Whats Wrong With Evolution.ppt

Page
2

Slide 12

“A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution)

are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this

rich literature may be surprised that there is

no consensus on this issue, and that strong viewpoints are held at both ends of the spectrum, with many undecided.”

— Sean B. Carroll. 2001 (Feb. 8). “The big picture.” Nature 409:669

Slide 13

. Extrapolation in the Extreme.

2. Evidence is Embellished.

Slide 14

2. Evidence is Embellished.

Classic Example:

Ernst Häckel’s Diagrams of Vertebrate Embryos

Slide 15

Slide 16

“Generations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings published 123 years ago

by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.

They show vertebrate embryos of different animals passing through the identical stages of development.

But the impression they give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson,

an embryologist at St. George’s Medical School

in London. He hopes once and for all to discredit Haeckel’s work, first found to be flawed

more than a century ago.”

Slide 17

Slide 18

“Richardson had long held doubts about Haeckel’s drawings because they didn’t square with his understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals develop their distinct features.

So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos ‘often looked surprisingly different,’ Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology.”

Slide 19

“Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals.

In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. ‘It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology,’ Richardson concludes.”