Book Reviews What biology textbooks never told you about evolution
atmosphere could have produced the A review of chemical building blocks of life. Icons of Evolution: Science The hypothesis remained untested or Myth? Why much of until 1953, when University of Chi- what we teach about evolu- cago graduate student Stanley Miller tion is wrong reported an experiment in which meth- by Jonathan Wells ane, ammonia, hydrogen and water Regnery Publishing, Inc., (thought to be the components of the Washington, 2000. ‘primitive’ atmosphere) were mixed in a closed glass apparatus. The water was heated and the gases circulated Royal Truman past a high-voltage electric spark to Oxygen, deliberately removed from simulate lightning. This provided the Miller’s apparatus, destroys amino ac- energy to break the chemical bonds of ids. But geological evidence indicates Why do many believe evolution- the compounds present, and the result- oxygen was always present on earth.1–7 ary theory is true? One is bombarded ing free radicals combined to form a It is produced by photolysis of water constantly with claims that all scientists mixture of simple organic compounds, vapour in the atmosphere, where hy- believe in evolution; that science has including trace quantities of some drogen escapes gravitation and oxygen demonstrated it; that evolution is based amino acids. thereby increases in concentration. on empirical science. Many might re- Crucial to the success of the ex- Currently, the most probable early member ‘proofs’, which Dr Wells calls periment was Miller’s water trap in atmosphere is deemed by evolution- ‘Icons of Evolution’, learned in school which the amino acids generated could ists to have consisted of water, carbon or from popular science articles. The dissolve and thus be protected from dioxide, nitrogen and hydrogen, a very ten most common ‘icons’ used to back subsequent destructive contact with different composition than used by up evolution are reviewed and showed the spark. But on the hypothesized Miller. Hydrogen would have been to be either fraudulent or irrelevant as primordial Earth with no oxygen present in small concentrations at evolutionary evidence. Amazingly, (and therefore no ozone), the prod- most, because it could escape Earth’s Wells documents that even some lead- ucts would have been exposed to gravity; ammonia and methane would ing biology professors were unaware destructive ultraviolet rays. This is have been destroyed by ultraviolet they were teaching nonsense. Had so even if they reached the oceans, light. In 1983, Miller reported that if these false ‘icons’ never existed, per- because UV radiation can penetrate carbon monoxide is added to the more haps evolutionary doctrine would not tens of metres of water. realistic mixture, plus a large propor- have taken such a hold. Per se, this experiment does not tion of free hydrogen, then only gly- Wells is a man with indisputable pose difficulties to the creationist. cine, the simplest amino acid, could be intellectual gifts who does not bow to With the most astute intelligent guid- produced, and in trace amounts only. intimidation. Having been opposed to ance, such an experimental set-up, The experts know the experiments serving with the American armed forces which generates a multitude of inter- provide no support for an abiogenesis in Vietnam, he chose jail rather than fering organic acids and bases (plus model. But nevertheless, biology compromise his convictions. He then racemic and biologically useless textbooks and popular magazines like went on to earn a doctorate in theology amino acids) cannot produce a single National Geographic continue to mis- (Yale) and a second doctorate in mo- biologically relevant protein strand. lead the public into thinking that the lecular and cell biology (Berkeley). To claim this experiment as evidence Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for for evolution would be akin to allow- evolution.8 Wells concludes by citing Icon 1: The Miller-Urey experiment ing water to flow over a bed of coal, one chemist’s acknowledgement that and upon identifying a little ink-like such publications are teaching ‘my- Wells sets the scene for this chapter substance, claiming the Encyclopaedia thology rather than science’ (p. 27). by describing the 1920s Oparin/Hal- Britannica was produced by natural, dane idea that lightning in the primitive random processes. Icon 2: Darwin’s tree of life
TJ 15(2) 2001 17 Book Reviews
