 723 → 725] Textbook Claims [ 725 → 727] Textbook Claims [ 727 → 729] Textbook Claims [ 729 → 731] Textbook Claims [ 731 → 733] Textbook Claims [ 733 → 735] Textbook Claims [ 735 → 737] Textbook Claims [ 737 → 739] Textbook Claims [ 739 → 741] Textbook Claims [ 741 → 743] Textbook Claims [ 743 → 745] Textbook Claims [ 745 → 747] Textbook Claims [ 747 → 749] Textbook Claims [ 749 → 751] Textbook Claims [ 751 → 753] Textbook Claims [ 753 → 755] Textbook Claims [ 755 → 757] Textbook Claims [ 757 → 759] Textbook Claims [ 759 → 761] The Story [ 763 → 765] In developing his theory, [ 765 → 767] it is claimed that Darwin utilized [ 767 → 769] observations of the finches [ 769 → 771] that he encountered on the Galapagos Islands. [ 771 → 773] Today, [ 773 → 775] 13 species of Galapagos finches [ 775 → 777] are generally recognized, [ 777 → 779] based on their different behavioral [ 779 → 781] and physical characteristics, [ 781 → 783] including the variation in [ 783 → 785] average beak size. [ 785 → 787] It is claimed that over time [ 787 → 789] and as droughts and wet periods [ 789 → 791] have occurred on the islands, [ 791 → 793] natural selection has worked [ 793 → 795] to favor finches with specific [ 795 → 797] characteristics and has produced [ 797 → 799] the multiple finch species [ 799 → 801] in a process called [ 801 → 803] adaptive radiation. [ 803 → 805] Thus, variation [ 805 → 807] plus natural selection [ 807 → 809] plus time equals [ 809 → 811] Darwinian evolution. [ 811 → 813] Some biology textbooks [ 813 → 815] support the finch claim by [ 815 → 817] citing the 1994 [ 817 → 819] Pulitzer Prize winning book [ 819 → 821] The Beak of the Finch, [ 821 → 823] which details the recent work of [ 823 → 825] scientists Rosemary and Peter Grant [ 825 → 827] of Princeton University. [ 827 → 829] The Grants have documented [ 829 → 831] that during extended droughts, [ 831 → 833] finches with large beaks [ 833 → 835] fare better than those with small beaks, [ 835 → 837] as they can more easily crack [ 837 → 839] the dry, hard-shelled seeds [ 839 → 841] that are more plentiful. [ 841 → 843] Small-beaked finches, on the other hand, [ 843 → 845] seem to flourish during periods [ 845 → 847] of wet weather, when soft-shelled [ 847 → 849] seeds are common. [ 849 → 851] When the long-term weather patterns change, [ 851 → 853] the frequency of large [ 853 → 855] and small-beaked finches [ 855 → 857] and the overall finch population [ 857 → 859] is altered. While doing their [ 859 → 861] studies during a period of drought, [ 861 → 863] the Grants observed an increase [ 863 → 865] of about 5% in the [ 865 → 867] average beak size of medium-ground [ 867 → 869] finches. Extrapolating [ 869 → 871] this trend, the Grants [ 871 → 873] speculate that recurring droughts [ 873 → 875] could lead to the emergence of [ 875 → 877] new finch species. [ 877 → 879] The Beak of the Finch describes [ 879 → 881] the process of natural selection [ 881 → 883] observed among Galapagos finches [ 883 → 885] as [ 885 → 887] the best and most detailed [ 887 → 889] demonstration to date of the power [ 889 → 891] of Darwin's process. [ 901 → 903] The central issue [ 903 → 905] surrounding the story of the finches [ 905 → 907] is whether they are examples of changes [ 907 → 909] that can produce macroevolution, [ 909 → 911] or if they merely demonstrate limited [ 911 → 913] variation within a created kind, [ 913 → 915] which occurs in all kinds of organisms. [ 915 → 917] Although the finch species [ 917 → 919] vary in habitats and appearance, [ 919 → 921] all are clearly finches. [ 921 → 923] These creatures become evidence for [ 923 → 925] macroevolution in the minds of some, [ 925 → 927] only by extrapolating observed examples [ 927 → 929] of limited variation to infer that [ 929 → 931] such changes will continue indefinitely [ 931 → 933] until something other than a finch [ 933 → 935] has arisen. But there is no support [ 935 → 937] for such an inference. Genetic [ 937 → 939] recombination, loss of genetic [ 939 → 941] information, and limited change within [ 941 → 943] animal groups due to selective environmental [ 943 → 945] pressures, all of which are easily [ 945 → 947] observable, differ greatly from [ 947 → 949] the addition of functional genetic [ 949 → 951] information, which would be needed to [ 951 → 953] effectively change one kind of organism [ 953 → 955] into another kind. This latter [ 955 → 957] process has not been observed. [ 957 → 959] In science, an adequate explanation [ 959 → 961] that requires no unobserved [ 961 → 963] processes should always be [ 963 → 965] preferred over alternatives requiring [ 965 → 967] speculation and unobserved [ 967 → 969] processes. What's more, [ 969 → 971] the Grant's own research contradicts [ 971 → 973] the story of the finches that is commonly [ 973 → 975] told in textbooks. For example, [ 975 → 977] the Grants have observed that interbreeding [ 977 → 979] among most finch species produces [ 979 → 981] fertile offspring. Therefore, [ 981 → 983] most are of the same species [ 983 → 985] if we accept the logical definition [ 985 → 987] of species being that they [ 987 → 989] produce fertile offspring. [ 989 → 991] Even Peter Grant concedes, [ 991 → 993] at the extreme, six species would [ 993 → 995] be recognized, and an additional [ 995 → 997] study might necessitate [ 997 → 999] yet further reduction. [ 999 → 1001] This means that despite historical [1001 → 1003] references to the finches as 13 [1003 → 1005] species, it is more accurate to [1005 → 1007] refer to the Galapagos Island finches [1007 → 1009] as consisting of somewhere between [1009 → 1011] one and six species. [1011 → 1013] Continued designation [1013 → 1015] of the finches as separate species [1015 → 1017] is justified only if species [1017 → 1019] are to be defined based on differing [1019 → 1021] size, diet, place of habitat, [1021 → 1023] rather than on the ability [1023 → 1025] to produce fertile offspring. [1025 → 1027] But this approach is clearly not [1027 → 1029] appropriate, as even modern man [1029 → 1031] could be classified as consisting [1031 → 1033] of multiple species using these alternative [1033 → 1035] criteria, which is of course absurd. [1037 → 1039] Taking this point one step further, [1039 → 1041] the Grant's research has shown [1041 → 1043] that rather than branching into an [1043 → 1045] increasing number of species, [1045 → 1047] the Galapagos finches are interbreeding, [1047 → 1049] and the resulting hybrids [1049 → 1051] are flourishing. After the [1051 → 1053] heavy rains of the early 1980s, [1053 → 1055] the Grant's found that a cross [1055 → 1057] between the G. fortis and [1057 → 1059] either the G. fuliginosa or [1059 → 1061] G. scandens finch does [1061 → 1063] the genes of fortis a [1063 → 1065] favor. Likewise, [1065 → 1067] in a 1992 science [1067 → 1069] article, the Grant's concluded, [1069 → 1071] hybrids exhibit [1071 → 1073] higher fitness than the parental species [1073 → 1075] over several years. [1075 → 1077] Some ten years [1077 → 1079] later, the Grant's indicated [1079 → 1081] in science that they had observed [1081 → 1083] two finch species interbreeding [1083 → 1085] with G. fortis, [1085 → 1087] and, in both cases, there [1087 → 1089] is generally little or no [1089 → 1091] fitness loss. If these [1091 → 1093] trends continue, the number of [1093 → 1095] species or varieties may be [1095 → 1097] reduced, not increased, [1097 → 1099] and the Grant's even project that [1099 → 1101] if crossbreeding between G. fortis [1101 → 1103] and G. fuliginosa continues, [1103 → 1105] all morphological differences [1105 → 1107] could disappear in less [1107 → 1109] than a century or two. [1109 → 1111] Next, it should be [1111 → 1113] noted that the observed changes [1113 → 1115] in beak length that the Grant's [1115 → 1117] recorded are not the stable [1117 → 1119] progressive development required [1119 → 1121] for forward evolution. [1121 → 1123] Following severe droughts, [1123 → 1125] when the average finch beak length increases, [1125 → 1127] the average finch beak [1127 → 1129] length tends to revert back [1129 → 1131] to its original size, [1131 → 1133] experiencing an average decrease [1133 → 1135] that is statistically indistinguishable [1135 → 1137] in magnitude from the drought [1137 → 1139] induced increase. [1139 → 1141] In other words, the trend towards a new [1141 → 1143] finch species is lost [1143 → 1145] once heavy rainfall occurs. [1145 → 1147] So how do the Grant's extrapolate [1147 → 1149] their data to argue that a new [1149 → 1151] species of finch could arise in a [1151 → 1153] 200 year period if droughts [1153 → 1155] occur every decade? By assuming [1155 → 1157] that the changes are cumulative [1157 → 1159] over time and that there is no [1159 → 1161] reversion back to the original finch beak [1161 → 1163] size. Again, this is a [1163 → 1165] very poor assumption since it [1165 → 1167] contradicts the Grant's own research. [1167 → 1169] For example, [1169 → 1171] following heavy El Nino rainfalls [1171 → 1173] in the early 1980s, [1173 → 1175] natural selection prompted [1175 → 1177] such a reversal. The Fortis [1177 → 1179] finches born after heavy rainfall [1179 → 1181] have beaks [1181 → 1183] measurably narrower than the beaks [1183 → 1185] of the generation before them, [1185 → 1187] down from 8.86 mm [1187 → 1189] at the time of the flood [1189 → 1191] to 8.74 mm now. [1191 → 1193] Thus, [1193 → 1195] the real story of the finch beaks [1195 → 1197] is one of stability over time, [1197 → 1199] not change. [1199 → 1201] An article in the April 26, [1201 → 1203] 2002 issue of Science [1203 → 1205] supports this conclusion, [1205 → 1207] as it contains a graph showing the body [1207 → 1209] size, beak size, and beak [1209 → 1211] shape for two finch species, [1211 → 1213] G. fortis and G. scandens, [1213 → 1215] indicating oscillations [1215 → 1217] around long-term values. [1217 → 1219] This is evidence [1219 → 1221] against evolution, as it suggests [1221 → 1223] stability of species over time. [1223 → 1225] And yet, because evolutionists [1225 → 1227] equate Darwinism with any [1227 → 1229] kind of change, they conclude [1229 → 1231] that the oscillations just described [1231 → 1233] conclusively prove that the [1233 → 1235] fortis have evolved. [1235 → 1237] This is an incredibly misleading [1237 → 1239] statement. To summarize, [1239 → 1241] not only do Darwin's finches [1241 → 1243] fail to provide evidence for [1243 → 1245] Darwinism, but this icon [1245 → 1247] confirms that it is inappropriate [1247 → 1249] to simply define evolution [1249 → 1251] as change, and to then claim [1251 → 1253] that the observations of change support [1253 → 1255] Darwinian evolution. The finches [1255 → 1257] demonstrate limited variation [1257 → 1259] within a created kind. To go beyond [1259 → 1261] that, and claim the finches [1261 → 1263] are an example of Darwinian evolution, [1263 → 1265] is to go far beyond the