Icons of EvolutionIcons of

EvolutionBy Jonathan Wells

Regnery Publishing Co., 2000

By Jonathan WellsRegnery Publishing Co., 2000

Introduction Introduction

Does the scientific community have empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution?

Most biological texts answer with a resounding “Yes.” But is this an accurate answer?

Does the scientific community have empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution?

Most biological texts answer with a resounding “Yes.” But is this an accurate answer?

2Steve Badger

IntroductionIntroduction Embryologist Jonathan Wells (PhD in

cell and developmental biology, University of California, Berkeley) claims that biology textbooks greatly exaggerate and distort the evidence to support a theory of evolution.

He claims “Students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution” by these books.

Embryologist Jonathan Wells (PhD in cell and developmental biology, University of California, Berkeley) claims that biology textbooks greatly exaggerate and distort the evidence to support a theory of evolution.

He claims “Students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution” by these books.

3Steve Badger

IntroductionIntroduction

He uses direct quotes of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, written by experts in the field to illustrate these exaggerations, distortions, and outright deceptions.

His approach in this book is neither philosophical nor religious, but it is scientific.

He uses direct quotes of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, written by experts in the field to illustrate these exaggerations, distortions, and outright deceptions.

His approach in this book is neither philosophical nor religious, but it is scientific.

4Steve Badger

1. The Miller-Urey Experiment1. The Miller-Urey Experiment

As a graduate student at the University of Chicago in 1953, Stanley Miller and his major professor, Harold Urey, attempted to simulate the earth’s primitive atmospheric conditions in a laboratory apparatus (see illustration).

As a graduate student at the University of Chicago in 1953, Stanley Miller and his major professor, Harold Urey, attempted to simulate the earth’s primitive atmospheric conditions in a laboratory apparatus (see illustration).

5Steve Badger

1. The Miller-Urey Experiment1. The Miller-Urey Experiment

They speculated that the primitive atmosphere had little if any oxygen, but had methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water vapor (H2O).

They speculated that the primitive atmosphere had little if any oxygen, but had methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water vapor (H2O).

6Steve Badger

The mixture was heated, and the vapors passed through an electric spark (simulating lightening), and then cooled and reheated.

After a period of time, the soup was analyzed and found to contain amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.

The mixture was heated, and the vapors passed through an electric spark (simulating lightening), and then cooled and reheated.

After a period of time, the soup was analyzed and found to contain amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.

1. The Miller-Urey Experiment1. The Miller-Urey Experiment

7Steve Badger

r

1. The Miller-Urey Experiment

1. The Miller-Urey Experiment

8Steve Badger

1. The Miller-Urey Experiment1. The Miller-Urey Experiment

This work has been used to support the idea that life could have arisen spontaneously from non-life (we call this spontaneous generation).

This work has been used to support the idea that life could have arisen spontaneously from non-life (we call this spontaneous generation).

9Steve Badger

1. The Miller-Urey Experiment1. The Miller-Urey Experiment

Does the Miller-Urey experiment support spontaneous generation (abiogenesis)?

Is this really hard, scientific evidence for spontaneous generation?

What is wrong with this experiment?

Does the Miller-Urey experiment support spontaneous generation (abiogenesis)?

Is this really hard, scientific evidence for spontaneous generation?

What is wrong with this experiment?

10Steve Badger

1. The Miller-Urey Experiment1. The Miller-Urey Experiment

1. The choices of gases to include and exclude were highly speculative—and most researchers in that field today reject them as being unlikely.

Some evidence suggests that the primitive earth atmosphere included oxygen.

1. The choices of gases to include and exclude were highly speculative—and most researchers in that field today reject them as being unlikely.

Some evidence suggests that the primitive earth atmosphere included oxygen.

11Steve Badger

1. The Miller-Urey Experiment1. The Miller-Urey Experiment

2. Proteins as the first organic molecule is not part of a reasonable spontaneous generation hypothesis. Neither is DNA.

Some suggest RNA is the best candidate for the original molecule in spontaneous generation. But we have thought of no mechanism for synthesizing RNA—other than by life forms.

2. Proteins as the first organic molecule is not part of a reasonable spontaneous generation hypothesis. Neither is DNA.

Some suggest RNA is the best candidate for the original molecule in spontaneous generation. But we have thought of no mechanism for synthesizing RNA—other than by life forms.

12Steve Badger

1. The Miller-Urey Experiment1. The Miller-Urey Experiment

3. The amino acids molecules formed in this experiment were a mixture of two forms (they are called D- and L-).

Life is composed only of the latter. The presence of the former would mitigate against spontaneous generation.

3. The amino acids molecules formed in this experiment were a mixture of two forms (they are called D- and L-).

Life is composed only of the latter. The presence of the former would mitigate against spontaneous generation.