ized ancestors are allegedly hundreds of millions of years old, essentially identical to those alive, and yet many have left no fossil evidence during this supposed vast interval. The lack of evolutionary change, in spite of a constantly changing physical and eco- logical environment, is glaring. Phylogenic trees based on DNA comparison contradict those derived from rRNA analysis. Protein phy logenies have merely added to the confusion. ‘A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses’ (p. 51). Examples of molecular sequences incompatible with evo lutionary theories are well known to creationists and anti-Darwinists.10 For example, antigen receptor proteins of Schematic diagram of the Stanley Miller’s famous experiment where water vapour, methane, sharks and the llama/camel family ammonia and hydrogen gas was passed through a spark. The resultant chemicals were col- have the same unusual single chain lected and showed trace amounts of both left and right-handed amino acids. structure, so this must be explained away as ‘convergence’.11 primitive’ specimens: Nevertheless, a 1999 booklet pub- Darwin believed characteristics ‘already have the basic ordinal lished by the National Academy of acquired during an organism’s lifetime characteristics, and in no case is Sciences (USA) claims: could be passed on to offspring, a an approximately continuous se ‘As the ability to sequence … DNA concept proposed by Jean de Lamarck. quence from one order to another has improved, it has also become Species would vary over vast periods known. In most cases the break is possible to use genes to recon- of time until the divergence became so sharp and the gap is so large that struct the evolutionary history of great enough to produce new species. the origin of the order is speculative organisms … . The evidence for 9 Separate phyla would eventually de- and much disputed.’ evolution from molecular biology velop from a common ancestor. Plenty of suitable sedimen- is overwhelming and is growing Wells points out a large number of tary deposits (i.e. in which organisms quickly.’12 inconsistencies between the Darwinian could have been preserved as fossils) Wells, however, shows such ‘tree of life’ and the fossil record. exist within the late Precambrian and claims are without foundation. Fossils from the Burgess Shale in Cambrian strata. One cannot argue the However, this chapter has a major Canada; the Sirious Passet in northern ancestors might have not possessed shortcoming. Not in what it says, Greenland; and the Chengjiang in preserved hard parts. In Africa and but in what is left unsaid. Wells is southern China, dated as geologically Australia, geologists have discovered content to show that the ‘Cambrian contemporary, display a bewildering sediments, dated by evolutionary con- explosion’ in the fossil record con- range of complex, fully developed ventions at over three billion years old, tradicts the Darwinian ‘tree of life’. organisms with no earlier ancestors. which contain fossilized single-celled Though he emphasizes that ‘paradox’ Uniformitarian dating places this Cam- organisms. The lack of intermediates repeatedly, Wells does not point out brian Explosion at around 530 million where these should have been found that the standard idea about the fossil years ago, and it lasted a maximum of lies in stark conflict with evolutionary record—i.e. that it is akin to a ‘tape- 5–10 million years. Furthermore, in predictions. recording’ of millions of years—needs all 32 mammal orders, even the ‘most Another difficulty is the existence to be re-evaluated. (In reality, the of ‘living fossils’. Some of the fossil-
18 TJ 15(2) 2001 Book Reviews fossil record is far better explained by from a common ancestor. As an ex- biologist, provided a series of drawings a global Flood and some of its after- ample, which conveniently demonstrated just effects which buried a world of plants ‘In salamanders, development of this. These pictures appear even today and animals, in a time sequence which the digits proceeds in the opposite in graduate-level biology textbooks, did not involve millions of years.) This direction, from head to tail. The such as American Academy of Science is a deficiency, and Wells’ apparent ac- difference is so striking that some president Bruce Alberts’ Molecular commodation of ‘millions of years’ is biologists have argued that the evo- Biology of the Cell, with no statement gleefully exploited by sceptics in their lutionary history of salamanders that this evidence is a well-established mocking reviews of Wells’ book.13 must have been different from all blatant fraud, a shameless fake. Even other vertebrates, including frogs’ Darwin, who called this his ‘strongest Icon 3: Homology in vertebrate (p. 72). single class of facts’, was duped. limbs De Beer adds, Photographs of the embryos Hae- ‘Because homology implies com- ckel selected demonstrate virtually no In this chapter, Wells exposes the munity of descent from … a com- resemblance with his drawings. Ad- circular reasoning error in textbooks mon ancestor it might be thought ditionally, Haeckel did not draw the which define