This month's Carnival of Evolution (36th version) is hosted by Greg Laden at Greg Laden's Blog ["If You Love Evolution, Tweet About It!" COE # 36]. 
The Salem Conjecture is the work of Bruce Salem. He suggested in the mid 1990s on talk.origins that of those creationists who claim professional expertise in evolution, a substantial percentage are engineers.The only thing I can think of is that the average Darwinist has no experience in designing any complex, functionally integrated system. The workings of the simplest cell make my AI program and the hardware on which it runs look like tinker toys.....
Self-replication does nothing to mitigate the probabilistic hurdles the Darwinian mechanism must overcome. How could this not be obvious to anyone with any experience in software or any other rigorous engineering discipline, and who has a basic understanding of combinatorial mathematics?
Oops, I forgot, most of these people have no experience in any rigorous engineering discipline. And those who do, and still believe in the Darwinian fantasy, have obviously undergone the atrophy and crippling of their basic reasoning powers — the product of many years of Darwinian indoctrination and suppression of free thought.
Who are the real freethinkers, Darwinists or ID folks? The Darwinian world is Orwellian.
Whenever you're trying to promote a new idea it's nice to have a scapegoat to beat up on. You're going to get a lot more attention if you can demonstrate that your latest results overthrow some key scientific concept that everyone took for granted. If you can't find a real "key concept" then the next best thing is to make one up.All science students learn the 'central dogma' of molecular biology: that the sequence of bases encoded in DNA determines the sequence of amino acids that makes up the corresponding proteins. But now researchers suggest that human cells may complicate this tidy picture by making many proteins that do not match their underlying DNA sequences.Now if that really was what the Central Dogma actually said then it would have disappeared thirty years ago.
... once (sequential) information has passed into protein it cannot get out again (F.H.C. Crick, 1958)I've explained why this is the correct version in an old blog posting from 2007: Basic Concepts: The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. A very similar definition can be found on the Wikipedia site: Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. The key point is that once information flows into protein it can't flow back to nucleic acid. The standard misconception of the Central Dogma is actually the normal information flow pathway or what Crick called the "Sequence Hypothesis." It's a generality that was never meant to be an inviolate rule like the actual Central Dogma.
The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that such information cannot be transferred from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. (F.H.C. Crick, 1970)
If verified, the findings would require a rewrite of the 'central dogma' of molecular biology, which posits that the RNA transcripts that carry genetic information to the ribosome, where they are used as templates for protein assembly, are generally faithful matches to the original DNA.
There are two remarkable things about such a statement. First, RNA editing has been an established fact for almost thirty years so if the Central Dogma needed rewriting it would have been done a long time ago. Second, Hayden was informed in the comments to her first article that there was a problem with her definition of the Central Dogma. Maybe she didn't have time to change the second version that was about to be published. Crick, F.H.C. (1958) On protein synthesis. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. XII:138-163.
Crick, F. (1970) Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Nature 227, 561-563. [PDF file]
Hayden, E.C. (2011a) Cells may stray from 'central dogma.' Nature Published online 19 May 2011 [doi:10.1038/news.2011.304.
Hayden, E.C. (2011a) Evidence of altered RNA stirs debate. Nature 473:432. [doi:10.1038/473432a]
Li, M., Wang, I.X., Li, Y., Bruzel, A., Richards, A.L., Toung, J.M., and Cheung, V.G. (2011) Widespread RNA and DNA Sequence Differences in the Human Transcriptome. Science. 2011 May 19. [Epub ahead of print] [Science]
I don't expect the IDiots to agree with me. I don't expect them to be happy about what I say. But I do expect them to tell the truth, or at least make the attempt.Thus we have several posts from University of Toronto biochemist Larry Moran, criticizing Myth while being totally open about not having read it first. Moran wrote no fewer than four posts on the book in this fashion, claiming as an excuse that Myth would not be published in Canada until May 31. (In fact, the book was available for purchase from Amazon since early May.)The four postings are:
This is part 8 of my review of The Myth of Junk DNA. For a list of other postings on this topic see the link to Genomes & Junk DNA in the "theme box" below or in the sidebar under "Themes."
