Truth in Science

The issue of New Scientist dated 27 February 2008 carries a major article on intermediate or transitional forms in nature. It is written by Donald Prothero who is professor of geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles and lecturer in geobiology at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. His book “Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters” is published by Columbia University Press.

In this article, Professor Prothero cites 10 examples to demonstrate the concept of a transitional form and to reinforce the idea that the fossil record provides evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. The first of these examples are the velvet worms which belong to the phylum Onychophora, meaning 'claw-bearers'. At least eighty living species are known comprising two families, namely, the Peripatidae and the Peripatopsidae. They are found in tropical or sub-tropical regions of the Americas, Africa, South Eastern Asia and Australasia, which has the greatest variety.

The Onychophora first appear in the fossil record in the Cambrian Explosion. This geological event presents a significant problem for Darwinism since around half of the major animal phyla appear in the fossil record fully formed without any fossilised ancestors. This is how Richard Dawkins describes it in “The Blind Watchmaker” (page 229):

The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.           

A classic example of a transitionary form links the arthropods to the lineage they split from in the Cambrian, namely, the nematode worms. These are the "velvet worms" or Onychophora. In many respects, the velvet worms resemble nematodes, but they also have key attributes of the arthropods - most notably segmented legs that end in hooked claws. They also have many other features found in arthropods but not nematodes, including an outer layer made of chitin, which they moult on a regular basis, antennae, compound eyes and arthropod-like mouthparts.

Unlike other scientists, Professor Prothero suggests that the velvet worms are derived from nematodes (roundworms) which are one of the most common phyla of animals, with more than 20,000 living species. Fossil nematodes are relatively rare but they do exist. The best examples of ancient nematodes have been found preserved in amber and dated from the Cenozoic period. Another example is a putative nematode (Captivonema cretacea) from the early Cretaceous. Whether nematode fossils will ever be found in Cambrian (or pre-Cambrian) strata remains to be seen and according to Simon Conway Morris:

To date, however, the fossil record throws no useful light on the origin of the nematodes. [Conway Morris S. (2004) Darwin’s Dilemma: The realities of the Cambrian Explosion Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 361: 1069–1083].

Soft tissue fossils have also been found in the Cambrian strata from Chengjiang, near the city of Kunming in Yunnan Province, China. Apart from a vast array of arthropods, representatives of Lobopoda, small segmented animals resembling (and maybe including) Onychophora, have been found in these mudstone sediments. In addition, several examples of Nematomorpha have been discovered. These creatures are similar to Nematodes but are a distinct phylum with many modern representatives such as the horsehair worms.

So Professor Prothero’s suggestion that the Onychophora are transitional between nematodes and arthropods cannot be borne out by the actual evidence presented in the fossil record. It is based on the rather superficial assessment that “velvet worms resemble nematodes”.  He concludes this section of his article by stating:

You could not ask for a better "missing link" between the nematodes and the arthropods, except it's not missing - we've known about velvet worms for over a century in both the living fauna and the fossil record.

Although this statement is somewhat misleading, at least the Professor highlights the fact that Onychophora might be considered “living fossils”. The ancient Cambrian species Aysheaia seems remarkably similar to the modern Peripatus.

In future blogs, we will consider some of Professor Prothero’s other examples. 

The current edition of New Scientist (16^th February) carries a small report entitled “Earliest Bats had no use for echos”.  The article describes the work of Nancy Simmons of the American Museum of Natural History (New York) and her team who found the fossil of an ancient bat (Onychonycteris finneiyi) in the Green River Formation in Wyoming. Their work has been published in detail in the journal Nature [Nature 451: 818-821 (14 February 2008)]. In the words of the authors of this paper:

The Green River Formation of Wyoming has produced many spectacular fossils, including Icaronycteris index, widely regarded as the oldest and most primitive known bat. Icaronycteris comes from the Fossil Butte Member of the Green River Formation, late early Eocene epoch, about 52.5 Myr ago. Recently a new bat was discovered in the Fossil Butte Member that differs from Icaronycteris and other Eocene bats in being larger, having more primitive limb proportions and basicranium, and possessing well-developed claws on all wing digits. Because it cannot be assigned to any existing taxon, we here describe it as a new family, genus and species.

Bats are unique among mammals as they possess the ability to fly and, in many cases, the ability to catch their prey using echolocation. Technically, bats are included in the order Chiroptera (meaning hand-wing) which is the second largest mammalian order with 966 species identified to date. There are two suborders, the Megachiroptera (megabats) and the Microchiroptera (microbats). All of the megabats belong to the same family (Pteropodidae) which includes the Old World fruit bats or flying foxes. The microbats are distributed across four superfamilies (17 families in total).

Richard Dawkins has devoted an entire chapter on echolocation in bats in “The Blind Watchmaker”. This is a useful overview of this remarkable phenomenon. In the second chapter, entitled “Good Design”, he writes: "Not all bats use echolocation. The Old World tropical fruit bats have good vision and only use their eyes for finding their way around." [The Blind Watchmaker (1991) London: Penguin p.24]

In fact, megabats have large eyes and exceptionally good colour eyesight, similar to the vision of an owl at night. All bats are mainly nocturnal, microbats rely on echolocation to catch their prey whereas most megabats rely on their eyesight and other senses.  As Professor Dawkins rightly points out, there are a few exceptions. An example is the Egyptian Fruit bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus) which also uses low pitched sounds and echo location in addition to its eyesight.