homology as similarity that genetics would provide the key first stage of growth, where closest re- due to common ancestry, and then to the problem of homology. This semblance was predicted, but selected claim that homology is evidence for is where the worst shock of all is precisely the stages where five (out of common ancestry. encountered … [because] charac- the seven) carefully selected vertebrate The bones in vertebrate limbs, ters controlled by identical genes classes are least different. For the whether bat, porpoise, horse or human, are not necessarily homologous amphibian class the natural choice follow a similar pattern. Modern evo- … [and] homologous structures would have been a frog, which looks, lutionists use the word ‘homology’ for need not be controlled by identical however, very different than the other such similarities, but defined to mean genes’ (p. 73). four organisms used, so a salamander inherited from a common ancestor. A telling point indeed. was used as (uh) representative (ahem) With this assumption already integral When homology is convenient as for this class. Apparently all this was to the word’s meaning it is nonsense an evolutionary argument, it is used. not good enough for him. ‘In some to then argue homology is evidence Inconvenient observations, such as cases, Haeckel used the same woodcut for evolution—it’s clearly a logical morphologically similar marsupials to print embryos that were supposedly vicious circle. and mammals, get lamely brushed off from different classes’ (p. 91). However, evolutionists are incon as due to ‘convergence’. Although the embryos vary in size sistent in applying this argument, as Wells highlights the flaw in the from less than 1 mm to almost 10 mm, many features, such as the camera eyes homology argument using this spe- Haeckel portrayed them the same size. of octopi and vertebrates, with strong cific example: the gene Distal-less Wells points out that the processes of similarities (albeit superficial in this is involved in the development of ap cleavage (subdivision in many sepa- case), are not claimed to have arisen pendages in organisms such as: mouse; rate cells without overall growth) and from a common ancestor. spiny worm; butterfly; sea urchin (its gastrulation (movement and rearrange- Had common motifs arisen from limbs are tube feet underneath its ment of the cells to form organs and a common ancestor, the driving mech body); and velvet worm (p. 75). The other structures) proceed before the anisms, i.e. the biological information appendages are not homologous either point in time drawn by Haeckel. Here responsible for faithfully replicating in terms of structure nor by common is where Darwin’s expectations should those features in an offspring, would ancestry. be tested, and there is ‘certainly not show a discernible pattern. This is not a pattern in which the earliest stages the case. Gavin de Beer is quoted as Icon 4: Haeckel’s embryos are the most similar and later stages pointing out: are more different’ (p. 97). In fact, the ‘The fact is that correspondence Darwin and others have reasoned evidence points clearly to unrelated between homologous structures that descendants along various evo- lineages and not a common ancestor. cannot be pressed back to similar- lutionary lineages would demonstrate Another myth is the claim human ity of position of the cells in the similar embryonic morphologies embryos go through a fish-like stage embryo, or of the parts of the egg during the earliest stages. Closely and display gill slits. These pharyngeal out of which the structures are related organisms would show differ folds are not gills.14 Ironically, they’re ultimately composed, or of devel- ences only during the latest stages, not even gills in pharyngula-stage fish opmental mechanisms by which whereas distantly related ones should embryos, although they do develop they are formed’ (p. 71). display ever widening differences into these later, ‘but in a reptile, mam- Thus, the motifs could not as the embryo develops. Haeckel mal, or bird they develop into other have arisen by seamless divergence (1834–1919), a flamboyant German structures entirely (such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland)’ (p. 107). TJ 15(2) 2001 19 Book Reviews