To be sure, only a relatively small proportion of known pseudogenes have been shown to encode proteins. But there is growing evidence that RNAs transcribed from pseudogenes perform essential functions in the cellHere's where we get to the most important part of the chapter. It's in a section called "RNA Interference."
How odd! As we saw in Chapter 2, Kenneth Miller, Richard Dawkins, Douglas Futuyma, Michael Shermer, Jerry Coyne and John Avise argue that pseudogenes confirm Darwinism because they are non-functional. But if we assume that Darwinism is true and then compare the DNA of unrelated organisms, sequence similarities imply that many of their pseudogenes are functional. So nonfunction supposedly implies Darwinism, but Darwinism plus sequence conservation implies function. When it comes to conserved pseudogenes, it seems, Darwinism saws off the very branch on which it sits.For the record, if the majority of pseudogenes really are more conserved than expected from random mutations and fixation by random genetic drift then this would, indeed, be evidence that something is going on. Maybe they do have a function we don't know about. I don't think the evidence points in this direction at all—in fact much of the evidence contradicts it. Balakirov and Ayala (2003) are just speculating. I prefer the evidence of Torrents et al. (2003) suggesting that only a small number of potential pseudogenes have a function. This is consistent with the results of Khachane and Harrison (2009).
The evidence is not as straightforward as Miller and Coyne make it out to be, however, and their argument is ultimately circular. In any case, common ancestry and intelligent design are two different issues, and the vitamin C story would take us on a detour from the issue of junk DNA that's the focus of this book, so the details are omitted here and included in an appendix.Which brings us to the Appendix: "The Vitamin C Pseudogene."
... intelligent design and common ancestry are two different issues. Major ID proponents pointed this out before Miller wrote his book....Although some ID proponents (including me) question universal common ancestry on empirical grounds (as do some evolutionary biologists), intelligent design is not necessarily inconsistent with common ancestry.I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that people like Wells are completely bamboozled by this data since they can't refute either the evidence of common descent or the evidence of bad design? Other IDiots, like Michael Behe, only have to explain the bad design?
Continuing with this shotgun approach we quickly encounter several other arguments that are designed to distract from the main topic.Gray TA, Wilson A, Fortin PJ, Nicholls RD. (2006) The putatively functional Mkrn1-p1 pseudogene is neither expressed nor imprinted, nor does it regulate its source gene in trans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103:12039-12044. [PDF]
Hirotsune, S., Yoshida, N., Chen, A., Garrett, L., Sugiyama, F., Takahashi, S., Yagami, K., Wynshaw-Boris, A., and Yoshiki, A. (2003) An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene. Nature 423:91-6. [PDF]
Hughes, J.F., Skaletsky, H., Pyntikova, T., Graves, T.A., van Daalen, S.K., Minx, P.J., Fulton, R.S., McGrath, S.D., Locke, D.P., Friedman, C., Trask, B.J., Mardis, E.R., Warren, W.C., Repping, S., Rozen, S., Wilson, R.K., and Page, D.C. (2010) Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content. Nature 463:536-539. [Nature]
Khachane, A.N., and Harrison, P.M. (2009) Assessing the genomic evidence for conserved transcribed pseudogenes under selection. BMC Genomics 15:435-449. [PDF]
Torrents, D., Suyama, M., Zdobnov, E., and Bork, P.. (2003) A genome-wide survey of human pseudogenes. Genome Res. 13:2559-2567. [PDF]
This is part 7 of my review of The Myth of Junk DNA. For a list of other postings on this topic see the link to Genomes & Junk DNA in the "theme box" below or in the sidebar under "Themes."
The minimum size of a eukaryotic intron is less than 50 bp. For a typical mammalian intron, the essential sequences in the introns are: the 5′ splice site (~10 bp); the 3′ splice site (~30 bp): the branch site (~10 bp); and enough additional RNA to form a loop (~30 bp). This gives a total of 80 bp of essential sequence per intron or 20,500 × 7.2 × 80 = 11.8 Mb. Thus, 0.37% of the genome is essential because it contains sequences for processing RNA.In other words, assuming that introns aren't all junk we can estimate how much of the intron sequence is essential for it's function by taking into account the known regulatory sequences and the amount needed to form a loop.