data. [1265 → 1267] Once again, [1267 → 1269] when we look at all of the [1269 → 1271] facts regarding a famous icon of [1271 → 1273] evolution that virtually no one [1273 → 1275] questions, it fails to [1275 → 1277] support macroevolution. [1277 → 1279] But it is never questioned [1279 → 1281] in the textbooks, because supposedly [1281 → 1283] this is science. [1283 → 1285] But I hope you see the need [1285 → 1287] to make a sharp distinction [1287 → 1289] between authentic science [1289 → 1291] and the fairy tale called Darwinism. [1291 → 1293] When we start to critically [1293 → 1295] evaluate Darwinian claims, [1295 → 1297] such as the finches, [1297 → 1299] we will come to the conclusion [1299 → 1301] that the textbook claims are deceptive. [1301 → 1303] They are a myth. [1305 → 1307] ... [1307 → 1309] ... [1309 → 1311] ... [1311 → 1313] ... [1313 → 1315] ... [1315 → 1317] ... [1317 → 1319] ... [1319 → 1321] ... [1321 → 1323] ... [1323 → 1325] ... [1325 → 1327] ... [1327 → 1329] ... [1329 → 1331] ... [1331 → 1333] ... [1333 → 1335] ... [1335 → 1337] ... [1337 → 1339] ... [1339 → 1341] ... [1341 → 1343] ... [1343 → 1345] ... [1345 → 1347] ... [1347 → 1349] The Claim [1349 → 1351] ... [1351 → 1353] In the late 1990s, [1353 → 1355] the Intelligent Design [1355 → 1357] or ID movement began [1357 → 1359] to make inroads into the public [1359 → 1361] perception of origins with several [1361 → 1363] insightful books, including [1363 → 1365] Phil Johnson's Darwin on Trial [1365 → 1367] and Michael Behe's [1367 → 1369] Darwin's Black Box. [1369 → 1371] To combat the ID movement, [1371 → 1373] the frontline evolutionists, [1373 → 1375] such as Ken Miller, needed to produce [1375 → 1377] evidence that would convince observers [1377 → 1379] that evolution was true. [1379 → 1381] Fortunately for Miller, [1381 → 1383] he could leverage the information contained [1383 → 1385] in the NAS document [1385 → 1387] Teaching About Evolution, which [1387 → 1389] devoted more space to the story of whale [1389 → 1391] evolution than to any other Darwinian [1391 → 1393] icon and used this [1393 → 1395] drawing to bolster its claim [1395 → 1397] that whales evolved from [1397 → 1399] land mammals. [1399 → 1401] The alleged sequence begins [1401 → 1403] with a sketch of hoofed land [1403 → 1405] animals called masonicids. [1405 → 1407] From this mammal, the NAS [1407 → 1409] explains that a creature called [1409 → 1411] Ambulocetus evolved [1411 → 1413] and the animal is described as [1413 → 1415] ... [1415 → 1417] ... [1417 → 1419] ... [1419 → 1421] ... [1421 → 1423] It is claimed that this animal [1423 → 1425] ... [1425 → 1427] ... [1427 → 1429] ... [1429 → 1431] ... [1431 → 1433] ... [1433 → 1435] ... [1435 → 1437] The NAS sequence continues [1437 → 1439] by claiming that [1439 → 1441] ... [1441 → 1443] ... [1443 → 1445] ... [1445 → 1447] ... [1447 → 1449] This species, [1449 → 1451] Rhodocetus, probably did not venture [1451 → 1453] onto land very often, if at all. [1453 → 1455] The fourth [1455 → 1457] species in the sequence [1457 → 1459] is Bacillosaurus, described [1459 → 1461] as ... [1461 → 1463] ... [1463 → 1465] ... [1465 → 1467] ... [1467 → 1469] ... [1469 → 1471] ... [1471 → 1473] Ken Miller also cites [1473 → 1475] Ambulocetus as one of several [1475 → 1477] intermediate forms, providing [1477 → 1479] certain evidence for whale evolution [1479 → 1481] in finding Darwin's god. [1481 → 1483] In fact, he calls PhD [1483 → 1485] scientists Michael Behe [1485 → 1487] and Dean Kenyon foolish [1487 → 1489] for predicting that no fossil evidence [1489 → 1491] for whale evolution would be found. [1491 → 1493] In the Miller [1493 → 1495] and Levine textbook, Biology, [1495 → 1497] six specimens leading to [1497 → 1499] modern whales are illustrated [1499 → 1501] and are alleged to show [1501 → 1503] how whales evolved from ancestors [1503 → 1505] that walked on land. [1505 → 1507] The claimed transitional forms [1507 → 1509] include the NAS examples of [1509 → 1511] Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus [1511 → 1513] and Bacillosaurus. [1513 → 1515] But Miller shows Pakicetus [1515 → 1517] as the land animal preceding [1517 → 1519] Ambulocetus, and a creature called [1519 → 1521] Dorodon is placed after [1521 → 1523] Bacillosaurus, but before [1523 → 1525] modern whales. [1525 → 1527] ... [1527 → 1529] ... [1529 → 1531] ... [1531 → 1533] ... [1533 → 1535] ... [1535 → 1537] The Full Story [1537 → 1539] ... [1539 → 1541] The problems with this evolutionary [1541 → 1543] icon are many. Perhaps [1543 → 1545] this is why there's not a single reference to [1545 → 1547] the scientific literature in the NAS's [1547 → 1549] teaching about evolution, and why [1549 → 1551] Ken Miller references only one article [1551 → 1553] in Finding Darwin's God. [1553 → 1555] Because our time is limited, I will limit [1555 → 1557] my comments to ten primary criticisms [1557 → 1559] that are readily apparent from the scientific literature, [1559 → 1561] though certainly more could be made. [1561 → 1563] One. [1563 → 1565] There are several problems with the overall presentation [1565 → 1567] of the sequence by the NAS. [1567 → 1569] In the first place, all four specimens [1569 → 1571] are shown as approximately the same size, [1571 → 1573] with no scale of measurement [1573 → 1575] or even a footnote explaining that the [1575 → 1577] specimens are drawn completely out of scale. [1577 → 1579] Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus [1579 → 1581] had respective lengths of about 7 and 9 feet, [1581 → 1583] versus Bacillosaurus's [1583 → 1585] 50 to 70 foot length. [1585 → 1587] Obviously, divulging the real sizes of these [1587 → 1589] creatures would raise doubt about any close [1589 → 1591] evolutionary relationship. [1591 → 1593] Two. In another omission, [1593 → 1595] the NAS fails to include [1595 → 1597] a timeline for the creatures in its proposed sequence, [1597 → 1599] probably because many of the claimed [1599 → 1601] transitional forms lived at the same time, [1601 → 1603] according to evolutionists' own dating results. [1603 → 1605] The Nature article [1605 → 1607] announcing Rhodocetus contained [1607 → 1609] the dated Pachycetus between 49 [1609 → 1611] and 52.5 million years ago, [1611 → 1613] Ambulocetus at between [1613 → 1615] 48.5 and 52 million [1615 → 1617] years ago, and Rhodocetus [1617 → 1619] at between 46.5 and [1619 → 1621] 49.5 million years ago. [1621 → 1623] Thus, according to evolutionists' [1623 → 1625] own dating results, the three species [1625 → 1627] may well have coexisted for more than [1627 → 1629] half a million years, something that [1629 → 1631] is not supposed to happen in the struggle for [1631 → 1633] survival among closely related species. [1633 → 1635] Three. We now discuss [1635 → 1637] issues with the individual species [1637 → 1639] in the sequence. [1639 → 1641] Bacillosaurus was included as a member of the whale [1641 → 1643] sequence in teaching about evolution [1643 → 1645] due to claims that the hind limbs were nonfunctional. [1645 → 1647] In other words, the species was [1647 → 1649] portrayed as a good intermediate between [1649 → 1651] the land-abiding mammals that are placed before [1651 → 1653] it in the sequence and the fully aquatic mammals [1653 → 1655] that are placed after it. [1655 → 1657] But the scientific literature disagrees with the NAS [1657 → 1659] portrayal. In a science article [1659 → 1661] announcing new specimens, Gingrich [1661 → 1663] concludes, [1663 → 1665] Maintenance of some limb function is likely [1665 → 1667] for several reasons, including [1667 → 1669] as accessories facilitating [1669 → 1671] reproduction used as guides during [1671 → 1673] copulation which may otherwise have [1673 → 1675] been difficult in a serpentine [1675 → 1677] aquatic mammal. [1677 → 1679] Bacillosaurus [1679 → 1681] further fails as a whale intermediary [1681 → 1683] as it has now been identified as [1683 → 1685] a fully aquatic serpentine creature. [1685 → 1687] According to paleontologist [1687 → 1689] Barbara Stahl, it could [1689 → 1691] not possibly have been ancestral [1691 → 1693] to any of the modern whales [1693 → 1695] due to morphological reasons. [1695 → 1697] Some of the prominent websites promoting [1697 → 1699] the whale sequence have even removed [1699 → 1701] Bacillosaurus from their displays. [1703 → 1705] 4. Durodon was [1705 → 1707] similar in shape to Bacillosaurus [1707 → 1709] and also had small hind limbs that the [1709 → 1711] scientific literature explains were likely [1711 → 1713] used to facilitate reproduction. [1713 → 1715] Durodon was only 16 feet [1715 → 1717] long, which initially caused some [1717 → 1719] evolutionists to think it was a juvenile [1719 → 1721] Bacillosaurus. But, [1721 → 1723] as with Bacillosaurus, there is no reason to [1723 → 1725] view Durodon as a transitional form. [1725 → 1727] Both had hind limbs that were likely functional [1727 → 1729] and both lacked the ability to echolocate [1729 → 1731] as do modern toothed whales. [1733 → 1735] 5. Now turning to rhodocetus, [1735 → 1737] the NAS statement that the animal did [1737 → 1739] not walk on land directly contradicts [1739 → 1741] the 1994 announcement of [1741 → 1743] rhodocetus in nature, which stated [1743 → 1745] that the creature was likely able to [1745 → 1747] support its body weight on land. [1747 → 1749] And yet, as of 2018, the [1749 → 1751] NAS publication remains available online [1751 → 1753] and contains no corrections to the [1753 → 1755] incorrect portrayal of rhodocetus. [1755 → 1757] 6. The NAS drawing [1757 → 1759] of rhodocetus also shows a perfectly [1759 → 1761] formed whale-like tail fluke, but [1761 → 1763] fails to mention that the drawing is completely [1763 → 1765] speculative, as at the time [1765 → 1767] no direct fossil evidence existed. [1767 → 1769] Such speculation was warned against [1769 → 1771] in the Nature article that clearly stated, [1771 → 1773] We cannot assess the possible [1773 → 1775] presence of a caudal, whale-like [1775 → 1777] fluke, but it is reasonable [1777 → 1779] to expect development of a fluke [1779 → 1781] to coincide with shortening of the neck, [1781 → 1783] flexibility, and reduction [1783 → 1785] of hind limbs first observed [1785 → 1787] in rhodocetus. This idea can [1787 → 1789] be tested when a more complete [1789 → 1791] tail of rhodocetus is found. [1791 → 1793] In 2001, added finds [1793 → 1795] showed the NAS evolutionary predictions [1795 → 1797] were misplaced. While much of the [1797 → 1799] tail of the second rhodocetus was also missing, [1799 → 1801] Philip Gingrich and his colleagues [1801 → 1803] concluded that, [1803 → 1805] The forelimbs and hands could not be extended [1805 → 1807] as broad pectoral flippers, [1807 → 1809] which would be required to control recoil [1809 → 1811] from undulation or oscillation [1811 → 1813] of a caudal fluke. Hence, [1813 → 1815] it is doubtful that rhodocetus [1815 → 1817] had such a