29 Evidences for Macroevolution

Back

Prediction 1: The fundamental unity of life

A Strawman

Ashby Camp writes:

The alleged prediction and fulfillment are: If universal common ancestry is true, then all organisms will have one or more traits in common. All organisms have one or more traits in common.

Although Camp is most likely simply trying to paraphrase the point succinctly, he distorts the intent in doing so. The prediction is more specific than the above. To quote from the original prediction 1:

"Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) information flow in continuity of kind, (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism) .... all living species today should necessarily have ... inherited the structures that perform these functions. The genealogical relatedness of all life predicts that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these basic life processes." (emphasis added)

Which traits should be in common was and is expressly stated - the structures and mechanisms that perform the four basic life functions.

Conflation of mechanism with gradualism

Camp writes:

Unless one inserts an additional premise imposing a limit on the degree to which descendants can vary (which would require specification of a mechanism of descent), the claim of common ancestry does not require that all of the descendants share one or more traits. There is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages. Absent specification of a mechanism of descent, which Dr. Theobald purposefully avoids, there is no way to tether the traits of the descendants to those of the common ancestor.

In fact, there are limits on the degree to which descendants can vary. The constraint of gradualism is inherent in the theory of universal common descent - a point made explicitly in the original article. To quote from the introduction:

"... macroevolution is proposed to occur on a geological timescale and in a gradual manner .... Gradualness concerns genetically probable organismic changes between two consecutive generations, i.e. those changes that are within the range of normal variation observed within modern populations."

Elsewhere in his criticism (e.g., footnote 6), Camp bemoans the article's indifference to mechanism in explaining the evidence for common descent. Throughout the article, it is assumed that the fundamentals of biology (such as genetics, molecular biology, and developmental biology) are correct, especially those not directly dealing with the origin and evolution of biological adaptations. In creation-evolution debates this is not especially controversial; nearly all anti-evolutionists, including those who believe in special creation, also make this assumption. Though gradualism is not formally a mechanism of evolution (like natural selection or Lamarckism could be), gradualism does indeed put severe constraints on possible macroevolutionary phenomena, and it also constrains any possible mechanisms. Thus, Camp is incorrect when he says:

... universal common ancestry is compatible with all mechanisms of common descent, including divine direction. So if God chose to have a reptile give birth to a bird, for example, that would be consistent with an "amechanistic" argument for universal common ancestry.

A modern reptile giving birth to a modern bird is not gradual; it is saltation, since such changes between two consecutive generations are not genetically probable - they are not "within the range of normal variation observed within modern populations." This is not to say that God could not have created species independently and miraculously, yet gradually. While there currently is absolutely no scientific evidence for such an idea, gradual Divine direction of evolution is indeed consistent and compatible with common descent. In footnote 1, Camp paradoxically criticizes the constraint of gradualism:

In restricting the mechanism of macroevolution to observable degrees of genetic variation, Dr. Theobald lets in the back door the very debate about mechanism that he tossed out the front. He thereby assumes the burden of proving that accumulated observable variation can account for universal common ancestry. Since he makes no attempt to meet that burden but rather repeatedly disavows the relevance of any particular mechanism of modification, I assume he did not intend to specify accumulated observable variation as the mechanism of macroevolution, despite what his definitions may suggest.

As stated earlier, though gradualism is not a mechanism, it does indeed constrain possible explanatory mechanisms. Common descent is not concerned with exactly how adaptive change has happened, but whether it has happened and whether it is consistent with normal observed genealogical processes. Camp is wrong to say that the sufficiency of "accumulated observable variation" to account for universal common descent is left unaddressed. This requirement was and is explicitly considered in Part 5, "Change and Mutability," specifically in predictions 22, 23, 24, 28, and 29.