Here's a series of blog posts I did last year when Richard Sternberg tried to pretend that he knew something about molecular biology and alternative splicing. Later on, Jonathan Wells weighs in to try and help his friend but ends up showing that he too, is in way over his head.This is part 6 of my review of The Myth of Junk DNA. For a list of other postings on this topic see the link to Genomes & Junk DNA in the "theme box" below or in the sidebar under "Themes."... our studies provide convincing evidence that the genome is pervasively transcribed, such that the majority of its bases can be found in primary transcripts, including non-protein-coding transcripts, and those that extensively overlap one another.The authors of these studies firmly believe that evidence of transcription is evidence of function. This has even led some of them to propose a new definition of a gene [see What is a gene, post-ENCODE?]. There's no doubt that many molecular biologists take this data to mean that most of our genome has a function and that's the same point that Wells makes in his book. It's evidence against junk DNA.
Genomic projects over the past decade have used shotgun sequencing and microarray hybridization to obtain evidence for many thousands of additional non-coding transcripts in mammals. Although the number of transcripts has grown, so too have the doubts as to whether most are biologically functional. The main concern was raised by the observation that most of the intergenic transcripts show little to no evolutionary conservation. Strictly speaking, the absence of evolutionary conservation cannot prove the absence of function. But the remarkably low rate of conservation seen in the current catalogues of large non-coding transcripts (less than 5% of cases) is unprecedented and would require that each mammalian clade evolves its own distinct repertoire of non-coding transcripts. Instead, the data suggest that the current catalogues may consist largely of transcriptional noise, with a minority of bona fide functional lincRNAs hidden amid this background.This paper is in the Wells reference list so we know that he has read it.
Widespread transcription of non-protein-coding DNA suggests that the RNAs produced from such DNA might serve biological functions. Ironically, the suggestion that much non-protein-coding DNA might be functional also comes from evolutionary theory. If two lineages diverge from a common ancestor that possesses regions of non-protein-coding DNA, and these regions are really nonfunctional, then they will accumulate random mutations that are not weeded out by natural selection. Many generations later, the sequences of the corresponding non-protein-coding regions in the two descendant lineages will probably be very different. [Due to fixation by random genetic drift—LAM] On the other hand, if the original non-protein-coding DNA was functional, then natural selection will tend to weed out mutations affecting that function. Many generations later, the sequences of the corresponding non-protein-coding regions in the two descendant lineages will still be similar. (In evolutionary terminology, the sequences will be "conserved.") Turning the logic around, Darwinian theory implies that if evolutionarily divergent organisms share similar non-protein-coding DNA sequences, those sequences are probably functional.Wells then references a few papers that have detected such conserved sequences, including the Guttmann et al. (2009) paper mentioned above. They found "over a thousand highly conserved large non-coding RNAs in mammals." Indeed they did, and this is strong evidence of function.1 Every biochemist and molecular biologist will agree. One thousand lncRNAs represent 0.08% of the genome. The sum total of all other conserved sequences is also less than 1%. Wells forgets to mention this in his book. He also forgets to mention the other point that Guttman et al. make; namely, that the lack of sequence conservation suggests that the vast majority of transcripts are non-functional. (Oops!)
1. Conservation is not proof of function. In an effort to test this hypothesis Nöbrega et al. (2004) deleted two large regions of the mouse genome containing large numbers of sequences corresponding to conserved non-coding RNAs. They found that the mice with the deleted regions showed no phenotypic effects indicating that the DNA was junk. Jonathan Wells forgot to mention this experiment in his book.
Guttman, M. et al. (2009) Chromatin signature reveals over a thousand highly conserved non-coding RNAs in mammals. Nature 458:223-227. [NIH Public Access]
Nörega, M.A., Zhu, Y., Plajzer-Frick, I., Afzal, V. and Rubin, E.M. (2004) Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice. Nature 431:988-993. [Nature]
The ENCODE Project Consortium (2007) Nature 447:799-816. [PDF]
This is part of my review of The Myth of Junk DNA. For a list of other postings on this topic see the link to Genomes & Junk DNA in the "theme box" below or in the sidebar under "Themes."According to neo-Darwinism, traits are passed on by genes that reside on microscopic thread-like structures in the cells called chromosomes, and new traits arise from accidental genetic mutations.In order to clear up any confusion, Wells tells us that, "... I will use "Darwinism" in the rest of the book to mean both Darwin's theory and neo-Darwinism" (p. 19). This is important since it's clear that he's talking about the theory of natural selection when he talks about Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.