fluke. [1817 → 1819] The creature is also described as an [1819 → 1821] otter-like pelvic paddler, [1821 → 1823] and the article repeatedly suggests the animal [1823 → 1825] was more like an otter, seal, [1825 → 1827] or sea lion than [1827 → 1829] an archaic whale. [1829 → 1831] 7. Ambulocetus, [1831 → 1833] the purported precursor to rhodocetus, [1833 → 1835] was announced in Science Magazine [1835 → 1837] as providing a glimpse of the transitional [1837 → 1839] morphologies between four-legged whale [1839 → 1841] ancestors and their fin descendants. [1841 → 1843] The discovery team assigned [1843 → 1845] the new fossil to the whale family based on [1845 → 1847] skull and spinal features said to allow [1847 → 1849] locomotion by means of [1849 → 1851] undulations of its vertebral column. [1851 → 1853] Looking closer, however, ambulocetus [1853 → 1855] is found wanting as a transitional form. [1855 → 1857] The same issue of Science includes [1857 → 1859] an editorial delicately reminding readers [1859 → 1861] that of the five characteristics [1861 → 1863] paleontologists used to define whales, [1863 → 1865] three could not be evaluated based on [1865 → 1867] the fossil recovered, and the [1867 → 1869] other two characteristics, which concern [1869 → 1871] dental features, are so variable [1871 → 1873] that several early whales, known only [1873 → 1875] from teeth, were originally described as [1875 → 1877] mesonychids. Related to the [1877 → 1879] skull and spinal features, the article stated, [1879 → 1881] Before these purported [1881 → 1883] whale characters can be used in [1883 → 1885] a phylogenetic definition of whales, [1885 → 1887] the possibility that some of them [1887 → 1889] may have a broader distribution, [1889 → 1891] for example in mesonychids, [1891 → 1893] needs to be examined. [1893 → 1895] Also, because there was [1895 → 1897] no pelvic girdle preserved, the editorial [1897 → 1899] noted that this hinders the interpretations [1899 → 1901] of locomotion in this animal. [1901 → 1903] Eights, in addition, [1903 → 1905] like rhodocetus, ambulocetus, [1905 → 1907] actually most closely resembled [1907 → 1909] a type of seal or otter, not whales. [1909 → 1911] The following description is provided [1911 → 1913] in Science. [1913 → 1915] The fossil indicates that they swam [1915 → 1917] by, forcing their feet up and [1917 → 1919] down in a way similar to modern [1919 → 1921] otters. The movements on land [1921 → 1923] probably resembled those of [1923 → 1925] sea lions to some degree. [1925 → 1927] Ambulocetus was the size of a male [1927 → 1929] sea lion. Ambulocetus had [1929 → 1931] a long tail and thus probably [1931 → 1933] lacked a tail fluke. The back [1933 → 1935] muscles primarily powered the hindlimbs [1935 → 1937] as in faucet seals. [1937 → 1939] Propulsion of the hindlimbs on land [1939 → 1941] may have been accomplished by extension [1941 → 1943] of the back, reminiscent of the hindlimb [1943 → 1945] motions of fur seals. [1945 → 1947] Ambulocetus certainly [1947 → 1949] was able to walk on land, probably [1949 → 1951] in a way similar to modern sea [1951 → 1953] lions or fur seals. [1953 → 1955] In water, it combined aspects [1955 → 1957] of the locomotion of [1957 → 1959] modern seals, otters, [1959 → 1961] and cetaceans. [1961 → 1963] Nine, the mesonychids, the catch-all [1963 → 1965] genus of land mammals purported to be [1965 → 1967] ancestral to whales, were discussed [1967 → 1969] by scientist Robert L. Carroll [1969 → 1971] in Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. [1971 → 1973] He stated, [1973 → 1975] It is not possible to identify a sequence [1975 → 1977] of mesonychids leading directly [1977 → 1979] to whales. All adequately [1979 → 1981] known mesonychids were terrestrial [1981 → 1983] in most aspects of the skeleton. [1983 → 1985] Ten, [1985 → 1987] finally, there is mounting genetic [1987 → 1989] evidence that mesonychids did [1989 → 1991] not lead to modern whales. [1991 → 1993] An article in Nature explains that [1993 → 1995] molecular studies produce different results [1995 → 1997] than does speculation based on the fossil [1997 → 1999] evidence, as some molecular studies [1999 → 2001] suggest that mesonychids are not [2001 → 2003] closely related to cetaceans. [2003 → 2005] Due to the increasing reliance of evolutionists [2005 → 2007] on molecular studies over the fossil [2007 → 2009] evidence, more and more evolutionists [2009 → 2011] reject the notion that modern [2011 → 2013] whales evolved from the mesonychids [2013 → 2015] and instead are most closely related to the [2015 → 2017] hippopotami, which are said to have branched [2017 → 2019] off from land-dwelling arteriodactyls [2019 → 2021] at some point. And yet, [2021 → 2023] evolutionists realize that this new evolutionary [2023 → 2025] sequence is also problematic. [2025 → 2027] According to one science editorial, [2027 → 2029] substantial discrepancies [2029 → 2031] exist with such a scenario as this. [2031 → 2033] The new sequences would [2033 → 2035] require the similar cranial [2035 → 2037] and dental morphologies of mesonychids [2037 → 2039] and cetaceans to be attributed to [2039 → 2041] two unrelated evolutionary events, [2041 → 2043] or convergent evolution, [2043 → 2045] which is always the explanation of last resort [2045 → 2047] whenever a logical evolutionary sequence [2047 → 2049] cannot be identified. [2049 → 2051] I realize that the NAS and [2051 → 2053] Kenneth Miller want us to blindly accept [2053 → 2055] on their authority [2055 → 2057] that the evidence for whale evolution [2057 → 2059] is extremely sound. [2059 → 2061] After all, [2061 → 2063] this is science. [2063 → 2065] And scientists don't lie. [2065 → 2067] But given the real evidence, [2067 → 2069] let us be willing to reassess [2069 → 2071] our blind faith in Darwinism [2071 → 2073] and pronounce the [2073 → 2075] proper verdict on textbook [2075 → 2077] claims for whale evolution. [2091 → 2093] Thanks for watching! [2122 → 2124] The Claim [2127 → 2129] The 60 million year evolutionary history [2129 → 2131] of the modern horse is revealed [2131 → 2133] in the fossil record. [2133 → 2135] This sequence begins with the [2135 → 2137] four-toed Eohippus, [2137 → 2139] followed in evolutionary succession [2139 → 2141] by a number of three-toed species, [2141 → 2143] Mesohippus, [2143 → 2145] Meohippus, and Protohippus, [2145 → 2147] and then by the single-toed [2147 → 2149] Pliohippus, and finally [2149 → 2151] the modern horse species, Equus. [2151 → 2153] During this development, [2153 → 2155] the horse is said to have steadily [2155 → 2157] increased in stature, from perhaps [2157 → 2159] the size of a dog to the size [2159 → 2161] seen today. [2165 → 2167] The Full Story [2169 → 2171] The horse sequence dates [2171 → 2173] to 1876, when [2173 → 2175] O.C. Marsh of Yale University [2175 → 2177] crafted drawings of certain [2177 → 2179] fossils to accompany a lecture [2179 → 2181] on evolution by Thomas Huxley. [2181 → 2183] Since that time, the horse series [2183 → 2185] has been widely acclaimed, and yet [2185 → 2187] for decades, evolutionists [2187 → 2189] have conceded that this sequence [2189 → 2191] is highly flawed. [2191 → 2193] The horse series implies slow, continuous, [2193 → 2195] directional evolution [2195 → 2197] from a small size to a large one, [2197 → 2199] based on a widely held view of evolution [2199 → 2201] called Cope's Rule. [2201 → 2203] Nevertheless, as one science [2203 → 2205] article notes, [2205 → 2207] Although the 55 million [2207 → 2209] year old fossil horse sequence [2209 → 2211] has been used as a classic example [2211 → 2213] of Cope's Rule, this notion [2213 → 2215] is now known to be [2215 → 2217] incorrect. [2217 → 2219] This is old news to the scientific [2219 → 2221] community, as the article's author, [2221 → 2223] Bruce J. McFadden, [2223 → 2225] acknowledged back in 1992 [2225 → 2227] The horse fossil record is one of the [2227 → 2229] common exceptions to the rule of [2229 → 2231] irreversibility of evolution, [2231 → 2233] as equine body size frequently [2233 → 2235] fluctuates and reverses trend. [2235 → 2237] The actual [2237 → 2239] record of horse fossils also [2239 → 2241] shows that horses have always demonstrated [2241 → 2243] a high degree of variability [2243 → 2245] regarding the number of toes, [2245 → 2247] not the uniform reduction [2247 → 2249] implied by artist's renderings. [2249 → 2251] As McFadden writes, [2251 → 2253] The toes of modern horses [2253 → 2255] have fascinated paleontologists [2255 → 2257] for two centuries. Numerous [2257 → 2259] instances have been described in the literature [2259 → 2261] in which modern horses have had [2261 → 2263] extra toes. Normally [2263 → 2265] equus is monodactyl, [2265 → 2267] and the lateral metapodials, side [2267 → 2269] toes, are tiny, vestigial [2269 → 2271] side splints that are homologous [2271 → 2273] to the functioning toes in fossil [2273 → 2275] horses. Marsh, [2275 → 2277] 1879-1892 [2277 → 2279] wrote two articles on [2279 → 2281] polydactyl horses in which [2281 → 2283] some have one extra toe [2283 → 2285] on each foot, others two, [2285 → 2287] and still others have different [2287 → 2289] numbers on different feet. [2289 → 2291] The traditional [2291 → 2293] horse series is troubled further by the fact [2293 → 2295] that fossils of the three-toed [2295 → 2297] genera Maricopus are found [2297 → 2299] in the same fossil beds as the [2299 → 2301] single-toed Pliohippus. [2301 → 2303] Moreover, Pliohippus is known [2303 → 2305] to have coexisted with the three-toed [2305 → 2307] Protohippus for several million [2307 → 2309] years. All this refutes widely [2309 → 2311] circulated illustrations of [2311 → 2313] an orderly evolutionary progression [2313 → 2315] from three-toed species to single-toed [2315 → 2317] species. Furthermore, [2317 → 2319] even though Myohippus is claimed [2319 → 2321] to have replaced Mesohippus, [2321 → 2323] McFadden reports, [2323 → 2325] these genera were contemporaneous [2325 → 2327] for about five million years. [2327 → 2329] Furthermore, at most sites, [2329 → 2331] three-to-five coexisting species [2331 → 2333] usually are found. By the middle [2333 → 2335] Oligocene time period, the [2335 → 2337] genus Mesohippus became extinct, [2337 → 2339] and species of Myohippus [2339 → 2341] continued into the middle and late [2341 → 2343] Oligocene, when they overlapped [2343 → 2345] with a more derived assemblage which [2345 → 2347] included various contemporaneous [2347 → 2349] species. [2349 → 2351] Leading evolutionists Stephen J. [2351 → 2353] Gould and Niles Eldridge agree, [2353 → 2355] explaining that one set of beds [2355 → 2357] in Wyoming has yielded three [2357 → 2359] species of Mesohippus and [2359 → 2361] two of Myohippus, all [2361 → 2363] contemporaries. Writing in [2363 → 2365] Bioscience, Stephen Stanley [2365 → 2367] summarizes the actual evidence [2367 → 2369] implied by horse fossils. [2369 → 2371] The horse is the classic story [2371 → 2373] of one genus turning into another, [2373 → 2375] turning into another. [2375 → 2377] Now it's becoming apparent that there's [2377 → 2379] an overlap of these genera, [2379 → 2381] and that there were many species belonging [2381 → 2383] to each one. It's a [2383 → 2385] very bushy sort of pattern. [2385 → 2387] There isn't just a simple gradual [2387 → 2389] transition from one horse to another. [2389 → 2391] This is now becoming [2391 → 2393] fairly well known. [2393 → 2395] McFadden, meanwhile, [2395 → 2397] concludes, [2397 → 2399] Intermediate genera within this sequence, [2399 → 2401] when illustrated, usually are depicted [2401 → 2403] as morphologically transitional, [2403 → 2405] thus conveying the notion of gradual [2405 → 2407] progressive change. [2407 → 2409] Since the turn of the century, [2409 → 2411] most of the foremost paleontologists [2411 → 2413] involved in original research on fossil [2413 → 2415] horses have recognized that [2415 → 2417] the gradual progressive trends depicted [2417 → 2419] for fossil equity are at best [2419 → 2421] oversimplifications to illustrate [2421 → 2423] general evolutionary patterns. [2423 → 2425] The problem in the interpretation [2425 → 2427] of these occurs when [2427 → 2429] other scientists and the lay public, [2429 → 2431] themselves far removed from the original [2431 → 2433] data, seize the simplified [2433 → 2435] essence of these general patterns. [2435 → 2437] And consequently, many [2437 → 2439] of the details get lost in this [2439 → 2441] process. [2441 → 2443] Finally, the first animal in the horse [2443 → 2445] sequence is Eohippus, meaning [2445 → 2447] dawn horse. [2447 → 2449] In Darwin's day, Eohippus was believed [2449 → 2451] by scientists such as Richard Owen [2451 → 2453] to be related to the hyrax, [2453 → 2455] a four-toed creature still found [2455 → 2457] in Asia today. [2457 → 2459] Many evolutionists now agree with [2459 → 2461] Owen's assessment, or think it to be more [2461 → 2463] closely related to a taper [2463 → 2465] or rhinoceros than a horse. [2465 → 2467] Thus, the first step on the horse's [2467 → 2469] evolutionary ladder is rejected [2469 → 2471] as a horse predecessor by many [2471 → 2473] evolutionists, while the subsequently [2473 → 2475] claimed intermediaries [2475 → 2477] appear in the fossil record at the same [2477 → 2479] time and demonstrate a size [2479 → 2481] and morphology that are generally [2481 → 2483] within the boundaries observed [2483 → 2485] in the modern horse, Equus. [2485 → 2487] It is therefore arguable [2487 → 2489] that the so-called intermediaries [2489 → 2491] could be considered part of the same [2491 → 2493] species. [2493 → 2495] Fossil horses are shown [2495 → 2497] in textbooks as definitive proof [2497 → 2499] that Darwinism is true, [2499 → 2501] and most students never critically [2501 → 2503] evaluate the evidence. [2503 → 2505] After all, this [2505 → 2507] is science. But [2507 → 2509] given the real evidence, [2509 → 2511] what verdict should we hand down [2511 → 2513] on textbook claims for horse [2513 → 2515] evolution? [2543 → 2553] The Claim [2553 → 2555] Archaeopteryx, [2555 → 2557] a 150-million-year-old [2557 → 2559] species, is transitional [2559 → 2561] between dinosaurs and modern birds, [2561 → 2563] as demonstrated by its combination [2563 → 2565] of reptilian and avian [2565 → 2567] bird features. This claim [2567 → 2569] is based on fossil discoveries that [2569 → 2571] date to an 1861 find [2571 → 2573] in Germany. Due to its composite [2573 → 2575] features, the specimen was named [2575 → 2577] Archaeopteryx, meaning [2577 → 2579] ancient wing. To date, [2579 → 2581] a total of 10 such finds [2581 → 2583] exist. These range from a [2583 → 2585] single well-preserved feather [2585 → 2587] to two complete skeletons, [2587 → 2589] designated the Berlin specimen [2589 → 2591] and the London specimen. [2591 → 2593] Certain features of Archaeopteryx [2593 → 2595] appear reptilian, including [2595 → 2597] its teeth, claws, [2597 → 2599] head shape, and its long bony tail. [2599 → 2601] Consequently, although [2601 → 2603] Archaeopteryx had feathered wings, [2603 → 2605] some evolutionists continue [2605 → 2607] to argue that the creature was likely [2607 → 2609] incapable of flight, and its [2609 → 2611] foot claws were indicative of a [2611 → 2613] ground dweller. They additionally [2613 → 2615] claim it makes an ideal candidate [2615 → 2617] for the transition from dinosaurs [2617 → 2619] to birds, which will be discussed [2619 → 2621] more fully in the next icon. [2621 → 2623] The Full Story [2623 → 2625] The Full Story [2625 → 2627] The Full Story [2627 → 2629] The Full Story [2629 → 2631] The Full Story [2631 → 2633] Rather than being a composite form, [2633 → 2635] it is now almost indisputable that [2635 → 2637] the evidence points to the fact that [2637 → 2639] Archaeopteryx was a true bird, [2639 → 2641] fully capable of flight. [2641 → 2643] Even most evolutionists now concede [2643 → 2645] this point. In the first place, [2645 → 2647] the feathers of Archaeopteryx were [2647 → 2649] completely modern, even to the [2649 → 2651] microscopic level, according to [2651 → 2653] Scientific American. The modern [2653 → 2655] features included regular spacing [2655 → 2657] and regular impressions of barbules. [2657 → 2659] This is important because in flying birds, [2659 → 2661] the individual hairlike barbs and [2661 → 2663] barbules bind together, forming [2663 → 2665] a vein structure that is one of the things [2665 → 2667] that makes flight possible. [2667 → 2669] Virtually all of the scientific literature [2669 → 2671] agrees that based on the feather structure [2671 → 2673] of Archaeopteryx, the feathers of modern [2673 → 2675] birds have not changed in 150 [2675 → 2677] million years. As science [2677 → 2679] explains, a second feature of [2679 → 2681] the Archaeopteryx feather points [2681 → 2683] to flight. [2683 → 2685] The primary flight feathers of Archaeopteryx [2685 → 2687] conform to the asymmetric [2687 → 2689] pattern in modern flying birds. [2689 → 2691] The asymmetry has aerodynamic [2691 → 2693] functions. [2693 → 2695] This statement refers to the central [2695 → 2697] feather shaft, called a rachis, [2697 → 2699] from which the individual barbs of a [2699 → 2701] feather radiate. The rachis [2701 → 2703] is sometimes positioned in the center [2703 → 2705] of a feather, symmetrical, [2705 → 2707] or it can be off to one side, [2707 → 2709] asymmetrical. In Archaeopteryx, [2709 → 2711] as with modern flying birds, [2711 → 2713] the rachis is asymmetrical [2713 → 2715] in the primary wing feathers, and [2715 → 2717] is closest to each feather's leading edge. [2717 → 2719] This positioning helps [2719 → 2721] produce lift when the wing is flapped. [2721 → 2723] The modern structure of [2723 → 2725] the feathers discount claims that [2725 → 2727] Archaeopteryx could only use its wings [2727 → 2729] to trap insects, or as a [2729 → 2731] canopy to shade the water and reduce [2731 → 2733] glare when fishing in shallow water. [2733 → 2735] While science [2735 → 2737] explains that this evidence for flight [2737 → 2739] in Archaeopteryx has been available for more than [2739 → 2741] 100 years, the high school science [2741 → 2743] textbooks reviewed do not mention [2743 → 2745] that the species possessed aerodynamic [2745 → 2747] feathers. The wing [2747 → 2749] of Archaeopteryx is also [2749 → 2751] completely modern and compatible with [2751 → 2753] flight. According to evolutionist [2753 → 2755] Alan Fiducia, an ornithologist [2755 → 2757] who rejects the dinosaur [2757 → 2759] to bird claim, [2759 → 2761] Archaeopteryx exhibited the classic [2761 → 2763] elliptical wing of modern woodland [2763 → 2765] birds. This wing design [2765 → 2767] is very efficient at low to [2767 → 2769] moderate speeds. Its tail [2769 → 2771] was designed to provide lift in [2771 → 2773] flight. [2773 → 2775] The most knowledgeable evolutionists [2775 → 2777] on Archaeopteryx agree. [2777 → 2779] In 1985, the [2779 → 2781] Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology [2781 → 2783] reported that at the [2783 → 2785] International Archaeopteryx Conference, [2785 → 2787] the consensus among the evolutionists [2787 → 2789] in attendance was that [2789 → 2791] Archaeopteryx was a bird [2791 → 2793] that could fly. [2793 → 2795] Historically, some evolutionists [2795 → 2797] concluded that Archaeopteryx was not [2797 → 2799] a flying bird due to the lack of fossil [2799 → 2801] evidence for a breastbone or bony sternum [2801 → 2803] to which wing muscles could attach. [2803 → 2805] However, in a [2805 → 2807] 1979 Nature article, [2807 → 2809] Fiducia and Storrs Olson [2809 → 2811] explained that this idea was based [2811 → 2813] on a fundamental misunderstanding [2813 → 2815] of bird anatomy. They noted [2815 → 2817] that another anatomical structure [2817 → 2819] called the furcula or wishbone [2819 → 2821] was sufficiently robust in [2821 → 2823] Archaeopteryx to provide a suitable [2823 → 2825] point of origin for a well-developed [2825 → 2827] pectoralis muscle needed [2827 → 2829] for the recovery stroke of the wing [2829 → 2831] in flight. They also concluded [2831 → 2833] that the sternum and related structures [2833 → 2835] believed to be missing and thus [2835 → 2837] prohibiting flight in Archaeopteryx [2837 → 2839] constitute a single [2839 → 2841] functional complex that is not a requisite [2841 → 2843] of flight but merely a refinement [2843 → 2845] in later birds already [2845 → 2847] capable of full flight. [2847 → 2849] For this reason, the main [2849 → 2851] evidence for Archaeopteryx having been a [2851 → 2853] terrestrial cursorial running predator [2853 → 2855] is invalidated. [2855 → 2857] There is nothing in the structure of the [2857 → 2859] pectoral girdle of Archaeopteryx [2859 → 2861] that would preclude its having been [2861 → 2863] a powered flyer. [2863 → 2865] The shape of Archaeopteryx's [2865 → 2867] foot claws also suggests [2867 → 2869] flight capability and indicates [2869 → 2871] that the bird spent time [2871 → 2873] perching in trees. In a 1993 [2873 → 2875] science article, Fiducia [2875 → 2877] compared the curvature of Archaeopteryx's [2877 → 2879] claws with those from a [2879 → 2881] large sample of modern birds [2881 → 2883] and found that its claws were well [2883 → 2885] suited to grasp tree branches. [2885 → 2887] It was also noted [2887 → 2889] that Archaeopteryx possessed a [2889 → 2891] large backward-facing toe claw [2891 → 2893] the hallux, which was ideally [2893 → 2895] structured and positioned to grasp [2895 → 2897] limbs, yet would be a tremendous [2897 → 2899] obstacle to running on [2899 → 2901] the ground. Furthermore, [2901 → 2903] one can infer from the claw arc [2903 → 2905] measurements of Archaeopteryx that it was [2905 → 2907] a perching bird. [2907 → 2909] Archaeopteryx had a fully