Camp has replied:

Rather than acknowledge that he overstated his case, Dr. Theobald ignores his contradictory statements and blames me for not knowing that he really meant to restrict the explanatory mechanisms to gradual ones. If that was his intent, he should not have claimed that he was arguing for common ancestry "independent of any explanatory mechanism." He was trying to have his cake and eat it too.

The statement that "the evidence and the conclusion [of common descent] are independent of any explanatory mechanism" was made on the very last page of the article. By placing it there, I assumed that the reader had in fact read the introduction and the rest of the article. Perhaps this assumption is unwarranted in Camp's case? At first, I was at a loss for understanding how Mr. Camp could so blatantly misrepresent the stance on mechanism put forth in the "29 Evidences." However, now it is clear Mr. Camp himself wrongly assumes that "any" is equivalent to "all." Saying that common descent is independent of any explanatory mechanism is not the same as saying that common descent is independent of all possible explanatory mechanisms (see definitions 1a, 2a, 2c, and 3b for any in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or the first two definitions of any in the Cambridge International Dictionary of English). Regardless, the gradualistic restriction of explanatory mechanisms is and was explicitly made numerous times throughout the "29 Evidences" (e.g. all of Part 3 is devoted to the direct consequences of this concept - note the quote at the heading). The concept of gradualism and the resulting constraints pervade the article. Indeed, Camp is to be blamed for not knowing a basic and explicit element of an argument which he is criticizing. Must every definition and concept be re-explained in every paragraph? Camp has provided us with yet another classic example of an anti-evolutionist pulling a comment out of context and interpreting it in opposition to the author's intent, with complete disregard for other pertinent, explicit, and clarifying statements.

A Red Herring

Camp quotes the anti-evolutionist Walter ReMine to attack the evolutionary prediction of biological universals:

"First, evolution does not predict that life would arise precisely once on this planet. If there were two or more unrelated systems of life, then evolutionary theory would effortlessly accommodate that situation." (Remine 1993, p. 92-93)

Camp disavows this point in footnote 3, but still saw it fit to include it. ReMine's point is a red herring; the theory of universal common descent is the theory being considered, not multiple origins. If we were to establish that life had arisen more than once, universal common descent would be falsified, and thus evolutionary theory would not "effortlessly accommodate that situation."

A Misunderstanding of Evolutionary Fundamentals

Camp continues with ReMine's words:

"Second, even if life originated precisely once, then evolutionary theory would still not predict biologic universals. Shortly after life's origin, nothing prevented life from branching and leading separate lineages to higher life forms entirely lacking the known biologic universals. Third, evolutionary loss and replacement processes could prevent biologic universals. If one organism is a distant ancestor to another, then nothing in evolution predicts the two must share similarities. If evolution were true, then distant ancestors and descendants (as well as sister groups) can be totally different." (Remine 1993, p. 92-93)

Here Camp again dismisses the fundamentals of biology and the constraint of gradualism. Common descent does predict specific biological universals, since any significant change (any "loss and replacement processes") in the structures that perform the four basic life functions would result in nonviable organisms; these structures cannot be lost nor can they be replaced (although they can be expounded upon). Once life attained these specific structures (by whatever process), they were essentially frozen. Gradualism constrains life from "branching and leading separate lineages to higher life forms entirely lacking the known biologic universals." Of course "distant ancestors and descendants ... can be totally different" - totally different except in the structures that perform the four fundamental functions of life.

Common descent does not predict that these structures must be identical, just that the similarity must be statistically significant, and that there must be viable intermediates between the variations. For instance, because the genetic code is degenerate, common descent does not predict an identical genetic code in all organisms. However, all known genetic codes are extremely similar, with an extremely high degree of statistical significance. In fact, common descent does not require that all organisms even have a genetic code. If life evolved from something that lacked a genetic code, then there must have been a series of organisms with transitional codes, beginning with no code at all. It is at least possible that such organisms could still be alive today. But if common descent is true, then the genetic codes of these organisms would be less complex versions of the modern genetic code and would retain statistically significant similarity to the modern universal genetic code. This is a testable prediction, in principle.