... some biologists were skeptical of the notion of "junk DNA" from the very beginning—though most accepted it.Wells fails to distinguish between those biologists who recognize the existence of junk DNA (e.g. pseudogenes) and those who thought that most of our genome is junk. I still believe that only a minority of biologists think that most our genome is junk. I also think that many biologists make a distinction between "junk" and "selfish." I know I do. In my mind "selfish" DNA, such as active transposons or endogenous retroviruses, isn't junk.
The arguments by Dawkins, Miller, Shermer, Collins, Kitcher, Coyne and Avise rest on the assumption that most non-coding DNA is junk, without any significant biological function. Yet a virtual flood of recent evidence shows that they are mistaken: Much of the DNA they claim to be "junk" actually performs important functions in living cells.The stage is set. In the rest of the book, Jonathan Wells will try and convince us that most of the DNA in our genome is not junk. Pay attention 'cause it's important to keep the main focus of the dispute in center stage. What the scientists are saying is that there's a lot of junk in our genome and, in order to blunt that attack on design, Wells has to show that there's not very much junk DNA (perhaps none). It won't be sufficient to show that a few percent here and there aren't junk. Any amount of junk DNA is a threat to the basic concept of intelligent design. That's why the IDiots are so worried.
1. I often make the same argument against adaptationists. Some of them see design by natural selection as the dominant feature of evolution but that's not what our genome tells us. There's no illusion of apparent design in our genome sequence.
I received a copy of the book a few days ago and this is my first posting on its contents. For a list of other postings on this topic see the link to Genomes & Junk DNA in the "theme box" below or in the sidebar under "Themes."Sixty year after Dobzansky wrote this, biologists had still not observed the origin of a new species ("speciation") by natural selection. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: "A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun," and "the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations."Wells is telling his readers that as long as biologists have not directly observed a new species forming then speciation has not been demonstrated. This rules out all evidence from the fossil record and all evidence from molecular phylogeny. Nice trick.
Of course, even if scientists eventually observe the origin of a new species by natural selection, the observation would not mean that natural selection can also explain the origin of significantly new organs or body plans. But the fact that scientists have not observed even the first step in macroevolution means that "evolution's smoking gun" is still missing.The rest of the chapter (three pages) is a re-hash of arguments Wells made in Icons of Evolution and elsewhere.
So microevolution is a fact, supported by overwhelming evidence, but macroevolution remains an assumption, illustrated with icons that misrepresent the evidence or rely on circular reasoning. The icons are not science, but myth.This sets the tone for the rest of the book. Even though it is filled with references to the scientific literature there's never any discussion of alternative hypotheses or conflicting data. This is not a book where the author wants to inform his readers about the exciting controversies and conflicts within science. This is a book where the author wants to promote creationism by attacking and misrepresenting evolution using faulty logic and untruths.
This may be one reason why—despite the Darwinists' near-monopoly over science education—most Americans still reject the doctrine that human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors by unguided processes such as random variation and survival of the fittest.I think this means that Wells also rejects common ancestry. If so, it will mean that he can't use it to support any of his arguments later on in the book, right?
In the 1950s, neo-Darwinists equated genes with DNA sequences and assumed that their biological significance lay in the proteins the encoded. But when molecular biologists discovered in the 1970s that most of our DNA does not code for proteins, neo-Darwinists called non-protein-coding DNA "junk" and attributed it to molecular accidents that have accumulated in the course of evolution. Like peppered moths, Galapagos finches, Darwin's Tree of Life, homology in vertebrate limbs, and Haeckel's embryos, "junk DNA" has become an icon of evolution. But is it science of myth?I've discussed Wells' ignorance of history in previous postings but, for the record, here are the facts.