In reptiles, mammals, and birds they Darwin had published his Origin of from a 65 million-year-old Triceratops never resemble gills, and what is ob- Species), it was widely heralded as a resembled most closely that of birds. A served are merely some parallel lines ‘missing link’ predicted by Darwin’s little too closely, actually, being 100% in the neck region. theory—intermediate between reptiles identical to modern turkey DNA, even Professor Douglas Futuyma, author and birds. though Triceratops does not even be- of the 1998 textbook Evolutionary However, as Wells points out, long to the dinosaur branch birds are Biology, responded in February 2000 the position of Archaeopteryx as a claimed to have evolved from—ironi- via an internet forum to a critic who transitional form is now very much cally, birds are thought to have evolved had accused him of lying by using in dispute, and in fact ‘its own ances- from reptile-hipped dinosaurs rather Haeckel’s drawings as evidence for tors are the subject of one of the most than bird-hipped ones such as Tricer- evolution. He admitted he had not heated controversies in modern sci- atops. If this DNA had been only been aware of Haeckel’s dishonesty, ence’ (p. 112). Most paleontologists slightly contaminated (deliberately or a rather staggering admission. It is now agree this member of an extinct accidentally) and from a better dino- important to always be sceptical of group of birds15 is not the ancestor saur candidate, the matter would have those endless, but transient ‘proofs’ for of any group of modern birds, nor is been declared settled. evolution. They reflect over-enthusi- it a link between reptiles and birds. To round off the dino-bird demo astic and selective use of data when Evolutionists conclude from cladistic lition, Wells shows he has a keen sense it appears to support a pre-conceived studies (i.e. of shared common fea- of humour in suggesting (p. 134) the evolutionary mind-set. Incidentally, tures) that bird-like dinosaurs would following possible cartoon captions: Futuyma’s admission was not an ex- have lived in the Cretaceous period, • ‘Dino-bird enthusiasts find fossils ample of ‘science’ correcting itself, which according to evolutionary dating made to order.’ but the result of a ‘creationist’ setting methods was long after Archaeopteryx • ‘Cladistic mob tars and feathers the record straight (p. 109). had supposedly become extinct. That defenseless dinosaur.’ leaves evolutionists back at square • ‘Turkey sandwich proves birds Icon 5: Archaeopteryx: the miss- one: where are those countless missing evolved from Triceratops.’ ing link links required by the theory, had birds Wells’ clever refutation of evolved from reptiles? all the ‘missing link’ bird ancestor When Archaeopteryx was dis Wells takes great delight in de- claims raise the following obvious covered in 1861 (two years after scribing modern evolutionists’ failed consideration: the fossil record, with attempts to find fossil an- its absence of millions of generations cestors of birds. He gives of intermediates, justifies questioning a potted history of the in- his frequent references to ‘millions of famous 1999 Archaeorap- years’. If, as I believe, merely thou tor fraud. National Geo- sands of years are involved then the graphic had announced the data is statistically representative of discovery of this feathered the earth’s biological history. dinosaur fossil in a blaze of publicity, but was left Icon 6: Peppered Moths embarrassed when it was discovered to be a com- The ‘classic’ textbook example of posite—a dinosaur tail natural selection says that most pep- glued to the body of a bird. pered moths were light-coloured in the Wells also outlines how the early 1800s. But with the Industrial subsequent claims about Revolution, the proportion of ‘mela- Bambiraptor, proclaimed nic’, or dark-coloured, increased near by paleontologists to be a heavily polluted cities because they ‘remarkable missing link could now camouflage themselves on between birds and dino- soot-covered tree trunks. As pollution saurs’ were found to be reduction measures were introduced, groundless, as ‘nothing re- the proportions reversed themselves. motely resembling feathers This has been used for years as the was found with the fossil’ best example of natural selection in Archaeopteryx was fully bird, with an avian skull, lung system and fully-formed flight feathers. According to (p. 128). the wild. uniformitarian ‘dating’ methods, Archaeopteryx is older Wells also deals with During the 1950s Bernard Kettle than its supposed dinosaur ancestors but younger than the report that sequenced well released several hundred of both more ‘modern’ birds. DNA supposedly extracted moth varieties onto polluted tree trunks