That said, the main important point of "prediction 1" is this - we can make very strong a posteriori predictions about biological universals by combining common descent with what is known. As a scientific analogy, Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation does not predict planets, nor does it predict the present trajectories of planets. But given the known measured trajectory of an existing planet, we can use Newton's theory to predict what the trajectory will be in the future and what it must have been in the past, and these predictions can be confirmed or falsified. Likewise, given the fact that we now know that all organisms studied to date, including bacteria and birds, have a very similar glycolysis metabolic pathway (or genetic code), we can use common descent to predict that all undiscovered or unexamined organisms that fit between bacteria and birds in the standard phylogenetic tree will also have a similar glycolysis metabolic pathway (or genetic code). Because of common descent, we predict this even though this prediction is not functionally necessary - many other equivalent glycolysis pathways or genetic codes could function equally well. Because of common descent, we know that certain types of organisms will be extremely similar in the biological universals before we actually go and check the organisms to see what their structures really look like. Thus, Hunter is incorrect when Camp quotes him saying:

"Consider how evolutionists would react if there were in fact multiple codes in nature. What if plants, animals, and bacteria all had different codes? Such a finding would not falsify evolution; rather, it would be incorporated into the theory ... " (Hunter 2001, p. 38)

First, common descent does predict that the genetic codes should be similar a priori. Hunter is speculating about how evolutionists would have reacted in a hypothetical historical scenario in which we did not find highly similar codes between organisms. In reality, we can never know how biologists would have reacted to that, since that hypothetical scenario did not happen. What is known, however, is that the scientists who cracked the genetic code in the 1950's and 1960's worked under the assumption that the code was universal or nearly so (Judson 1996, p. 280-281). These scientists, which included Francis Crick, Sydney Brenner, George Gamow, and several others, all made this assumption and justified it based upon evolutionary reasoning, even in the complete absence of any experimental evidence. In fact, this assumption was instrumental in their success in solving the code. For instance, in 1957, nearly ten years before the genetic code was finally solved, Sydney Brenner published an influential paper in which he concluded that all overlapping triplet codes were impossible if the code was universal (Brenner 1957). This paper was widely considered a landmark work, since many researchers were leaning towards an overlapping code. Of course, it turned out that Brenner was correct about the nature of the true code. In 1961, five years before the code was deciphered, Crick and others also concluded that the code was (1) a triplet code, (2) non-overlapping, and (3) that the code is read from a fixed starting point (i.e. the "start" codon) (Crick et al. 1961). These conclusions were explicitly based on the assumption that the code was essentially the same in tobacco, humans, and bacteria, though there was no empirical support for this assumption. These conclusions turned out to be correct. In fact, in 1963 - three years before the code was finally solved - Hinegardner and Engelberg published a paper in Science specifically explaining why the code must be universal (or nearly so) if universal common descent were true, since most mutations in the code would likely be lethal to all living things. Note, Hinegardner and Engelberg did allow for some variation in the genetic code, and predicted how such variation should be distributed if found:

"... if different codes do exist they should be associated with major taxonomic groups such as phyla or kingdoms that have their roots far in the past." (Hinegardner and Engelberg 1963)

Their evolutionary prediction was correct, since the minor variations in the standard genetic code are indeed associated with major taxonomic groups (vertebrates vs. plants vs. single-celled ciliates, etc.).

Second, we now know from experimental research that many plants, many animals, and many bacteria all have extremely similar genetic codes. There is no known biological reason, aside from common descent, for why the genetic codes of different species should be similar. Any new discovery of a plant, animal, or bacteria with a radically different genetic code would be a highly unexpected result if common descent is true, and thus such a discovery would be a strong falsification.