This is part of my discussion about The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells. I still haven't read the book—it won't be released in Canada until May 31st.Over the weekend, Jonathan Wells's The Myth of Junk DNA broke into the top five on Amazon's list of books dealing with genetics -- a list normally dominated at its pinnacle by various editions of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Not bad, Jonathan.Not bad indeed, except I can't tell if it's true. When I check the top selling recently published books I don't see The Myth of Junk DNA in the top five. Never mind, I'm sure there will be many skeptics like me who will buy the book just for a good laugh.
The juxtaposition with Dawkins' Selfish Gene is appropriate, notwithstanding the demurrals of biochemist Larry Moran et al. Dawkins and other Darwinists, such as Jerry Coyne, have indeed posited that neo-Darwinian theory predicts that swaths of the genome will turn out to be functionless junk. The Junk DNA argument has been a pillar of the Darwin Lobby's efforts to seduce public opinion and influence public policy. Professor Moran wants to imagine that Dawkins never held that neo-Darwinism predicts junk DNA. But that's not how other Darwinists see it. (Compare, for example, Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, page 316.)The IDiots have a bit of a problem. In order to make this book look important they have to first establish that the concept of abundant junk DNA in our genome was a "pillar" of support for evolution. That's hard to do when their understanding of evolution is so flawed that they don't see the difference between "Darwinism" and evolution by random genetic drift.
The presence of functionless DNA in the genome is no longer regarded as a puzzle. Dawkins (1976) selfish-gene theory predicts it, and elaborations on the idea of "selfish DNA" were simultaneously developed by Doolittle and Sapeinza (1980) and Orgel and Crick (1980) (see Dawkins 1982, ch. 9, for the details).Selfish DNA is not junk DNA. The classic examples of selfish DNA are active transposons and integrated viruses. These bits of DNA have a function—even if it's only to propagate themselves. As you can see from my summary [What's in Your Genome?]. I don't count them as junk.
This does not mean, however, that the so-called junk DNA is not subject to natural selection. Various 'functions' for it have been proposed, where 'function' means adaptive benefit to the organism.He goes on to describe several of the proposals that are common arguments against junk DNA. If the DNA has a function and it's adaptive, then it is not junk. Selfish DNA is not junk.
So far, with none of them having actually read the book (though P.Z. Myers threatens to do so), the Darwin apologists' response to The Myth of Junk DNA has followed along four lines of defense.
1) The usual insults. In his blog Larry Moran of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, a grown man and from the looks of him not a young one either, repetitively derides Jonathan as an "IDiot." (How embarrassing for this mature gentleman, you might think. Can you imagine Jonathan Wells or anyone else prominent in the ID community replying in kind, designating Professor Moran as "Larry Moron" or similar? The question is self-answering and tells you a lot about how desperation kindles anger among these people.)
You know, there's one sure way to prove you're not an idiot. The IDiots have been trying for over twenty years to show that they understand science. I'll gladly stop calling them idiots as soon as they deserve it.There is a pattern here, and it demands an explanation. Instead of continually testing their theory against the evidence, as scientists are supposed to do, some Darwinists consistently ignore, explain away, or misrepresent the biological facts in order to promote their theory. One isolate example of such behavior might be due simply to overzealousness. Maybe even two. But ten? Year after year? (p. 230)Klinghoffer continues with his four lines of defense that we "Darwinists" apparently use to defend the existence of abundant junk DNA (>50%) in our genome.
Fraud is a dirty word, and it should not be used lightly. In the cases described in this book, dogmatic promoters of Darwinism did not see themselves as deceivers. Yet they seriously distorted the evidence—often knowingly. If this is fraud when a stock promoter does it, what is it when a scientist does it? (p. 234)
If dogmatic promoters of Darwinian evolution were merely distorting the truth, that would be bad enough. But they haven't stopped there. They now dominate the biological sciences in the English-speaking world, and use their position of dominance to censor dissenting viewpoints. (p. 235)
The truth is that a surprising number of biologists quietly doubt or reject some of the grander claims of Darwinian evolution. But—at least in America—the must keep their mouths shut or risk condemnation, marginalization, and eventual expulsion from the scientific community. This happens infrequently, but often enough to remind everyone that the risk is real. (p. 239)
2) Denying that junk DNA ever figured preeminently in the Darwinist's quiver of arguments against design. Moran, for example, asserts, "There was never a time when knowledgeable molecular biologists equated 'junk' DNA and 'noncoding' DNA." Huh, that's strange. I'm not aware of anyone who has scientifically polled the community of professional biologists on the subject. But I do know that in the struggle for public opinion over the question of Darwin versus Design, junk DNA has again and again been employed, by all the most eminent protagonists on the Darwinian side, as a bludgeoning weapon against intelligent design. Never mind The Selfish Gene, in his most recent book, The Greatest Show on Earth (2009), Dawkins observed that "the greater part...of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes," and that this fact is "useful for...embarrassing creationists."I said that knowledgeable scientists never said that all non-coding DNA is junk. Klinghoffer says, blah, blah, blah, not even addressing my statement.