13Steve Badger

2. Darwin’s Tree of Life 2. Darwin’s Tree of Life

A central feature of almost every contemporary theory of evolution is that all life descended from a common ancestor. Darwin called this “the Great Tree of Life.”

This “Great Tree of Life” model predicts:

A central feature of almost every contemporary theory of evolution is that all life descended from a common ancestor. Darwin called this “the Great Tree of Life.”

This “Great Tree of Life” model predicts:

14Steve Badger

2. Darwin’s Tree of Life 2. Darwin’s Tree of Life

1. Phylum-level and class-level differences appeared only after a long history of changes in species.

2. The fossil record will show evidence of speciation occurring through all epochs.

3. The Tree of Life has been used for so long that many people assume it is factual.

1. Phylum-level and class-level differences appeared only after a long history of changes in species.

2. The fossil record will show evidence of speciation occurring through all epochs.

3. The Tree of Life has been used for so long that many people assume it is factual.

15Steve Badger

2. Darwin’s Tree of Life 2. Darwin’s Tree of Life

This theory posits that “phylum-level differences could not have appeared right at the start. Yet that is what the fossil record shows.” (35) We call this “sudden” appearance of many phyla the Cambrian explosion, and biologists typically propose three solutions.

“So the branching-tree pattern of evolution is inconsistent with major features of the fossil and molecular evidence.” (54)

This theory posits that “phylum-level differences could not have appeared right at the start. Yet that is what the fossil record shows.” (35) We call this “sudden” appearance of many phyla the Cambrian explosion, and biologists typically propose three solutions.

“So the branching-tree pattern of evolution is inconsistent with major features of the fossil and molecular evidence.” (54)

16Steve Badger

3. Homology in Vertebrate Limbs3. Homology in Vertebrate Limbs Structural similarity is called

homology Probably the classic examples of

homology are vertebrate forelimbs (compare the bat’s wings, the dolphin’s flippers, the dog’s front legs, and the arms and hands of humans)

This fact of structural similarity is cited as evidence of common descent (evolution)

Structural similarity is called homology

Probably the classic examples of homology are vertebrate forelimbs (compare the bat’s wings, the dolphin’s flippers, the dog’s front legs, and the arms and hands of humans)

This fact of structural similarity is cited as evidence of common descent (evolution)

17Steve Badger

3. Homology in Vertebrate Limbs3. Homology in Vertebrate Limbs

If homology is defined as similarity due to common descent, how can it be cited as evidence for common descent? This is circular reasoning.

If homology is defined as similarity due to common descent, how can it be cited as evidence for common descent? This is circular reasoning.

18Steve Badger

3. Homology in Vertebrate Limbs3. Homology in Vertebrate Limbs

Scientists have long known that homologous structures are not (necessarily) due to similar genes. (If homologous structures were the result of common descent, they would be due to similar genes.)

Scientists have long known that homologous structures are not (necessarily) due to similar genes. (If homologous structures were the result of common descent, they would be due to similar genes.)

19Steve Badger

4. Haeckel’s Embryos 4. Haeckel’s Embryos

Darwin noticed similarities in embryos of different species and concluded that this demonstrates that they descended from a common ancestor—and what that ancestor looked like. He relied on Ernst Haeckel’s drawing of embryos to illustrate his conclusion.

Darwin noticed similarities in embryos of different species and concluded that this demonstrates that they descended from a common ancestor—and what that ancestor looked like. He relied on Ernst Haeckel’s drawing of embryos to illustrate his conclusion.

20Steve Badger

4. Haeckel’s Embryos4. Haeckel’s Embryos

Haeckel’s drawings of embryos of various vertebrates showed them as almost identical in the earliest stages, becoming more dissimilar as they developed.

Haeckel’s drawings of embryos of various vertebrates showed them as almost identical in the earliest stages, becoming more dissimilar as they developed.

21Steve Badger

r

4. Haeckel’s Embryos4. Haeckel’s Embryos

22Steve Badger

r

4. H

aecke

l’s Em

bry

os

4. H

aecke

l’s Em

bry

os

23Steve Badger

4. Haeckel’s Embryos4. Haeckel’s Embryos

“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” they said.

He used the term “ontogeny” to stand for embryonic development and the term “phylogeny” to stand for the evolutionary history of a species.

“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” they said.

He used the term “ontogeny” to stand for embryonic development and the term “phylogeny” to stand for the evolutionary history of a species.

24Steve Badger

4. Haeckel’s Embryos4. Haeckel’s Embryos “Biologists have known for over a

century that Haeckel faked his drawings; vertebrate embryos never look as similar as he made them out to be.” (82)

Haeckel’s drawings greatly exaggerated the similarities and the “evidence [was] twisted to fit the theory.”

“Biologists have known for over a century that Haeckel faked his drawings; vertebrate embryos never look as similar as he made them out to be.” (82)

Haeckel’s drawings greatly exaggerated the similarities and the “evidence [was] twisted to fit the theory.”