Camp continues with Hunter's quote:

"There is nothing wrong with a theory that is comfortable with different outcomes, but there is something wrong when one of those outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence. If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used as evidence for the theory. When it comes to the genetic code, evolution can accommodate a range of findings, but it cannot then use one of those findings as supporting evidence." (Hunter 2001, p. 38.)

Hunter's logic concerning "A and not-A" is strictly correct, but it is misapplied (it is logically valid but unsound because one of the premises is false). In this case, evolution does not predict "both A and not-A" - it predicts "both A and B." Hunter equivocates by misidentifying "A and not-A" with a range of predicted outcomes. A range of outcomes ("A and B") does not necessarily encompass all possible outcomes ("A and not-A"). If a theory predicts both A and B, then either A or B can be used as evidence for the theory. All scientific theories predict a range of outcomes. For example, Newtonian physics predicts that projectiles will follow elliptical paths, parabolic paths, or linear paths, contingent upon the relevant conditions. Newtonian physics thus predicts A, B, and C, and any of A, B, or C can be used as evidence for Newtonian physics. This point is important, since Camp uses this same argument again, incorrectly, in his conclusion. Hunter's claim that "there is something wrong when one of those [different] outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence" is clearly false as a blanket statement about scientific theories. To rewrite Hunter's incorrect statement: when it comes to the genetic code, evolution predicts a range of findings, and it can use any of those findings as supporting evidence. That's how science works.

Camp further obfuscates the prediction of biological universals by introducing hypotheses concerning the origin of the universal ancestor. He writes:

The fact that some leading evolutionists believe early life forms were biochemically distinct from modern forms confirms that evolution does not predict biologic universals. Robert Shapiro, for example, entertains the possibility of finding living relics of an original protein-based life form that lacked DNA and RNA. (Shapiro, 293-295.) Likewise, A. G. Cairns-Smith thinks that descendants of ancient crystalline clay organisms may be all around us. He states: "Evolution did not start with the organic molecules that have now become universal to life: indeed I doubt whether the first organisms, even the first evolved organisms, had any organic molecules in them at all." (Cairns-Smith, 107.)

First, exactly how the universal ancestor originated and evolved is not within the realm of common descent; common descent concerns all evolution and descent from the last common ancestor to the present. Secondly, and most importantly, these speculative hypotheses have no influence upon certain predictions of universals, such as the genetic code. The genetic code is a mechanism to translate nucleic acid information (DNA and/or RNA) into protein. Shapiro's original life form lacked DNA and RNA - it did not have a genetic code. Cairns-Smith's crystalline clay organisms had neither protein nor nucleic acid - thus neither did they have a genetic code. The universality of the genetic code was proposed based upon two facts: all known life carries genetic information in nucleic acids, and all known life performs metabolic functions with proteins. All known life thus has a genetic code. If all known life is also united by common descent, it must also be united by a universal genetic code. As recounted above, this was the exact reasoning of Francis Crick, Sydney Brenner, George Gamow, and Marshall Nirenberg when they were cracking the genetic code. Camp, and other anti-evolutionists like ReMine, can carp and criticize - yet the fact remains that real evolutionary biologists, doing hard science, made predictions and got phenomenal results based upon common descent and the deduction of biological universals.

An Unscientific, Untestable "Alternative"

On the other hand, ReMine argues that biologic universals are a prediction of his message theory of creation, which "says all life was constructed to look like the unified work of a single designer." (ReMine, 94.) So evolution does not predict the unity of living things, but at least one theory of creation does. Of course, the biochemical similarity of living things fits easily within a creation framework.