Similarly, in Why Evolution Is True (2009), Jerry Coyne offers it, again, as a "prediction" of neo-Darwinian theory that we'll find the genome littered with useless "vestigial genes."
3) When not denying that junk DNA is a prime, staple argument for Darwin apologists, Professor Moran wants to have it the opposite way. In the same series of blog posts attacking "the IDiot" Jonathan Wells, Moran maintains his own belief that the genome is indeed overwhelmingly useless junk. "Some (I am one)," he writes, "still think that as much as 90 percent could be junk." He insists that "it's not sufficient to show that a few bits of repetitive DNA have gained a function in some species."Theme
Dr. Moran's problem is that he has neither read Jonathan's book nor, it seems, followed the cascade of evidence from the scientific publications. It's a heck of a lot more than just "a few bits of repetitive DNA" that have been shown to be functional. In a brief (and enviably readable and accessible) 115-page book, Jonathan Wells offers over 600 references to recent peer-reviewed literature.
Twenty-five thousand studies further down the road from where we are now, no one knows how much of the genome will turn out to be truly functionless and therefore genuinely worthy of the appellation "junk." But for Darwinists, the speedily mounting evidence against junk DNA is an ominous portent. As Casey Luskin and others have put it, it's the trend that stands out prominently here, on which the likes of Larry Moran have so far been in denial.
4) Finally, in my own small contribution to this debate, I made a facetious comment here about how the identification of Osama bin Laden's corpse by DNA fingerprinting, using his "junk DNA" as the media habitually referred to it, provided a welcome news hook for the publication of Jonathan's book. This provoked braying responses from the Darwin Lobby. For example, our journalist friend Lauri Lebo, challenged as ever in her reading-comprehension skills, somehow understood that I was saying the usefulness of non-coding DNA for this forensic purpose proved it isn't junk.Every now and them some IDiots get something right—even if it's just by accident. One example is when Klinghoffer describes his posting as "my own small contribution."
P.Z. Myers tried to show that the usefulness of non-coding DNA for genetic fingerprinting is another demonstration that the stuff really is junk, being "subject to random changes at a higher rate than coding DNA, because it is not subject to functional constraints."
But whether "junk DNA" is functional is exactly the question at issue, isn't it? The fact that our DNA is pervasively transcribed, as Jonathan Wells points out in Chapter 3 of his book, itself suggests pervasive functionality. As has become clear, too, DNA may serve in various functions even if it does not code for functional RNA.It will be fun to read how Wells deals with the issue of spurious transcription based on his understanding of how RNA polymerase and transcriptional activators bind to DNA. I'm certainly looking forward to learning about the reliability of those genome studies on transcription and I'm sure Wells is going to discuss conflicting data in the scientific literature. After all, Wells has a Ph.D. in molecular biology so he must know about the real scientific controversy, right?
So far, the Darwinist response fails to appreciate that Jonathan is in the act of very seriously blunting a Darwinian icon. What, in this context, is an icon? It's a mainstay in the public debate about Darwinian evolution that turns out, on inspection, to be based not on solid science but on puffery, illusion or deception.Whatever. Wells' first book, Icons of Evolution was full of lies and I suspect this one will be too. Only one of the ten so-called icons was "blunted" by Wells and that one was the Haeckel drawings. Even then, Wells seriously distorted the significance of those fake drawings by claiming that there was now no evidence of similarities in the development of all mammals.
This is another icon that, as Jonathan shows, was in the process of being blunted by biologists who are not ID advocates, well before Dr. Wells gathered the evidence together so concisely and conveniently in these pages.