reversed [2909 → 2911] large rear toe with a strongly [2911 → 2913] curved claw, which is typical [2913 → 2915] of modern perching birds and [2915 → 2917] unlike any known theropod dinosaur. [2917 → 2919] Archaeopteryx probably [2919 → 2921] cannot tell us much about the early [2921 → 2923] origins of feathers and flight in true [2923 → 2925] proto-birds because Archaeopteryx [2925 → 2927] was, in the modern [2927 → 2929] sense, a bird. [2929 → 2931] Another point of evidence [2931 → 2933] for its transitional status was the [2933 → 2935] presence of claws on the wing of Archaeopteryx. [2935 → 2937] But the species is not alone [2937 → 2939] among birds in its possession of such [2939 → 2941] claws. Modern birds such as [2941 → 2943] the watsin, the swan, [2943 → 2945] the ostrich, and the ibis [2945 → 2947] are all characterized by clawed wings. [2949 → 2951] Bird expert Stuart Straw [2951 → 2953] remarks that this feature is not [2953 → 2955] so much an indication of a primitive [2955 → 2957] transitional form as it is [2957 → 2959] of a highly specialized bird. [2959 → 2961] Fiducia agrees, [2961 → 2963] stating that the wing claws, [2963 → 2965] manus claws, are a perfect [2965 → 2967] adaption as they would have allowed the bird [2967 → 2969] to climb tree trunks. [2969 → 2971] They are, in fact, very similar [2971 → 2973] to the foot claws of modern trunk [2973 → 2975] climbing birds. [2975 → 2977] If you compared the claws of a woodcreeper [2977 → 2979] with the manus claws of Archaeopteryx, [2979 → 2981] you'd be hard-pressed to tell [2981 → 2983] them apart. [2983 → 2985] Evolutionists also like to point to [2985 → 2987] Archaeopteryx's teeth and skull shape [2987 → 2989] as evidence that it is a reptile [2989 → 2991] to bird transitional species. [2991 → 2993] Yet teeth are found in a number [2993 → 2995] of extinct bird species, [2995 → 2997] while many reptiles lack teeth. [2997 → 2999] Also, [2999 → 3001] both the upper and lower jaws [3001 → 3003] of Archaeopteryx moved, [3003 → 3005] as with most modern birds, [3005 → 3007] while most reptiles can move only [3007 → 3009] the lower jaw. [3009 → 3011] Finally, in 1983, [3011 → 3013] it was reported that [3013 → 3015] Evaluations of the London specimen [3015 → 3017] in which the cranium was removed [3017 → 3019] from its limestone slab [3019 → 3021] painstakingly prepared by mechanical [3021 → 3023] means have found that the skull [3023 → 3025] is much broader and more [3025 → 3027] bird-like than had been thought. [3027 → 3029] In 2004 [3029 → 3031] and 2005, [3031 → 3033] studies were performed on one of the [3033 → 3035] newest Archaeopteryx specimens [3035 → 3037] in order to determine if the creature [3037 → 3039] had a brain case in an inner ear [3039 → 3041] structure thought to be necessary [3041 → 3043] for flight, and these studies [3043 → 3045] also concluded that it could fly. [3045 → 3047] In sum, Archaeopteryx [3047 → 3049] exhibits an interesting blend of features, [3049 → 3051] but they were all bird-like features, [3051 → 3053] and some of them incredibly specialized [3053 → 3055] in modern, as two of the most prominent [3055 → 3057] evolutionists of the past half-century agree. [3057 → 3059] Stephen Jay Gould [3059 → 3061] and Niles Eldridge, discussing [3061 → 3063] the lack of transitional forms, [3063 → 3065] intermediaries, in the entire [3065 → 3067] fossil record, noted that [3067 → 3069] Intermediates are almost [3069 → 3071] impossible to construct, even [3071 → 3073] in thought experiments. [3073 → 3075] There is certainly no evidence for them [3075 → 3077] in the fossil record. [3077 → 3079] Curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx [3079 → 3081] do not count. [3081 → 3083] Likewise, according to Fiducia, [3083 → 3085] Paleontologists have tried [3085 → 3087] to turn Archaeopteryx into an [3087 → 3089] earthbound feathered dinosaur, [3089 → 3091] but it's not. [3091 → 3093] It is a bird, a perching [3093 → 3095] bird, and no amount [3095 → 3097] of paleobabble is [3097 → 3099] going to change that. [3099 → 3101] Archaeopteryx is [3101 → 3103] touted in the National Academy [3103 → 3105] of Sciences book, [3105 → 3107] teaching about evolution as an example [3107 → 3109] of a missing link, which is [3109 → 3111] no longer missing. And who would [3111 → 3113] dare to question this claim? [3113 → 3115] After all, this is science. [3115 → 3117] And evolutionists [3117 → 3119] at the NAS don't lie. [3119 → 3121] But given the real evidence, [3121 → 3123] what is the verdict about [3123 → 3125] textbook claims for [3125 → 3127] Archaeopteryx? [3133 → 3136] Music [3163 → 3180] The Claim [3180 → 3184] Birds evolved from theropod, small bipedal dinosaurs. [3184 → 3187] Scales turned into feathers, or feathers independently appeared. [3187 → 3193] And dinosaurs may have achieved flight when they learned how to flap their arms or, according [3193 → 3198] to Scientific American, as they, "...ran along the ground and stretched out their arms [3198 → 3206] for balance as they leaped into the air after insect prey or, perhaps, to avoid predators." [3206 → 3212] Those backing the dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary sequence can point to a number of recent fossils [3212 → 3213] discovered in China. [3213 → 3219] Some evolutionists are so confident of these finds that they declare the issue closed. [3219 → 3223] The following statement, taken from biological reviews, is typical. [3223 → 3229] There is no longer reasonable scientific doubt that birds evolved from small theropod carnivorous [3229 → 3236] dinosaurs sometime during or shortly before the Middle to Late Jurassic, over 150 million [3236 → 3243] years ago. [3243 → 3251] The full story The truth is that the supposed theropod-to-bird [3251 → 3256] evolutionary sequence is hotly debated in the scientific literature, where evolutionists [3256 → 3260] backing theropod origin of birds constitute a majority. [3260 → 3266] But a vocal minority of evolutionists has challenged every claim as false dogma stemming [3266 → 3273] from poor methodology, misleading statements, and an opposition to alternative theories. [3273 → 3279] Today's dominant theory is known as the Cursorial or Running Model. [3279 → 3284] Central to the Cursorial Model is the ground-up theory of flight, which speculates that feathers [3284 → 3291] first evolved on theropod dinosaurs and initially provided selective benefits independent of [3291 → 3295] flight, such as providing warmth or aiding in the trapping of insects. [3295 → 3301] As more sophisticated feathers evolved, aerodynamic flight became possible. [3301 → 3307] During the 1980s, a vocal minority of evolutionists came forward to dispute every aspect of the [3307 → 3309] Cursorial Model. [3309 → 3313] The leading dissenter, ornithologist Alan Fiducia, warned, [3313 → 3318] "...the theropod origin of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment [3318 → 3322] of paleontology of the twentieth century." [3322 → 3327] Another opposing voice, Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, concurred, [3327 → 3331] "...to tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with [3331 → 3337] those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it." [3337 → 3343] The primary evolutionary alternative, a theory known as the Arboreal Model, includes the [3343 → 3349] top-down theory of flight, according to which the avian predecessors benefited from gravity [3349 → 3350] when learning to fly. [3350 → 3356] The Arboreal Method suggests that birds may have evolved from cold-blooded tree-dwellers. [3356 → 3362] The intermediate ancestor of birds, the theory goes, was a glider, perhaps one with a membrane [3362 → 3366] connecting its arms and legs, which eventually grew feathers that would have softened the [3366 → 3371] landings of these proto-birds during leaps to the ground by slowing their descent. [3371 → 3377] Gliding could have evolved out of these slow falls, eventually leading to full flight. [3377 → 3382] Scientists from both camps criticized each other's theories in the scientific literature. [3382 → 3387] Until the late 1990s, the debate seemed to be something of a draw. [3387 → 3391] According to New Scientist in 1997, "...both models have a problem. [3391 → 3397] Neither their hypothetical ancestor nor transitional forms linking it to known fossil birds have [3397 → 3399] yet been found." [3399 → 3404] In recent years, however, many have been swayed to the ground-up model due to the presence [3404 → 3411] of claimed feathers and less-evolved proto-feathers, or dinofuzz, on fossil finds. [3411 → 3416] According to the cursorial model, the feather's evolution began with the emergence of a hollow, [3416 → 3420] unbranched, follicle-like structure on theropods. [3420 → 3425] Sinosauropteryx is said to have demonstrated this, as it had "...vertical fibers running [3425 → 3431] from the base of the head, along the back, and around the tail, extending forwards almost [3431 → 3433] to the legs." [3433 → 3440] Over time, a tuft of fused hair-like filaments appeared, said to be present in Sinosauropteryx [3440 → 3442] and in Sinornithosaurus. [3442 → 3448] Eventually, the structure evolved into a central shaft, or rachis, which was connected to the [3448 → 3455] hair-like filaments that had evolved into fused, locking barbs, also claimed in Sinornithosaurus. [3455 → 3461] Secondary barbs then appeared, helping to create a closed, penetrious vein, Protarchyopteryx, [3461 → 3462] and Caudipteryx. [3462 → 3467] And finally, the asymmetrical, aerodynamic flight feather emerged with the movement of [3467 → 3472] the rachis to the leading edge of the feather, Confuciusornis. [3472 → 3475] So is the recent evidence for bird evolution sound? [3475 → 3482] First, recalling that Archaeopteryx, a true bird, dates to 150 million years ago, virtually [3482 → 3487] all of the recent fossil finds claimed to support the theropod ancestry of birds date [3487 → 3493] to less than 150 million years ago, which is why the recent finds are not generally [3493 → 3499] claimed to be on the direct evolutionary path to modern birds. [3499 → 3504] Bambi raptor, one of the recent finds, is dated to 75 million years ago, half the age [3504 → 3507] of the true bird Archaeopteryx. [3507 → 3512] It could not, therefore, be a transitional link to modern birds, which had been in existence [3512 → 3517] 75 million years by the time Bambi raptor arrived on the scene. [3517 → 3523] Likewise, Sinosauropteryx prima dates some 29 million years younger than the fully feathered [3523 → 3525] Archaeopteryx. [3525 → 3530] Archaeopteryx also predates Sinornis by some 15 million years. [3530 → 3536] Two of the most highly publicized Chinese fossils, Protarchyopteryx and Caudipteryx, [3536 → 3541] are also eliminated as direct ancestors of birds, as they are estimated to be between [3541 → 3545] 5 and 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx. [3545 → 3551] Another highly touted