Characteristic of echo-locating bats is the increased size of the inner ear (cochlea) together with the associated complex neuroanatomy of the brain stem.  According to the Nature article, O. finneyi possessed a relatively small cochlea similar to that seen in modern non-echolocating bats (Pteropodidae). In addition, the New Scientist suggests:

... it lacked the special ear-bone modifications needed for echolocation - the ability to use reflected sound to find and identify objects while flying - and probably flew "deaf".

This of course is total nonsense as the article goes on to include the following quote from Nancy Simmons:

Without echolocation, Onychonycteris would probably not have been good at catching insects in flight, though it might have used vision or smell to help find insect prey. Like some modern bats, it might also have used ‘passive audition’, such as listening out for sounds that insects make when they crash into vegetation.

The feature that seems to mark out O. finneyi as different is the fact that it possessed teeth characteristic of an insectivore. Modern megabats, however, can and do eat insects as an extra source of protein [see SE Courts Dietary Strategies of Old World Fruit Bats: how do they obtain sufficient protein? Mammal Review (1998) 28:185].

And so the Green River formation continues to yield up its treasures. Within the same strata have been found fossil fish, insects, snails, turtles, crocodiles, birds, and plant remains. The new discovered species (Onychonycteris finneiyi) is now added to the list of mammals that also includes another ancient bat (Icaronycteris index).

Without any justification, New Scientist concludes as follows:

but it was not long before echolocating bats replaced O. finneyi. Fossils of another bat, Icaronycteris index, found in the same rock, have skull bones consistent with echolocation [emphasis added].

Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organisation whose research depends on it should explain why.

The event that has stimulated this editorial is the publication by the US National Academy of Sciences of an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism. We encourage the readers of this blog to download and read the entire booklet.

We at Truth in Science are totally committed to the ongoing debate over the scientific validity of claims made for the Darwinian hypothesis. We welcome and positively encourage a critical examination of the evidence. For too long the assertion has been made that there is overwhelming support for the theory of evolution.

Yes, let’s look more closely at the fossil record, the occurrence of molecular and skeletal homology. Let’s talk about the “Peppered Moth” and “Darwin’s Finches”. Let us reconsider the amazing complexity to be found in molecular nanomachinery. Let us discuss the nature of biological information and consider genetic mutation and what it can actually accomplish. Let’s have an open discussion. Evolution is a word with so many shades of meaning. But just how strong is the evidence for everything that is claimed for the theory? If evolution is so persuasive, why should there be an attempt to silence scientific objections? Science thrives on debate and even controversy.

One of the ploys of the scientific establishment is to dismiss valid scientific objections as being “Creationism” in disguise, just another attempt to impose religious beliefs on the unsuspecting. Surely, the teaching of evolution as undisputed fact carries its own assumptions and ideological bias which are being imposed by stealth.

It does appear that the distribution of the DVD “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” by Truth in Science to schools and colleges in the UK is one of the reasons why there has been the publication of new guidelines to teachers. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has passed its resolution.

The paranoia expressed in this document is particularly found in section 13:

The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

Did we have a theocracy in the days of Faraday, Maxwell, Kepler, and Simpson? What strange logic to frighten people with visions of repression. The reality is that today’s naturalistic dogmatism is fast crushing legitimate scientific debate. Inevitably, science and education will be the poorer for it.

Jumping on this bandwagon, the current issue of New Scientist carries the editorial “It’s Evolution, stupid.”  It concludes as follows:

  … if Americans do not have a basic scientific literacy, which must include evolution, the nation will not be able to compete in the global knowledge economy. That is unlikley to be enough to convince Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister. But at least making the link will help to highlight the idiocy of a political position that calls for America to lead the world while denying one of the foundation stones of scientific progress. 

We very much look forward to the release of the film "Expelled" which should be released in time for the Darwin bicenntenial. The production will effectively blow the lid on the attempts by the establishment to suppress open scientific discussion.

The scientific establishment is adopting a religious zeal in its efforts to suppress opposition. This, of course, is reflected in the writings of Professors Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. This is also reflected in the editorial in Nature.

“Spread the Word” is its evangelistic clarion call. The editorial concludes as follows:

Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth on 12 February 2009, every science academy and society with a stake in the credibility of evolution should summarize evidence for it on their website and take every opportunity to promote it.

In September 2006, Truth in Science sent a free resource pack to the Science Head of every UK secondary school and sixth form college. This became national news and provoked widespread discussion from school staffrooms to the House of Commons. There were calls for the Government to provide teachers with new guidelines on the teaching of Intelligent Design which were finally published in September 2007.

Truth in Science has been happy to appear on news and discussion programmes when available and will continue to do so. A recent request has been received from the makers of a programme apparently commissioned by Channel 4 intending to look at the dark side of Darwinism and to engage in debate with the programmes’s presenter Professor Richard Dawkins. TiS has repeatedly responded that it is willing to do so providing it is a live interview with a neutral presenter. To date, this offer by TiS has not been accepted by the production team.  Experience shows that pre-recorded, edited programmes are rarely impartial and uncut versions streamed on the internet are not widely viewed.

Via the website, Truth in Science continues to receive good feedback and has now responded to over 230 requests for its resource pack from educators in the UK and across the world, including from Germany, Switzerland, the Faroe Islands, Turkey,  Greece, South Africa, India, Indonesia, Paraguay, and Australia, In 2008, the general public will be able to purchase the DVDs online directly from Truth in Science.