25Steve Badger

4. Haeckel’s Embryos4. Haeckel’s Embryos “When Haeckel’s embryos are

viewed side-by-side with actual embryos, there can be no doubt that his drawing were deliberately distorted to fit his theory.” (92)

Even arch-evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould reached this conclusion (Natural History March 2000).

“When Haeckel’s embryos are viewed side-by-side with actual embryos, there can be no doubt that his drawing were deliberately distorted to fit his theory.” (92)

Even arch-evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould reached this conclusion (Natural History March 2000).

26Steve Badger

4. Haeckel’s Embryos4. Haeckel’s Embryos In reality: vertebrate embryos start

out looking very different, become more similar in appearance midway through development, and then become increasingly dissimilar as they move toward adulthood.

Conclusion? “Instead of providing support for Darwin’s theory, the embryological evidence presents it with a paradox.” (99)

In reality: vertebrate embryos start out looking very different, become more similar in appearance midway through development, and then become increasingly dissimilar as they move toward adulthood.

Conclusion? “Instead of providing support for Darwin’s theory, the embryological evidence presents it with a paradox.” (99)

27Steve Badger

5. Archaeopteryx—The Missing Link5. Archaeopteryx—The Missing Link Darwin’s theory postulated the existence

of intermediate, transitional links between extant species and the “parent-species.” Since the fossil record was incomplete, none were known when The Origin of the Species was published in 1859.

Just a couple of years later, Hermann von Meyer described a fossil that he named Archaeopteryx (ancient wing). Another better specimen was discovered in 1877.

Darwin’s theory postulated the existence of intermediate, transitional links between extant species and the “parent-species.” Since the fossil record was incomplete, none were known when The Origin of the Species was published in 1859.

Just a couple of years later, Hermann von Meyer described a fossil that he named Archaeopteryx (ancient wing). Another better specimen was discovered in 1877.

28Steve Badger

5. Archaeopteryx—The Missing Link5. Archaeopteryx—The Missing Link Archaeopteryx had bird-like

feathers and a reptilian jaw and teeth, so it was hailed as the evolutionary link between reptiles and birds.

At last (some thought), empirical, unimpeachable evidence for the theory of evolution.

Archaeopteryx had bird-like feathers and a reptilian jaw and teeth, so it was hailed as the evolutionary link between reptiles and birds.

At last (some thought), empirical, unimpeachable evidence for the theory of evolution.

29Steve Badger

Evolutionists are divided over the use of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form

Probably the majority of evolutionists no longer claim Archaeopteryx as a transitional form

Evolutionists are divided over the use of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form

Probably the majority of evolutionists no longer claim Archaeopteryx as a transitional form

5. Archaeopteryx—The Missing Link5. Archaeopteryx—The Missing Link

30Steve Badger

6. Peppered Moths6. Peppered Moths

Peppered moths have two variations: light and dark (England & USA)

The ratio of dark to light moths changed over time

In the 1950s, Kettlewell suggested that birds ate the more visible moths

Peppered moths have two variations: light and dark (England & USA)

The ratio of dark to light moths changed over time

In the 1950s, Kettlewell suggested that birds ate the more visible moths

31Steve Badger

6. Peppered Moths6. Peppered Moths

The light variety were more abundant, then the dark variety became more common

Pollution-darkened tree trunks made the light variety more visible, so birds ate more light ones

An example of protective camouflage?

The light variety were more abundant, then the dark variety became more common

Pollution-darkened tree trunks made the light variety more visible, so birds ate more light ones

An example of protective camouflage?

32Steve Badger

6. Peppered Moths6. Peppered Moths Early test seemed to indicate

birds ate more light moths in an environment with dark trees

They called it “the most striking evolutionary change ever actually witnessed in any organism” (143)

We have observed an evolutionary process

Early test seemed to indicate birds ate more light moths in an environment with dark trees

They called it “the most striking evolutionary change ever actually witnessed in any organism” (143)

We have observed an evolutionary process

33Steve Badger

6. Peppered Moths6. Peppered Moths

If this selective advantage was real, the dark moths should have almost completely replaced the light ones over time

Since this did not happen, perhaps something besides camouflage and predatory birds was involved

If this selective advantage was real, the dark moths should have almost completely replaced the light ones over time

Since this did not happen, perhaps something besides camouflage and predatory birds was involved

34Steve Badger

6. Peppered Moths6. Peppered Moths

Peppered moths don’t naturally rest on tree trunks, but on the underside of smaller, horizontal limbs

Many of the photos of peppered moths on tree trunks were staged

Textbooks still cite this as evidence of natural selection

Peppered moths don’t naturally rest on tree trunks, but on the underside of smaller, horizontal limbs