find, Sinornithosaurus, was dated to approximately 125 million years [3551 → 3552] ago. [3552 → 3557] Microraptor gui is also 25 million years younger than Archaeopteryx. [3557 → 3563] And Mononychus, which has very short forelimbs, nothing like a flying wing, is dated to the [3563 → 3569] late Cretaceous, 65 million years ago to 144 million years ago. [3569 → 3575] Taking the discussion of contemporary status one step further, there exists a serious issue [3575 → 3577] with regards to feather evolution. [3577 → 3583] For example, if a fossil sporting primitive proto-feathers is dated at approximately the [3583 → 3589] same age as another specimen with modern feathers, then it makes little sense to assert that [3589 → 3595] the proto-feathers are on the evolutionary path to the modern feather, because again, [3595 → 3601] according to the dating results, the species possessing primitive proto-feathers existed [3601 → 3604] side by side with the specimen having modern feathers. [3604 → 3609] At most, proto-feathers could suggest that a specimen may be on an evolutionary side [3609 → 3615] branch that shared a common ancestor with a contemporary having modern feathers, and [3615 → 3619] it could be claimed that the proto-feathers are indicative of the evolutionary path that [3619 → 3623] feathers may have taken when the feathers first evolved. [3623 → 3628] But this is speculative, as there is no accepted fossil record of feather evolution before [3628 → 3632] the fully formed modern feathers of the Archaeopteryx. [3632 → 3638] This problem also affects the important find, Sinornithosaurus, dated to 125 million years [3638 → 3639] ago. [3639 → 3646] An article in Nature explained that this specimen is not a bird, and possessed no modern feathers, [3646 → 3649] no central shaft, or rachis, rather, it had [3649 → 3654] "...filaments joined in a basal tuft, and several filaments joined at their bases in [3654 → 3657] series along a central filament." [3657 → 3662] It therefore joins other recent dinosaur finds displaying similar filamentous feather-like [3662 → 3663] structures. [3663 → 3670] Yet, Microraptor gui and Caudipteryx, described as having modern feathers, are also dated [3670 → 3673] to approximately 125 million years ago. [3673 → 3679] Similarly, Confuciusornis and its close relative, Changchangornis, dated to this same general [3679 → 3685] period, are described in the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History as among [3685 → 3690] the oldest known birds, with well-preserved plumage, wherein "...shafts and barbs are [3690 → 3696] visible in many flight feathers, and there is clear evidence of asymmetric veins." [3696 → 3703] Thus, in addition to Archaeopteryx, multiple specimens having modern feathers were contemporary [3703 → 3708] with or preceded specimens with so-called proto-feathers. [3708 → 3711] Evolutionists are therefore forced to qualify their theory. [3711 → 3717] Cynosauropteryx, for example, is referred to as a possible descendant of the dinosaur [3717 → 3719] that gave rise to birds. [3719 → 3726] This general line of reasoning is highly dependent on a concept called cladistics, which is examined [3726 → 3729] in more detail in Episode 7, Part 2. [3729 → 3735] While such logic dominates the thinking of those holding to the cursorial model, it is [3735 → 3741] a highly speculative assumption based not on evidence but on the belief that evolution [3741 → 3744] and the cursorial model must be true. [3744 → 3750] Beyond issues of fossil dating, a close evaluation of proto-feathers indicates that the recent [3750 → 3753] fossil finds can be divided into two groups. [3753 → 3759] The first consists of specimens having modern feathers, and the second consists of what [3759 → 3765] appears to be hair-like structures bearing little resemblance to a theoretical intermediate [3765 → 3766] feather. [3766 → 3771] It is widely accepted that this second group of fossils possesses intermediate feathers [3771 → 3777] of various stages, but this assumption results from questionable speculation and misleading [3777 → 3781] headlines rather than sound analysis. [3781 → 3788] In science, Cynosauropteryx was depicted as having a mane of feathers, implying that it [3788 → 3794] was well on its way to becoming a fully-fledged bird, yet the article in Nature announcing [3794 → 3799] the find cautioned that "...much more work needs to be done to prove that the integumentary [3799 → 3804] structures of Cynosauropteryx have any structural relationship to feathers. [3804 → 3809] There are no structures showing the fundamental morphological features of modern bird feathers." [3809 → 3816] Similarly, Scientific American described the proto-feathers as "...fringed filamentous [3816 → 3822] structures along its backbone and on its body surface, which may have been precursors to [3822 → 3823] feathers. [3823 → 3825] Yet the animal is far from a bird. [3825 → 3827] It has short arms. [3827 → 3833] It may be related to the theropod Compsognathus, which is not especially close to birds." [3833 → 3839] The proto-feathers of Cynonythosaurus were described as filamentous integuments, but [3839 → 3844] "...the filaments are not in their original positions, but are distributed as patches [3844 → 3849] underneath or close to most bony elements, including the skull. [3849 → 3854] The anatomical structure of these filaments is not discernible." [3854 → 3860] Microraptor Jowianus had patches of integuments extending primarily from the hind legs and [3860 → 3863] running almost perpendicular to the bone. [3863 → 3867] It was speculated that some impressions could indicate the presence of a rachis, although [3867 → 3873] these impressions were parallel to other filaments and were labeled uncertain identification [3873 → 3877] in the Nature article announcing the find. [3877 → 3882] Only when the rhetoric is dismissed, there is little reason to believe that dino-fuzz [3882 → 3885] has anything to do with the evolution of the feather. [3885 → 3891] With this, the gap between other contemporary specimens that had fully developed feathers, [3891 → 3897] such as Caudipteryx and Microraptor gui, becomes apparent. [3897 → 3901] Evolution is true, and birds evolved from dinosaurs. [3901 → 3909] This is taught to children from early grade school, and seldom is any doubt expressed. [3909 → 3912] After all, this is science. [3912 → 3918] But given the lack of true evidence, we have a right and a duty to think critically about [3918 → 3924] Darwinian claims and to make up our own mind about dinosaurs-to-bird evolution. [3948 → 3971] The Claim [3971 → 3977] Many animals have non-functioning organs or structures that are vestiges, traces of functional [3977 → 3980] organs from their evolutionary ancestors. [3980 → 3986] Supposed evidence for this claim includes certain unused organs or features in humans, [3986 → 3992] including the tailbone and appendix, and evidence of legs in Bacillus saurus, an alleged evolutionary [3992 → 3995] ancestor of the whale. [3995 → 4000] Like most evolutionary proofs, the claim that vestigial organs are evidence for evolution [4000 → 4003] dates to Darwin. [4003 → 4005] In The Origin of Species, he wrote, [4005 → 4011] Organs or parts in this strange condition bearing the stamp of inutility are extremely [4011 → 4014] common throughout nature. [4014 → 4017] In The Descent of Man, he asserted, [4017 → 4023] In order to understand the existence of rudimentary organs, we have only to suppose that a former [4023 → 4028] progenitor possessed the parts in question in a perfect state, and that under changed [4028 → 4036] habits of life they became greatly reduced, either from simple disuse or through natural [4036 → 4040] selection. [4040 → 4046] Writing this wave of Darwinian thought, German anatomist R. Wietersheim wrote in 1895 that [4046 → 4049] humans have 86 vestigial organs. [4049 → 4055] However, as with Heckel's recapitulation theory that will be discussed shortly, the vestigial [4055 → 4063] organ argument is a carryover based on ignorance of function, not sound science. [4063 → 4067] Many statements about vestigial structures are simply not true. [4067 → 4073] Recall that Bacillus saurus, a supposed evolutionary ancestor to the whale, was inserted into the [4073 → 4079] whale evolutionary sequence primarily because its hind limbs are asserted to have been [4079 → 4084] Too small to have assisted in swimming, and they could not possibly have supported the [4084 → 4087] body on land. [4087 → 4092] Evolutionists reason that as the land-to-water transition occurred, hind limbs eventually [4092 → 4099] disappeared or were reduced to small non-functional bones, thus they became vestigial organs. [4099 → 4104] The National Academy of Sciences teaching about evolution even claims that they were [4104 → 4106] thought to have been non-functional. [4106 → 4111] This is then said to be evidence that they are an evolutionary carryover. [4111 → 4116] The claim is intentionally misleading, however, and misrepresents the conclusions of the scientists [4116 → 4120] who discovered and described Bacillus saurus. [4120 → 4126] Paleontologist Philip Gingrich, who described new specimens in science, concluded that maintenance [4126 → 4132] of some function is likely and may have assisted with reproduction. [4132 → 4137] Another evolutionary claim is that whales possess a vestigial pelvis, the remnant of [4137 → 4141] legs from evolutionary ancestors such as Bacillus saurus. [4141 → 4148] Again, however, this claim stems from ignorance, rather than evidence of a real vestigial structure. [4148 → 4153] In truth, the bones are different in males and females, and they appear to help protect [4153 → 4157] the reproductive organs. [4157 → 4161] With regards to the human body, as medical knowledge has increased, the number of vestigial [4161 → 4164] organs has been steadily reduced. [4164 → 4168] And even evolutionists now admit the number may be zero. [4168 → 4173] Thus it has become increasingly obvious that the vestigial argument is faceless, a false [4173 → 4177] argument founded on ignorance of how the body functioned. [4177 → 4184] Following a detailed study of Wietersheim's vestigial organ claims, S. R. Scadding concluded. [4184 → 4189] As our knowledge has increased, the list of vestigial structures has decreased. [4190 → 4193] Wietersheim could list about 100 in humans. [4193 → 4197] Recent authors usually list four or five. [4197 → 4201] Even the current short list of vestigial structures in humans is questionable. [4201 → 4205] Anatomically, the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function. [4205 → 4211] The coccyx serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments. [4211 → 4217] The semilunar fold of the eye aids in the cleansing and lubrication of the eyeball. [4217 → 4222] Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the [4222 → 4229] structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that vestigial organs