Of course biochemical similarity fits easily in a "creation framework." Anything can fit in the creation framework. This is precisely why present anti-evolutionary creationist theories are unscientific; they are not open to falsification. They are not even real theories or hypotheses. If there were no biochemical similarity, would that be inconsistent with the "creation framework"? ReMine's "message" hypothesis is close to being scientifically valid, but it is much too vague to be tested. What does a "unified work" look like? How would the biological world look if it were a "divided work"? Can ReMine quantify "appearance of unity"? Would independent researchers, perhaps from different cultures and countries, deduce the same predictions from this "message hypothesis"? Surely not - how something "looks" in terms of unity is subjective; it is not an objective property of life. How are we to distinguish between a single designer and multiple designers? Does Microsoft Word or an iMac or a Nissan Pathfinder look like the result of a single designer or multiple designers? A more fundamental problem is that ReMine's "message" hypothesis is not mutually exclusive with common descent, though he and Camp both seem to think that it is. Many world religions consider the existence of physical laws, such as the theory of universal gravitation, to be evidence that the universe is the unified work of a single Designer. In principle, couldn't a single designer have used evolution to make all of life look like a unified work? Of course; ReMine's conjecture and common descent could both be true.

Naive Theology and Poor Biochemistry

Camp continues his discussion of how well he believes that creationism can explain biochemical similarities by quoting this fine piece of "scientific" creationist reasoning from Duane Gish:

"A creationist would also expect many biochemical similarities in all living organisms. We all drink the same water, breathe the same air, and eat the same food. Supposing, on the other hand, God had made plants with a certain type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; then made animals with a different type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; and, finally, made man with a third type of amino acids, sugars, etc. What could we eat? We couldn't eat plants; we couldn't eat animals; all we could eat would be each other! Obviously, that wouldn't work. All the key molecules in plants, animals, and man had to be the same. The metabolism of plants, animals, and man, based on the same biochemical principles, had to be similar, and therefore key metabolic pathways would employ similar macromolecules, modified to fit the particular internal environment of the organism or cell in which it must function." (Gish, 277.)

Both Gish and Camp obviously feel that God is extremely limited in ingenuity. Gish's contention is ridiculous; why couldn't God have created plants with one certain type of amino acids and animals with another type, and simply given animals the enzymes that metabolize plant amino acids? Wouldn't that be clever design? Obviously, that would work, and all the key molecules in plants, animals, and man did not have to be the same. Now, I am not stating that God should have made things this way, but I am certainly questioning the naive theological assumption made by Gish and Camp that God was incapable of creating things this way.

Another Strawman

Camp ends his criticism of Prediction 1 with this strawman:

The claim that all organisms have one or more traits in common is true in the sense that all living things necessarily have the traits by which life is defined, but that is simply a tautology - living things all have the traits of living things.

As at the beginning, Camp's paraphrase is incorrect. The above claim is not the prediction of biological universals; the prediction is that structures which perform the basic functions that characterize life should be similar. Living things have the functions of living things (a tautology), but because all things are related by heredity (i.e. common descent), living things also should have similar structures and mechanisms that perform these basic functions (a deduction from common descent). It is possible that living things could all have the basic functions that characterize life while also having very different, chemically and structurally unrelated mechanisms that perform these basic functions. The prediction of biological universals is, therefore, not tautologous. And, as a deduction of common descent, the prediction of biological universals is testable, confirmable, and falsifiable. Furthermore, this prediction has been confirmed and has not been falsified. Like any good scientific theory, the possibility exists that it may be falsified in the future by the acquisition of new data, though this is highly unlikely since all other evidence confirms the validity of common descent.

Prediction 2: A nested hierarchy of species

Misrepresentation of Evolutionary Theory and Poor Logic

Camp's argument is simply that descent by modification from a common ancestor does not predict a nested hierarchy. Camp is just plain incorrect here; all genealogical processes produce nested hierarchies. Think of your own family tree - your grandparents might have several kids, each of those kids (your aunts, uncles, and parents) have their own families, each of the children in those families (like you) may have their own children and even your children can have their own families. Each family is nested within another family, which in turn is nested within another family, and so on. Camp attempts to explain himself in his refusal to accept this basic concept:

Common descent can explain or accommodate nested hierarchy ... but it does not predict it. There are mechanisms of descent from a common ancestor that would yield a different pattern. If common descent can yield either nested hierarchy or something else, then the presence of nested hierarchy does not count as evidence of common descent.