20 TJ 15(2) 2001 Book Reviews and watched birds pick off the help- Peter and Rosemary Grant studied less creatures. He determined that these finches in the 1970s. In 1977 a percent-wise, about twice as many of severe drought reduced the popula- the darker variety had survived. These tion to 15% of its former size on the results were confirmed by reversing small island of Daphne Major. It was the experiment using unpolluted trees determined that the average beak depth the next time. of medium ground finches increased These experiments tell us nothing about 5%. They attributed this to the about where moths’ alternative colors ability of such birds to crack open the come from, of course, let alone how a few remaining harder seeds once the moth could have evolved from a non- softer ones had been eaten.16 They moth. And the ‘facts’ of the story, re- concluded it would take merely 20 peated in countless biology textbooks, such selection events to transform the are badly flawed. medium ground finch into another Moths in the wild are now known species, easily within 200 to 2,000 to be nocturnal fliers and virtually years. never remain exposed on tree trunks, The peppered moth, Biston betularia, was It’s important to note that rapid but rather high in the trees on the un- touted for years as evidence of evolution. It speciation is far from a problem to derside of small branches where birds has now been shown that the classic experi- creationists; in fact, it is a predic- rarely seem to find them. Had the ments were in error. Peppered moths do not tion of the Creation/Flood/migration theory been correct, the light coloured even rest on tree trunks during the day. They model. Creationists, quite reasonably, varieties would have long since disap- hide possibly on the leaves in the canopy or have even used the Grants’ work in peared from heavily polluted areas under branches. In some instances where support!17 such as Manchester, England. But this photographs were needed for textbooks, dead Wells points out that, ‘After the moths were glued to trees for the pictures to never happened. In regions with little be taken. 1982–1983 El Niño, with food once industrial pollution, where the light- again plentiful, the average beak size coloured ‘typicals’ seem better cam- ter is that the photographs, showing in medium ground finches returned ouflaged, the melanic proportion un- camouflaged moths on tree trunks, to its previous value’ (p. 168). This expectedly reached 80%. And below found in virtually all standard biology oscillation in population proportion the latitude 52°N melanism increased textbooks, have been staged. Dead does not justify extrapolations to ex- after pollution control measures were moths had been glued to tree trunks, plain how the 14 species arose. After introduced. Furthermore, a decrease or moths released in desired positions this El Niño, several finch species on in pollution levels was matched by an during daylight, when they are torpid one island were found to be produc- increase in the proportion of melan- and remain where they land. Univer- ing hybrids, and these were doing ics north of London but a decrease in sity of Chicago evolutionary biologist better than the parental species. The the south. Although melanics seem Jerry Coyne discovered to his dismay Grants concluded that if this process better camouflaged in south Wales, the flaws in what he called this classi- continued these species would merge they make up only about 20% of the cal ‘prize horse in our stable of exam- completely. This further compounds population. ples’ of evolution only in 1998. Badly the difficulty in explaining how a slow Although decreasing pollution flawed experiments such as these con- process of divergence, based on muta- allowed the light coloured lichens to tinue to be reported uncritically merely tions and randomly fluctuating external cover tree trunks again, the increase in because the evidence for evolutionary conditions, could explain the origin of proportion of typicals preceded lichen notions is in such short supply. these species. growth, i.e. the hider recovered before Icon 7: Darwin’s finches As a prize example of creating the hiding places. Finally, a decline of new species by natural selection, these the melanic proportion in the United Fourteen species of finches were finches leave very much to be desired. States was independent of changes in found on the Galápagos Islands, dis- The data does not justify the view the lichen cover. tinguished mainly by beaks adapted that natural selection would be able Several factors may be involved to different foods. We don’t know to produce ‘macro-evolutionary’ new here. R.C. Steward collected data the genetic basis of these differences, structures and biological functions. from 165 sites in Britain and found a and most creationists view this as an Wells criticizes a 1999 USA National correlation between moth proportions example of genetic variety present in Academy of Sciences booklet which and concentration of sulphur dioxide, an ancestor having been fragmented describes how the Grants and their which is a pollutant transported by into sub-groups over time. Such colleagues showed ‘that a single year air. changes remain within the original of drought on the island can drive What is disturbing in this mat- created kinds. evolutionary changes in the finches’.