provide [4229 → 4233] no special evidence for the theory of evolution. [4233 → 4239] To repeat, even organs that are frequently removed from humans likely have a purpose. [4239 → 4244] In its November 2001 issue, for example, Scientific American addressed the function of the human [4244 → 4247] appendix, noting that it [4247 → 4250] contains a significant amount of lymphoid tissue. [4250 → 4256] These tissues are involved in the body's ability to recognize foreign antigens, molecules to [4256 → 4261] which the immune system can respond in ingested material. [4261 → 4266] A growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does, in fact, have a significant [4266 → 4269] function as a part of the body's immune system. [4269 → 4275] The appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its highest [4275 → 4279] state of development shortly after birth. [4279 → 4281] Further problems exist. [4281 → 4285] Given that over the course of a century the number of vestigial human organs has fallen [4285 → 4291] from 100 to 0, an unbiased observer would likely reason that so-called useless organs [4291 → 4297] and structures in animals may, in fact, serve a purpose, even if that purpose is not now [4297 → 4300] recognized or understood. [4300 → 4305] The opposite conclusion, that such organs and structures are remnants from evolutionary [4305 → 4312] ancestors, would be logical only if direct evidence were found which demonstrated that [4312 → 4317] an undisputed evolutionary ancestor possessed such an organ or structure, and that it served [4317 → 4322] a useful function in that ancestor but no longer serves any function in the derivative [4322 → 4324] species. [4324 → 4330] For humans, however, as with all other species, such evidence cannot be established, for there [4330 → 4334] exists no convincing evidence of common descent. [4334 → 4339] One reason that textbooks still include treatments of vestigial organs is because evolutionists [4339 → 4344] believe this icon provides an argument against the alternatives to naturalistic evolution, [4344 → 4348] intelligent design, and creationism. [4348 → 4353] This tactic originated in Darwin's era, when many scientists professing belief in [4353 → 4358] creation and directed purpose in nature thought that all animals were created in a perfectly [4358 → 4361] functional state. [4361 → 4365] Evolutionists reasoned that if useless organs were found, it would constitute evidence for [4365 → 4368] naturalism and against design. [4368 → 4375] Indeed, as Gatting rightly observes, the vestigial organ argument is essentially a theological [4375 → 4383] rather than a scientific argument since it is based on the supposed nature of the creator. [4383 → 4388] Evolutionists continue to equate such concepts with the claims of scripture as it is much [4388 → 4394] easier to argue against outdated concepts than to honestly debate scientific evidence. [4394 → 4399] While this strategy has deluded many into believing that the evidence best supports [4399 → 4404] naturalism, it is disingenuous. [4404 → 4409] Scientists are told that vestigial organs are evidence of our evolutionary past, and [4409 → 4415] few question this claim because, after all, this is science. [4415 → 4421] But given the real evidence, the verdict on textbook claims for vestigial structures is [4421 → 4422] crystal clear. [4464 → 4476] The Claim [4476 → 4482] Homology, traditionally defined as the similarity in physical structures between organisms, [4482 → 4487] was a term coined in the 1840s by British anatomist Richard Owen. [4487 → 4493] It originally was a concept that aided taxonomists in assigning organisms to the proper family, [4493 → 4500] genus, and species when organisms were being classified according to the Linnaean system. [4500 → 4505] But after the publication of The Origin of Species, the term was co-opted by evolutionists [4505 → 4511] who redefined it as similarity in structure due to a shared common ancestor. [4511 → 4517] The claim by evolutionists, then, is that homology provides evidence of common descent [4517 → 4519] or macroevolution. [4519 → 4525] Homology is one of the most widely used arguments for evolution in the high school science textbooks. [4525 → 4531] A graphic comparing similar limb structure in bats, whales, humans, and other vertebrates [4531 → 4537] is generally included, with a caption that states that the structural similarities indicate [4537 → 4539] a shared evolutionary past. [4539 → 4546] Yet, as with all other proofs, homology falls short of demonstrating evolution, so much [4546 → 4552] so that, as will be explained, evolutionists have subtly changed its definition, even though [4552 → 4562] the revised meaning uses flawed circular reasoning. [4562 → 4567] The Full Story [4567 → 4572] Problems arise when one begins to examine claims concerning supposedly homologous features. [4572 → 4576] One of the most obvious, and yet most overlooked, is that in order to truly claim that two [4576 → 4580] features are homologous, one would need a similar feature in a common ancestor from [4580 → 4586] which the two features could have arisen, yet the common ancestors are generally missing. [4586 → 4588] Let me give an example. [4588 → 4592] Evolutionists claim that bat and whale limbs have similar limb structures, and point to [4592 → 4594] this as evidence of common descent. [4594 → 4598] However, as we saw in the whale sequence, it is questionable to assert that whales evolved, [4598 → 4603] and the fossil record has provided no links, not even tenuous ones, that would indicate [4603 → 4604] where bats came from. [4604 → 4607] They seem to have popped onto the scene without any predecessors. [4607 → 4611] There is certainly not any evidence identifying a specific common ancestor from whom whales [4611 → 4615] and bats could have derived their specific forelimb plan. [4615 → 4619] Such an ancestor is only an a priori requirement of evolution theory. [4619 → 4624] A creature that must have existed for the evolutionary narrative to be true, not a substantiated [4624 → 4626] fact. [4626 → 4631] Without a specific identifiable common ancestor that exhibits an ancestral form of any so-called [4631 → 4635] homologous features, it becomes impossible to make sound inferences about homology and [4635 → 4637] anatomic structures. [4637 → 4642] I can only fit the evidence into my already formed theories about which organisms might [4642 → 4645] have been related to each other. [4645 → 4651] There are also instances in which common ancestry is not claimed when structures are similar. [4651 → 4656] The eyes of the human and the octopus are very similar, and if similar structures are [4656 → 4662] truly an indication of common descent, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that [4662 → 4666] humans and octopi descended from a common ancestor. [4666 → 4670] Yet, evolutionists do not envision a close evolutionary relationship. [4670 → 4676] They instead defer to their only available alternative, convergent evolution, a theoretical [4676 → 4683] process said to give rise to analogous structures rather than homologous ones. [4683 → 4688] These analogous structures share a similar form because they are said to have evolved [4688 → 4691] independently to perform the same function. [4691 → 4696] In this case, the octopus eye is claimed to have evolved in an aquatic environment while [4696 → 4699] the human eye evolved in a terrestrial environment. [4699 → 4706] However, if there is no known mechanism able to produce an organ as complex as an eye, [4706 → 4712] even once, see the discussion about mutations, it is doubly implausible to believe that evolution [4712 → 4719] could produce such a complex organ twice through independent lines of evolution. [4719 → 4724] If evolutionists accept both convergent evolution and common ancestry as acceptable explanations [4724 → 4728] for the similarity of structures, and if claims of common ancestry cannot be traced through [4728 → 4733] the fossil record, then there is little basis on which to determine whether convergent evolution [4733 → 4737] or common descent is responsible for the similarity of structures. [4737 → 4740] Addressing this problem, an article in Nature stated, [4740 → 4745] "...similarities between species can arise in two ways. [4745 → 4750] Either each species has retained the trait in question from their common ancestor, or [4750 → 4753] each has acquired it independently. [4753 → 4758] Although the first possibility might seem far more likely, convergence is sufficiently [4758 → 4763] common and detailed in its manifestations for more than one unwary biologist to have [4763 → 4764] been duped. [4764 → 4768] Indeed, life abounds with cases of convergence. [4768 → 4774] The wings of birds and bats and the eyes of octopuses and humans are among the most familiar [4774 → 4778] examples from an immense and varied casebook." [4778 → 4782] In the wake of homology's inability to confirm evolutionary relationships among species, [4782 → 4787] Jonathan Wells observed, in Icons of Evolution, that evolutionists have redefined homology [4787 → 4791] to include evolution as part of its definition. [4791 → 4795] Rather than defining homology in the traditional manner, as similarity between structures, [4795 → 4798] leading evolutionist Ernst Mayr describes it this way, [4798 → 4805] "...a feature in two or more taxa is homologous when it is derived from the same or a corresponding [4805 → 4809] feature of their common ancestor." [4809 → 4813] In other words, this brings us back to our aforementioned slippery slope, with another [4813 → 4815] unpleasant consequence. [4815 → 4819] If evolutionists now claim that two groups with similar structures are said to be homologous [4819 → 4824] because they descend from a common ancestor, then turn around and claim that such homology [4824 → 4828] proves the same two groups' common descent, they begin to commit the logical error of [4828 → 4830] circular reasoning. [4830 → 4834] The evidence cannot independently support the explanation when the explanation has been [4834 → 4836] developed specifically to account for the evidence. [4836 → 4841] It would be like arguing that a lack of miracles in the world disproves the existence of God, [4841 → 4846] and therefore, since God does not exist, there is no such thing as miracles. [4846 → 4849] Evolutionists ignore the error of circular reasoning, as the current definition effectively [4849 → 4853] removes alternative explanations, such as design, from consideration. [4853 → 4858] Moreover, most high school students fail to recognize the fallacy unless it is explicitly [4858 → 4860] pointed out to them. [4860 → 4864] But there is a deeper scientific problem with homology, and this arises due to the mechanism [4864 → 4870] of descent with modification chosen by Darwin to explain evolution theory and the explanation [4870 → 4875] of this descent with modification as intimately linked to