Many of the photos of peppered moths on tree trunks were staged

Textbooks still cite this as evidence of natural selection

35Steve Badger

7. Darwin’s Finches7. Darwin’s Finches

Darwin suggested that the variety of beaks on finches on the Galápagos Islands is often cited as an example of natural selection

Jonathan Weiner called it “the most detailed demonstration…of the power of Darwin’s process” (167)

Darwin suggested that the variety of beaks on finches on the Galápagos Islands is often cited as an example of natural selection

Jonathan Weiner called it “the most detailed demonstration…of the power of Darwin’s process” (167)

36Steve Badger

7. Darwin’s Finches7. Darwin’s Finches

37Steve Badger

7. Darwin’s Finches7. Darwin’s Finches

During the 1970s, research discovered that beak size in these finches is related to rainfall and the abundance of the seed crop

Finch beak size may fit a natural selection model, but we have no empirical evidence to support that

During the 1970s, research discovered that beak size in these finches is related to rainfall and the abundance of the seed crop

Finch beak size may fit a natural selection model, but we have no empirical evidence to support that

38Steve Badger

7. Darwin’s Finches7. Darwin’s Finches

Darwinian theory predicts a diverging model (greater numbers of varieties in beak size)

Observation finds the opposite—a converging model (fewer numbers of varieties in beak size)

Darwinian theory predicts a diverging model (greater numbers of varieties in beak size)

Observation finds the opposite—a converging model (fewer numbers of varieties in beak size)

39Steve Badger

8. Four-Winged Fruit Flies8. Four-Winged Fruit Flies

Mutations are easily induced in Drosophila melanogaster

One such mutant has two pairs of wings rather than one pair

Does this support the theory of evolution?

Mutations are easily induced in Drosophila melanogaster

One such mutant has two pairs of wings rather than one pair

Does this support the theory of evolution?

40Steve Badger

8. Four-Winged Fruit Flies8. Four-Winged Fruit Flies

The extra pair of wings lack muscles

The flies cannot fly—they are handicapped

The extra pair of wings are not beneficial, they are detrimental

The extra pair of wings lack muscles

The flies cannot fly—they are handicapped

The extra pair of wings are not beneficial, they are detrimental

41Steve Badger

8. Four-Winged Fruit Flies8. Four-Winged Fruit Flies

This extra pair of wings does not provide evidence that DNA mutations produce beneficial changes in body structures

The mutations were not “natural,” but “artificial”—under the control of an intelligent designer (human)

This extra pair of wings does not provide evidence that DNA mutations produce beneficial changes in body structures

The mutations were not “natural,” but “artificial”—under the control of an intelligent designer (human)

42Steve Badger

9. Fossil Horses & Directed Evolution9. Fossil Horses & Directed Evolution Early in the development of the theory

of evolution, the proposed recon-struction of the evolutionary history of horses was used to support the idea of “directed evolution” (orthogenesis).

Now evolutionists claim that the new branched-tree theory of horse evolution argues against directed evolution.

Early in the development of the theory of evolution, the proposed recon-struction of the evolutionary history of horses was used to support the idea of “directed evolution” (orthogenesis).

Now evolutionists claim that the new branched-tree theory of horse evolution argues against directed evolution.

43Steve Badger

9. Fossil Horses & Directed Evolution9. Fossil Horses & Directed Evolution

Neither straight-line nor branching-tree models argue for or against directed evolution.

Undirected (purely random) evolution is a philosophical position, not a scientific observation.

Neither straight-line nor branching-tree models argue for or against directed evolution.

Undirected (purely random) evolution is a philosophical position, not a scientific observation.

44Steve Badger

10. From Ape to Human10. From Ape to Human

Evolutionists typically claim that humans evolved just as the other animals evolved

Thus evolutionists typically see humans as animals that are more evolved

Evolutionists typically claim that humans evolved just as the other animals evolved

Thus evolutionists typically see humans as animals that are more evolved

45Steve Badger

10. From Ape to Human10. From Ape to Human

The fossil evidence to support models of human evolution is even more subjective than that for models of evolution of other animals

Much of what is offered as evidence is actually (speculative) interpretation

The fossil evidence to support models of human evolution is even more subjective than that for models of evolution of other animals

Much of what is offered as evidence is actually (speculative) interpretation

46Steve Badger

10. From Ape to Human10. From Ape to Human

Often the data are merely organized to fit the model!

But the data fit other models just as well!

Often the data are merely organized to fit the model!

But the data fit other models just as well!

47Steve Badger

The point of this book…The point of this book…

Most science textbooks continue to cite these “icons of evolution” as evidence to support this theory

Scientists should know these have been discredited—many do not

What does this show about the nature of the dialogue/argument?

Most science textbooks continue to cite these “icons of evolution” as evidence to support this theory

Scientists should know these have been discredited—many do not

What does this show about the nature of the dialogue/argument?

48Steve Badger