Camp claims that different patterns can result from common descent - it would be nice if he could give us an example. I infer that the reason he does not give us examples is because they do not exist. If Camp means that "randomness" is a pattern (stretching the term "pattern"), then, yes, under certain conditions common descent predicts that some characters of species will be random with respect to each other. However, as has been discussed already, most theories in science predict multiple outcomes contingent upon the relevant conditions. This is not a problem for any scientific theory. Camp's last statement above is clearly false; it is the same error discussed above in Hunter's "A and not-A" claim. Common descent can predict two different outcomes and it can still use either of those outcomes as supporting evidence.

Another Misunderstanding of Evolutionary Theory

Camp has since replied to this criticism:

... the claim that the hypothesis of universal common ancestry makes a falsifiable prediction that organisms will exhibit a pattern of nested hierarchy is incorrect. Indeed, Dr. Theobald acknowledged in both prediction 2 and the response to my critique that Lamarck's organic progression would yield a non-nested pattern of organisms. ... since Lamarck's organic progression (to pick one example) admittedly does not predict a nested hierarchy, a nested hierarchy is not evidence of common descent via Lamarck's organic progression. Therefore, it is not evidence of common descent regardless of "whether Darwinism, Lamarckism, or something else is the true mechanism of evolutionary change," which is the proposition being argued by Dr. Theobald.

Although Camp still does not provide us with an example of a non-nested pattern generated by common descent, he does think that Lamarck's organic progression would predict a non-nested pattern. Camp is correct. However, Camp does not understand the difference between Lamarckism (or inheritance of acquired characters), which is an evolutionary mechanism, and the Lamarckian organic progression, which is not an evolutionary mechanism but is a descriptive macroevolutionary theory. Of course Lamarck's organic progression does not predict a nested hierarchy - it is mutually exclusive with common descent. Lamarck's organic progression is a competing theory, and common descent and the organic progression cannot both be true. However, Lamarckian evolution (by inheritance of acquired characters) could, in principle, be a mechanism of change that drives common descent by gradual modification. Camp's discussion here just proves my point. If we observed a pattern like that predicted by the organic progression, it would strongly indicate that common descent was false and that the organic progression was true. In other words, Lamarck's organic progression predicts a non-nested pattern - if we observed that pattern, it would falsify common descent.

Poor Logic and Outdated Science

Camp then tries to support this misunderstanding with another quote from Hunter:

"It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator's divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution." (Hunter 2001, p. 107.)

It seems clear to me that Hunter is implying that since the hierarchical pattern of species was known before the theory of common descent was proposed, then the hierarchical pattern cannot be used as evidence for common descent. According to such logic, Newton's theory of gravity is also suspect. It has been known since long before Aristotle that apples fall to the ground when dropped. Some people before Newton, such as Aristotle, thought that apples were attracted to the ground because they were primarily made of the "earth" element. Obviously this pattern (falling) does not force one to embrace the inverse square law. It should be clear that the fact that people were wrong about physical explanations in the past is not an argument against modern scientific theories.

However, in private correspondence, Hunter has vociferously objected to my interpretation of his comments given above. Hunter claims that he was simply pointing out that alternative "theories" can explain the observed nested hierarchy. For such a point to be valid, the alternate "theories" would need to be of equal scientific rank as the theory of common descent. To my knowledge, neither Aristotle nor Linnaeus proposed any hypothesis concerning the nested hierarchy, and neither of them ever made any testable predictions based on any hypothesis proposed to explain the nested hierarchy. In contrast, common descent has certainly been proposed as a hypothesis which predicts the nested hierarchy, and many predictions based upon universal common descent have been made and tested by evolutionary biologists within the past 140 years. As such, the philosophical and theological ideas of Aristotle and Linnaeus do not compete scientifically with the formal hypothesis of common descent. Furthermore, there is no reason why the theological significance Linnaeus attached to the nested hierarchy should exclude common descent; it is of course possible for a theist to see the theory of common descent, and the hierarchy which it predicts, as a reflection of the Creator's divine plan, much as Sir Isaac Newton saw his laws of motion, and the ellipses and parabolas which they predict, as evidence of the Creator's hand in our universe.

