Today, Richard Buggs, of the TiS Scientific Panel, published a brief response in the Times Newspaper to a letter published on October 11 that claimed to have found eight scientific errors on the TiS website. Here he provides a more detailed analysis.

Letters to the Editor

The Times

October 11, 2006

Sir, Richard Buggs challenges his critics to find any errors on the Truth in Science website (letter, Oct 7). It is hard to know where to begin. This is not a complete list, but the group misquotes scientists to make it look as though they doubt evolution;

As is normal in publications, a quotation concerns the point at issue, nothing more. It is impossible to respond further to this general allegation unless it is substantiated with specific examples.

...claims that archaeopteryx is the only member of the dinosaur-bird transitional sequence

The nearest I could find to the error claimed by Mr Preedy was a quote from the textbook AQA GCSE Biology (Hodder and Stoughton 2002): There are gaps in the fossil record. There was great excitement when the Archaeopteryx was found, as this is thought to be the ‘link’ between birds and reptiles. Fossil experts hope that more links will be found.

This seems to imply that Archaeopteryx is the only putative dinosaur-bird transitional, but the error belongs to the textbook which TiS was critiquing, not TiS.

However, the TiS website should contain more information on feathered dinosaurs as these are still debated in the scientific literature. See, for example:

Feduccia, A et al (2005) Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence Journal of Morphology 266 (2):125 - 166

Norell, M.A. and Xu, X. (2005) Feathered Dinosaurs. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 33: 277-299

...and that it lived after its theropod ancestors;

I assume that Mr Preedy made a simple typo. when identifying this error, as the TiS website states that theropods appear much higher in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx. This is a mistake on the part of TiS, because theropods appear lower in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx. Although Mr Preedy has mis-stated his point, TiS is in error here, and this mistake will be corrected. I am grateful to Mr Preedy for drawing attention to this statement.

...implies that the fact that asexual bacteria do not form species shows that they do not evolve;

TiS does not make the claim that bacteria do not evolve. Indeed, at one point the website states: The [bacterial] population has evolved resistance due to natural selection by antibiotics.

The fact that TiS is happy to hold that bacteria have evolved antibiotic resistance is shown in its review of AQA GCSE Biology (Hodder and Stoughton, 2002) where it is noted: ‘The rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria’ is described but surprisingly is not called ‘evolution’ (p. 105).

TiS states that development of biological resistance in bacterial populations …does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors. This statement is to my knowledge correct.

...states that there is no geological reason to expect Pre-Cambrian transitionals to be rare,

In a TiS briefing sheet for a lesson plan on the fossil record, found on the website, students defending phyletic gradualism are told (under the heading: “Why are the transitional features/intermediate forms missing?”) Only a small handful of disputable intermediates are found because on evolutionary time-scales, rock layers are constantly in motion. Many fossils have been lost in the depths of the earth. This seems to me to be a geological reason for the rarity of pre-cambrian transitionals.

...and also that no Pre-Cambrian transitionals are known;

TiS mentions fossilised pre-Cambrian micro-organisms, but disputes whether these are intermediate forms. A lesson plan states: Although there are some small fossils from before the Cambrian, there are no clear intermediate forms among them.

In a review of AQA GCSE Biology, (Hodder and Stoughton 2002) TiS states: Nor is the Cambrian explosion described, where most of the major types of animal appear fully formed, with no fossil evidence that they branched off from a common ancestor.

TiS does need to cover this area more thoroughly and justify its claims. There is considerable debate in the scientific literature about pre-Cambrian biota and the causes of the Cambrian explosion. See, for example:

Narbonne, G. M. (2005) The Ediacara Biota: Neoproterozoic Origin of Animals and Their Ecosystems. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 33: 421-442.

Marshall, C.R. (2006) Explaining the Cambrian “Explosion” of Animals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 34: 355-384

Meyer, S.C. (2004) The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2):213-239.

...asserts that there is no good evolutionary pathway for the development of the bacterial flagellum;

I do not know of a good evolutionary pathway for the development of the bacterial flagellum. In his latest book, Prof. Richard Dawkins identifies a single possible transitional form (The God Delusion. Chapter 4, Why there almost certainly is no God. p.130-132). This hardly constitutes a pathway.

...and even claims that asymmetric molecules cannot preferentially bond to one isomer over another.

This is not mentioned on the website. The closest we get to this is: It is not a simple process to separate them and there is no natural system that can do so.

I asked a Chemistry Professor to comment on this issue and he replied:

"It is sometimes possible for some types of asymmetric molecules to have fairly high levels of recognition/selectivity in reactions with other asymmetric molecules. But in general the levels observed are nowhere near what would be required for anything even remotely approaching an efficient synthesis of an all-L polypeptide from racemic amino acids (and even if such a scenario were true, you would necessarily get an equal amount of all-D polypeptide too). In particular, the ability of L-amino acids to selectively couple with other L- rather than D-amino acids has been studied several times [e.g. 1-3], nearly always with protected versions of amino acids (this avoids several problems and greatly simplifies the possibilities). Basically, people sometimes see small preferences for L-L over L-D coupling, and about equally often a small preference for L-D over L-L coupling. I have done one such study myself (unpublished) and found the same. Although the evolutionists often overstate any selectivity that is observed, in no cases are the preferences anywhere near large enough for a plausible spontaneous formation of any significant amount of an all-L protein. (please keep in mind that these couplings and not spontaneous under any normal conditions, and require coupling reagents [which are themselves destroyed by water!] to proceed to any significant degree. And then you have the sequence problem, and so on...)

References

1. Wen, K. and Orgel, L. E. (2001) The Specificity of Peptide Chain Extension by N-Carboxyanhydrides. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 31:241-248.

2. Goldberg, S. L. et al (1987) Racemic Origins of the Stereochemically Homogeneous Biosphere. Biased Stereoselectivities in the Formation of Oligomeric Peptides. J. Am. Chem. Soc.109:823-30.

3. Hill, R. R. et al (2003) Enantioselection in Peptide Bond Formation. Organic and Biomolecular Chemistry 1:965-972."

All this is demonstrably untrue.

At the same time, the group makes no reference to the recent torrent of discoveries supporting evolution, from remarkable fossils such as Stromatoveris, Tiktaalik and immature A. afarensis to the latest molecular data and increasing numbers of completely sequenced genomes.

The TiS website is aimed at teachers and naturally concentrates on evidences for evolution found in school textbooks. Some new discoveries have not yet reached the textbooks, but I would point out that the very recent discovery of juvenile A. afarensis was mentioned on this Newsblog immediately after it publication in Nature.

As time and resources become available, TiS will extend its coverage of recent discoveries such as Stromatoveris and Tiktaalik.

I look forward to seeing these errors removed, as promised. If it genuinely wishes to promote good science, the group might even explain how each of these fits with, or provides good evidence for, universal common descent, and, in several cases, flatly contradicts the claims of creationists.

TiS will remove the error over the place of Archaeopteryx in the fossil record, and add information about feathered dinosaurs and pre-Cambrian fossils. I agree that this data may be fitted in with a belief in universal common descent, but dispute the claim that it provides good evidence for universal common ancestry. The evidence also fits the view that all organisms do not share a common ancestor.

I am grateful to Chris Preedy for this critique. Many who have accused us of scientific error have not thought it necessary to spend time substantiating their claims, and Chris Preedy is a welcome exception. I would be very grateful if he could inform TiS of the other errors he has found, and any errors which I may have inadvertently included in this response.