TJ 15(2) 2001 21 Book Reviews
But the booklet did not even mention chy, and not just one gene, that had to refutes the idea that evolution was that the selection was reversed after evolve in order to convert wings into ‘directed’. (Most evolutionists who the drought—there was no evolution halteres’ (p. 188). The odds of a single, were Darwin’s contemporaries ap- (p. 174). new gene arising by chance mutations parently believed that evolution was Surely science would be better is statistically negligible, far less a ‘directed’. Wells explains that ‘Some served by offering the true facts as complete integrated network. regarded human beings as the divinely an intriguing challenge, instead of Ultrabithorax in a normal fruit fly pre-ordained goal of the evolutionary pretending another piece of evidence is turned on in the third thoracic seg- process’ (p. 197)). has been found in support of evolu- ment, allowing the necessary halteres The problem here is that this tion. Extrapolation actually indicates to be produced instead of wings. By chapter is marred not only by Wells’s a net convergence into fewer and destroying the normal function, new neglect to quash the standard view of interbreeding populations, precisely non-functional wings are generated. the fossil record (as in Icons 2 and 5), the opposite of what is being claimed. Destruction of a genetic network can- but also because in places it appears (at Referring to such devious practices, not be construed as evidence for its least, by implication) as though Wells ‘Berkeley law professor and Dar- evolution by chance any more than might be defending (supernaturally) win critic Phillip E. Johnson wrote destruction of a house by earthquakes ‘directed evolution’. In saying that in the Wall Street Journal in 1999: would demonstrate these had built the Darwin was in error because he re- “When our leading scientists have house in the first place. jected any possibility of ‘directed evo- to resort to the sort of distortion Concurrent with Lewis’ research: lution’ on philosophical grounds rather that would land a stock promoter in ‘German geneticists Chris- than on empirical evidence, Wells goes jail, you know they are in trouble”’ tian Nüsslein-Volhard and Eric uncomfortably close to espousing (p. 175). Wieschaus were using a technique ‘theistic evolution’ as the alternative called “saturation mutagenesis” to to ‘undirected evolution’. Icon 8: Four-winged fruit flies search for every possible mutation The most interesting parts of this involved in fruit fly development chapter are where Wells confronts evo- Geneticist Ed Lewis showed that … . Their Herculean efforts earned lutionists with the problem that their three strains of laboratory mutant fruit them a Nobel Prize (which they horse evolution model is contradicted flies could be interbred to produce four shared with Lewis), but they did by the fossil record. ‘For example, the winged flies. The balancers or ‘hal- not turn up a single morphological trend toward larger size was not seen in teres’ required for flight stability in the mutation that would benefit a fly in all of the extinct side-branches, some third thoracic segment were replaced the wild’ (p. 190). of which actually reversed direction by two new wings. The evolution- Similar mutagenesis experi and became smaller’ (p. 199). Also, oriented textbooks use this to claim ments on a tiny worm and on ze- ‘Miohippus actually appears in the fos- random mutations provide some useful brafish have also failed to produce any sil record before Mesohippus, though changes on occasion, which natural beneficial mutations. It seems Prof. it persists after it’ (p. 199). selection then favours. Behe’s concept of ‘irreducible com- Some of the trends can be ex The exceeding unlikelihood of plexity’18 provides insight into where plained by the action of gene switches three such mutations, introduced in the problem lies: intra- and inter-cel- turning on and off the information for the laboratory, is never mentioned. lular biological processes invariably extra toes, and this could have been More serious is that no muscles are at- require that multiple components work a factor with tooth types as well.19 It tached to these wings and a hopelessly together properly before any useful is also likely that the development of non-aerodynamic creature results, function is possible. The odds of these high crowned teeth was the result of which could never survive nor mate all falling into place by chance at the gene loss rather than adaptation to in free nature. Duplicate organs may right time, place and concentration is any diet.19 be interesting, but what is needed is just overwhelmingly small, even under In the same way that dogs, dingoes, evidence that novel functionality or accelerated and artificial laboratory wolves, coyotes, and so on, descended organs can develop by random and conditions. from a single dog kind