More Misrepresentation of Evolutionary Theory

Hunter's quote continues:

"Also, Darwin's law of natural selection does not predict this pattern. He had to devise a special explanation - his principle of divergence - to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory." (Hunter 2001, p. 108.)

Branching or divergence of species (i.e. speciation) is an inherent part of common descent. Darwin's principle of divergence of character was his particular explanation for speciation. However, Darwin's specific principle is unnecessary for common descent to produce a nested hierarchy - all that is necessary is speciation, regardless of cause. Most importantly, the views of this 19th century naturalist, though interesting historically, are of no consequence whatsoever for the validity of modern evolutionary theories. Camp appears to be confused about whether common descent must include branching of species or not:

Even a mechanism of descent that includes branching events does not ensure a nested pattern.

If multiple species evolved from a common ancestor, how could they have arisen without branching? "One" turning into "two" necessarily includes a branching event. Divergence (i.e. speciation) is thus inherent in the concept of common descent. Again, think about a family tree. Genealogies branch and diverge. The very essence of common descent is that all species are related like individuals in a genealogy. Camp quotes ReMine in support of this misunderstanding:

"The pattern of descent depends on the extent that evolved characters are later lost. Suppose losses are significant, and characters are replaced at a high rate. Then there is no reason to expect a nested pattern. Descendants could be totally different from their distant ancestors and sister groups, with little or no semblance of nested similarities linking them." (ReMine, 343.)

ReMine is partially correct, yet errs large. If rates of evolution are fast, then the cladistic information indeed can be lost given enough time, since the cladistic information would be essentially randomized. The faster the rate, the less time needed to obliterate the information in biological characters about the historical branching pattern of evolution. Slowly evolving characters let us see farther back into time; faster evolving characters restrict that view to more recent events. This is a difficulty that biologists must deal with in reality. But, importantly, it is also a prediction of common descent. Given a certain rate of evolution, we can determine how long it will take for cladistic information to be lost. ReMine forgets that "rate of evolution" vs. "time since divergence" is relative; thus, in some time frame we will always be able to observe a nested hierarchy if common descent is true. Furthermore, we know empirically that background mutation rates vary by orders of magnitude from locus to locus in the genomes of species. This fact means that hierarchies should be observed at many biological levels, since some genes evolve faster or slower than others.

ReMine thinks that since there are certain conditions under which a prediction of our theory will not be observed, then observing the prediction is not a confirmation of our theory. If this were true, we could never confirm any scientific hypothesis, not just common descent, since there are always certain conditions under which we will be unable to observe some consequence of a theory.

All ReMine is saying is that, under certain conditions, common descent predicts that hierarchical structure will be randomized. It is unclear why this is a problematic feature of the theory of common descent. Under certain conditions, Newtonian theory predicts that objects will not follow elliptical orbits, but that they will follow parabolas. Are we thus supposed to conclude that observing the elliptical orbits of the planets cannot be used as evidence for Newtonian theory? No, and the same is true for common descent. This is the same error as Hunter's "A and not-A" discussion addressed above. ReMine simply does not understand how the scientific method works.

Camp has since contested my criticism of ReMine's arguments:

This is a mischaracterization of Remine's position. ReMine is not claiming that fulfillment of a theory's falsifiable prediction (e.g., the mutual attraction of two masses decreases in proportion to the square of the distance between them) is nullified by an inability to test the prediction under certain circumstances (e.g., where the attraction is predictably below measurable limits).