mutations by the neo-Darwinian biologists [4875 → 4878] of today. [4878 → 4883] If homologous structures were truly developed from a common ancestor, and mutations were [4883 → 4889] truly the mechanism of descent with modification, as is claimed by neo-Darwinists, one would [4889 → 4895] expect to see that the development of purportedly homologous structures were coded for by similar [4895 → 4897] or homologous genes. [4897 → 4904] As early as 1971, evolutionary biologist Gavin DeBeer had identified the development [4904 → 4910] of a homologous trait from non-homologous genes with his work in fruit fly eye development, [4910 → 4913] and since then, more have been discovered. [4913 → 4918] Segments in fruit flies are formed using genes that are different from segment formation [4918 → 4925] in other insects, even though all insect segments are thought to be homologous, and the gene [4925 → 4930] for sex determination in fruit flies is also different from supposedly closely related [4930 → 4932] species. [4932 → 4937] What is even more common, however, is the development of non-homologous structures from [4937 → 4942] genes that are extremely similar in structure and have been labeled by evolutionists as [4942 → 4944] homologous. [4944 → 4950] One of the most striking examples is a gene called distalis, a sequence found in a broad [4950 → 4955] group of animals and responsible for limb formation in many of these groups. [4955 → 4961] It is implicated in the development of structures as diverse as butterfly wings, the spines [4961 → 4965] of sea urchins, and the feet of mice. [4965 → 4970] No evolutionary biologist would claim that these structures, as different as they are, [4970 → 4977] were directly inherited from a common ancestor and show close relationships of common descent, [4977 → 4984] yet they are coded for by genes that are strikingly similar across all the different species. [4984 → 4988] This discrepancy presents a thorny problem for evolutionists. [4988 → 4991] If their mechanism of descent with modification through mutation is correct, they have no [4991 → 4996] means of accounting for the homology of structures observable among organisms. [4996 → 5000] If homology of structures is truly evidence for evolution, it gives the lie to their mechanism, [5000 → 5004] for it did not come about through genetic means. [5004 → 5010] Homology is one of the most widely used arguments for evolution in textbooks. [5010 → 5013] And why would students question it? [5013 → 5017] After all, this is science. [5017 → 5024] Given the lack of evidence for differentiating common descent or convergence, let us be willing [5024 → 5030] to base our verdict on textbook claims for homologous structures on the evidence. [5064 → 5085] The Claim [5085 → 5090] According to Haeckel's biogenetic law, as an embryo develops, it retraces the adult [5090 → 5093] forms of its species' evolutionary history. [5093 → 5100] The claim is that all embryos are alike in the early stages of development, and differentiation [5100 → 5106] occurs only during later stages, as the embryo climbs its species' evolutionary tree, so [5106 → 5107] to speak. [5107 → 5112] Early in its development, for example, the human embryo is claimed to have gill slits [5112 → 5117] as it passes through the fish stage of its evolutionary development. [5117 → 5123] As the embryo then advances to retrace its reptilian phase, a tail is added. [5123 → 5130] This process, termed recapitulation, continues until the embryo finally becomes human. [5130 → 5136] This claim dates back to the production of numerous drawings by Ernst Haeckel, a German [5136 → 5138] naturalist of the 19th century. [5138 → 5144] In one rendering, he portrayed three stages of embryonic development for the fish, the [5144 → 5148] salamander, the tortoise, and the chicken. [5148 → 5153] All were nearly identical in the initial stage of development, having long curved tails [5153 → 5156] and gill slits under the head. [5156 → 5157] Haeckel wrote, [5157 → 5163] If you take the young embryos of a dog, a chicken, and a tortoise, you cannot discover [5163 → 5166] a single difference among them. [5166 → 5172] This allowed him to claim that all vertebrates had a common ancestry, as evidenced by his [5172 → 5175] drawings of the first stage of embryonic development. [5175 → 5181] The argument is similar to that of homology, but applied specifically to prenatal stages [5181 → 5183] of development. [5183 → 5191] In Darwin's 1871 book on human evolution, The Descent of Man, he relied heavily on Haeckel's [5191 → 5193] recapitulation theory and wrote, [5193 → 5198] The embryo itself, at a very early period, can hardly be distinguished from that of other [5198 → 5201] members of the vertebrate kingdom. [5201 → 5205] He concluded that because humans and other vertebrates [5205 → 5210] pass through the same early stages of development, we ought frankly to admit their community [5210 → 5212] of descent. [5212 → 5220] Today, drawings or photographs of fish, reptile, bird, and mammal embryos routinely appear [5220 → 5225] in textbooks and are still sometimes labeled as having gill slits. [5225 → 5227] One high school textbook explains, [5227 → 5231] Comparing embryos can reveal their evolutionary relationships. [5231 → 5237] The presence of gill slits and tails in early vertebrate embryos shows that they may share [5237 → 5243] a common ancestor. [5243 → 5244] The Full Story [5244 → 5251] Haeckel's work had an enormous influence. [5251 → 5253] Stephen Jay Gould wrote that Haeckel's books [5253 → 5259] appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any [5259 → 5264] other scientist, including Darwin and Huxley, in convincing people throughout the world [5264 → 5267] about the validity of evolution. [5267 → 5270] Gould stated that Haeckel's drawings are [5270 → 5278] an evolutionary notion exceeded only by natural selection itself for impact upon popular culture. [5278 → 5285] This is most unfortunate, as Haeckel's drawings were inaccurate and, many evolutionists admit, [5285 → 5286] faked. [5286 → 5291] In some illustrations, he grossly exaggerated similarities. [5291 → 5298] In others, he copied the same figure and represented it as the early embryo stage of multiple species. [5298 → 5300] As Gould explained, [5300 → 5306] To cut to the quick of this drama, Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations [5306 → 5307] and omissions. [5307 → 5313] He also, in some cases, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent, simply copied [5313 → 5318] the same figure over and over again. [5318 → 5324] As reported in Science, he also portrayed the embryos as if they were the same size, [5324 → 5329] even though they were actually tenfold differences in size. [5329 → 5334] The fraudulent nature of Haeckel's drawings has been revisited within the scientific literature [5334 → 5340] in recent years, due largely to the work of Michael K. Richardson of the Department [5340 → 5346] of Anatomy and Developmental Biology at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London. [5346 → 5353] In 1999, he explained Haeckel's belief that evolution acted mainly by adding new stages [5353 → 5355] to the end of development. [5355 → 5356] Consequently, [5356 → 5362] Haeckel, in 1891, published a series of comparative drawings showing different animals arising [5362 → 5366] from virtually identical somite stage embryos. [5366 → 5371] Earlier editions of this work, example 1874, had even more implausible figures in which [5371 → 5377] fish embryos were drawn to look almost the same as human ones. [5377 → 5383] These famous images are inaccurate and give a misleading view of embryonic development. [5383 → 5386] Elsewhere, Richardson concluded, [5386 → 5391] It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology. [5392 → 5397] Haeckel's drawings of 1874 are substantially fabricated. [5397 → 5403] In support of this view, I note that his oldest fish image is made up of bits and pieces from [5403 → 5406] different animals, some of them mythical. [5406 → 5410] It is not unreasonable to characterize this as faking. [5410 → 5417] Sadly, it is the discredited 1874 drawings that are used in so many British and American [5417 → 5421] biology textbooks today. [5421 → 5427] In addition to its deceptiveness, Haeckel's concept has been discredited by modern science, [5427 → 5432] which has conclusively demonstrated that human embryos do not pass through a fish stage in [5432 → 5435] which they sport gills. [5435 → 5440] In fact, pre-born humans do not pass through any evolutionary stages at all. [5440 → 5446] Pre-born humans are always human and change only in their level of physical development. [5446 → 5451] Haeckel has programmed according to the designs of human DNA, which is present from the moment [5451 → 5453] of conception. [5453 → 5460] Clearly, there are important moral issues related to the question of when human life [5460 → 5465] begins, and Haeckel's deceptive drawings are stubbornly maintained in many classroom [5465 → 5474] textbooks to further the pro-abortion agenda of the NEA and many educational theorists. [5474 → 5478] Generation after generation has been fed the lie of Haeckel's embryos, and few have [5478 → 5481] questioned the biology textbooks. [5481 → 5484] After all, this is science. [5484 → 5491] But ideas have consequences, and given that the view of a human embryo as a non-human [5491 → 5497] has led to the desensitization of society to the full humanity of the unborn child from [5497 → 5504] the moment of conception, it is time for all people, especially instructors in Catholic [5504 → 5510] schools, to answer the question, given the real evidence, what is the verdict of sound [5510 → 5524] science on textbook claims for Haeckel's embryos? [5524 → 5529] In the following six episodes, viewers will continue to see that virtually everything [5529 → 5535] they were taught about evolution was a deception, and that the errors of Descartes and Darwin [5535 → 5543] have infected not just biology, but also the fields of paleoanthropology, geology, and [5543 → 5545] cosmology. [5545 → 5550] As you watch, I hope that you are willing to consider that virtually all of us were [5550 → 5555] duped about evolution when we were young, trusting students, and that this lie has [5555 → 5559] shaped much of our worldview. [5559 → 5566] While the falseness of evolutionary claims is easy to demonstrate, the difficulty, even [5566 → 5571] for many Catholics, will be to purge one's mind of long-held errors and embrace the only [5571 → 5579] viable alternative to naturalism, supernatural creation. [5579 → 5587] For instructors in Catholic schools and seminaries, I pray that you will consider the duty to [5587 → 5590] teach the truth about origins. [5590 → 5596] This does not mean that we jettison Darwinism from the science classroom, but that we teach [5596 → 5603] it critically in response to our Christian duty to present the truth in all subject areas.