after the Flood, unguided processes. so too could all the various horse Ultrabithorax is a huge and very Icon 9: Fossil horses and directed varieties, zebras, donkeys, etc., have complex gene which is composed of evolution originated from an original horse kind. several subunits, ‘most of which are Like Darwin’s finches, it is probable involved in regulating when and where Rather than simply calling this significant genetic variety had been the gene is turned on in the embryo’ (p. icon ‘horse evolution’ Wells has designed in the original animal ‘kinds’, 188). It regulates an integrated net- chosen instead to tackle the materi- able to be fragmented quickly among work of genes responsible for haltere alistic evolutionists’ position that the descendants. There is simply no need development. ‘It is this entire hierar- branching-tree pattern of horse fossils to explain variation as the result of
22 TJ 15(2) 2001 Book Reviews random mutations creating novelty, without their consent to finance evolu- The exciting challenge acted on by natural selection. tionary origins research. Funds from NASA, the NIH (National Institute of Once a scientific theory has been Icon 10: From ape to human Health) and NSF (National Science shown to be inadequate, it opens a Foundation) fund research projects golden opportunity for novel avenues For over 40 years the Piltdown headed up by those already commit- to be explored. The evidence does fraud had persuaded the leading sci- ted to an evolutionary mind-set21 and not support an evolutionary model entists a missing link had confirmed the resulting papers are used to gain whereby complex biological novelty man’s descent from ape-like ancestors. professorship tenures. Students must arose over millions of years via ran- The skull belonged to a true human buy evolution-oriented textbooks and dom mutations. Wells could have and the jaw fragment from a modern attend schools and universities where made this book more effective by orang-utan. It turned out that the latter only evolution is taught, presented as stating the need for a paradigm shift: had been chemically treated to make ‘science’, as ‘established fact’. multiple and unrelated lineages are it look like a fossil and its teeth had If all biology teachers and students found and do not originate from one been deliberately filed down to make were to digest a book like this, or common ancestor, in spite of sharing them look human. It took that long to Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s Refuting Evo a common genetic code. Rich variety discover this none-too-elaborate hoax lution,15 and agree to throw out the 10 within independent classes is found but because evolutionists thought they had icons of evolution just examined, very these have not produced new biologi- evidence which they very much wished little would be left to justify the claims cal organs. The missing millions of to believe. we are bombarded with daily: ‘the evi- transitional generations is inconsistent Fossil fragments of various human dence for evolution is overwhelming’; with random, natural processes and ne- races and monkeys have been found, in ‘no serious scientist questions the truth cessitates questioning all those notions different locations and strata. Some ap- of evolution anymore’; ‘the creation- derived from the flawed evolutionary pear to be extinct apes. The difficulty ists will destroy modern society with framework.23,24 arises due to preconceptions, allowing their opposition to science’, etc. Ironi- the fragments to be reconstructed in cally, it is common to meet agnostics References many ways. Several palaeontologists and atheists in countries like China and recall discussing how drastically dif- France who state candidly they are not 1. Berkner, L.V. and Marshall, L.C., On the ferent the famous Kenyan ‘Skull 1470’ willing to consider the possibility of a origin and rise of oxygen concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere, J. Atmospheric Sciences could be made to look, depending on Creator, but acknowledge the material- 22:225–261, 1965. where one chose to place the jaw with ist theories being taught in schools and 2. Brinkmann, R.T., Dissociation of water respect to the rest of the skull. universities don’t work. vapor and evolution of oxygen in the ter- The subjectivity involved can be il- Wells correctly recognises there is restrial atmosphere, J. Geophysical Research lustrated by four artist’s rendering of a a battle going on, to control what is ac- 74:5355–5368, 1969. female Homo habilis figure from casts ceptable material for discussion in the 3. Carver, J.H., Prebiotic atmospheric oxygen of seven fossil bones, requested by schools; to manipulate who gets access levels, Nature 292:136–138, 1981. National Geographic.20 It is apparent to research funds; and who gets to join 4. Kasting, J.F., Earth’s early atmosphere, Sci- from the results that one could easily the ‘inside club’ of those claiming to ence 259:920–926, 1993. fit such a reconstruction anywhere in speak with the authority of science to 5. Towe, K.M., Early Precambrian oxygen: a case the ape-to-human sequence. inform society where we come from against photosynthesis, Nature 274:657–661, There is considerable interpretative and the role of humans in nature. 1978. freedom in the absence of qualitative Alas, many skeptical reviews of 6. Clemmey, H. and Badham, N., Oxygen in the Precambrian atmosphere: an evaluation of the and quantitative evidence. Dates are Icon have refused to admit the main geological evidence, Geology 10:141–146, frequently re-evaluated. One can point, that students are being fed false 1982. consider how diverse pygmies and information. Instead, they have raised 7. Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L. and Olsen, R.L., two-meter-tall weight lifters are today. red herrings such as ‘the scientific The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Include the effects of disease; harsh en- literature is the place for criticism, Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, Dallas, vironmental conditions; jaw-muscle— not popular books’, ‘disproving these Chapter 5, 1984. demanding diets, and greater genetic icons doesn’t prove Creation’, ‘Wells 8. Monastersky, R., The rise of life on Earth, variety in the past, to appreciate how ignores the “overwhelming evidence” National Geographic 193(3):54–81, March 1998. subjectively the handful of fragments for evolution [in which case, put this 9. Simpson, G.G., Tempo and Mode in Evolution, could be interpreted. alleged evidence in the textbooks Columbia University Press, New York, pp. In a closing chapter entitled ‘Sci- instead of the fallacies and frauds 105–106, 1944. 22 ence or Myth?’, Wells discusses the exposed in Icon!].’ 10. Denton, M., Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, fact that in America billions of tax- Adler & Adler, Marland, Chap. 12, 1986. payer dollars are being spent annually 11. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
TJ 15(2) 2001 23 Book Reviews
ences 95:11804; cited in ‘The odd couple’, ranged from matchstick thin to a pair which New Scientist 160(2154):23, 1998. would terrify a modern male body-builder. 12. Before and during World War II, virtually 21. Christian researchers struggling for research everyone in Germany claimed the evidence funds are often stunned to see how evolution- for the superiority of the ‘Aryan race’ was ists are being funded from public sources to established and beyond dispute. For military attack Biblical claims and interpret scientific purposes Hitler calculated the average German data in a one-sided materialist manner. By soldier to be worth three Slavic ones. It is not pretending evolution = science, work time and the evidence which was overwhelming but the resources are also being abused. mind-set and Weltanschauung (philosophy of 22. Prestigious journals do not hesitate to publish life) which prevented consideration of alterna- work where the author is allowed to identify a tive viewpoints. creationist by name (for example, I am identi- 13. One sceptic writes, ‘In Chapter 3 [Icon 2: fied in: Schneider, T.D., 2000, Nucleic Acids Darwin’s tree of life], Wells readily accepts 3 Research, 14(28):2794–2799, p. 2797) and billion year old bacteria fossils. So the ques- can print a statement like, ‘thereby completely tion is, how does one explain the transition answering the creationists’ (same ref. and from the first single bacterial cells of more than page). 3,500,000,000 years ago to the abundance of But many times, creationists are not even al- life we see around us today?’ The sceptical lowed the normal courtesy of a right of reply. reviewer derides Wells for not offering a cred- Scientific American refused to allow Phillip ible alternative explanation ‘to explain HOW Johnson to defend himself against a vindic- life has changed with time.’ Interestingly, the tive and petty review by the atheistic Marxist, sceptic tacitly acknowledges the consistency Stephen Jay Gould. So Johnson published in the position held by young-earth creation- ‘Response to Gould’ on the website of Access ists: ‘At least the Creationists offer some Research Network, which promotes Intelligent sort of Biblical creation scenario, in which Design . claim that much of what we see in the fossil record is the result of a global Genesis flood. In Australia, a well-known humanist and But all that is offered in “Icons of Evolution” vexatious anti-creationist wrote a diatribe is an attack on evolution, with no alternative of illogicalities against creationists in Aus- explicitly mentioned, although the idea of tralasian Science, and the editor refused humans being “Created with a purpose” [by to publish a response. So AiG posted a an Intelligent Designer Someone] is brought response at
24 TJ 15(2) 2001