The phrase "inability to test" is misstated. We can always test - it is only after testing that we compare the results to our predictions. If we assume that something is untestable beforehand then we are assuming the truth of our theory - we are not testing it. What Camp must mean here, to make sense scientifically, is "inability to observe a given prediction." In fact, this is exactly what ReMine is claiming - there is no mischaracterization. ReMine claims that fulfillment of a theory's falsifiable prediction (e.g., the observation of a "nested pattern") is nullified by an inability to observe the prediction under certain circumstances (e.g., when the hierarchy is predictably randomized because "losses are significant, and characters are replaced at a high rate").

Rather, he [ReMine] is claiming that nested hierarchy is not a falsifiable prediction of common ancestry because the theory includes without restriction processes that work against that pattern. Those processes can be invoked in any blend to account for any non-nested pattern that is observed.

Well, ReMine is also making this claim. However, ReMine and Camp are both incorrect in stating that it is problematic to invoke processes that "work against" a prediction of a theory. With Newton's theory of gravity, there are plenty of things that can be invoked to account for anomalous results. For instance, naively, feathers and bowling balls supposedly fall at the same rate. If dropped from the same height, they should hit the ground at the same time - that is, if the theory is correct. But we all know that is untrue. Feathers fall more slowly, and we invoke another process, air resistance, to explain why feathers fall in a way not predicted by the theory. But there is more - electrons and protons do not follow the gravitational inverse square law either. We invoke electric charge to explain that. Refrigerator magnets also "violate" the theory of gravity. Here we invoke a process, magnetism, that works against the patterns predicted by Newton's theory. In some cases, like three- or four-body problems, we admit that Newton's theory fails to give an exact answer. When we are only considering two objects, like the Sun and the earth, we can solve the equations of motion exactly. But add just one more element, like the moon, and the equations are impossible to solve (though the answers can sometimes be approximated). In other cases, as with the orbit of Mercury, we drop Newton's theory altogether and invoke relativistic effects. In reality (something that anti-evolutionists like ReMine try to avoid thinking about), all scientific explanations are complex, except in the most unrealistic, contrived situations found in carefully controlled laboratory environments. In a lab, we can remove the air from a container and watch a bowling ball and a feather fall at the same rate. As stated elsewhere here, processes cannot "be invoked in any blend to account for any [...] pattern." Complex explanations are required to be reasonable and to conform to empirically observed processes - they are not invoked "without restriction." All the processes that ReMine and Camp complain about have been empirically observed, and they are testable propositions. Evolutionary biology, thus, is no more problematic than any other scientific discipline. To repeat, ReMine simply does not understand how the scientific method works.

Mr. Camp uses an additional quote from ReMine with the intent to criticize common descent and the prediction of nested hierarchies:

"Evolution does not predict a hierarchical pattern. Simple processes of loss, replacement, anagenesis, transposition, unmasking, or multiple biogenesis would prohibit such a pattern. Since hierarchical patterns (such as cladograms or phenograms) are not predicted by evolution they are not evidence for evolution." (ReMine 1993, p. 444.)

However, Camp has misquoted ReMine. ReMine is not specifically referring to common descent in this passage; he is writing about evolution in general. ReMine keeps common descent and evolution distinct (as he should). For instance, multiple biogenesis is not common descent. This is clear from the very next sentence that follows the quote above:

"Life's hierarchical pattern (as displayed in cladograms and phenograms) is too indirect to establish even the special case of common descent." (ReMine 1993, p. 444.)

ReMine considers common descent to be a special case of evolution, which of course it is. But his point that common descent is not a necessary case of evolution is senseless. It is analogous to criticizing the inverse square law because it could have been an inverse cube law or an inverse factorial law. He might as well say - "Gravity does not predict elliptical orbits. Since elliptical orbits are not predicted by gravity then it is not evidence for gravity." Which he could have followed with - "Elliptical orbits (as displayed by planets and projectiles) are too indirect to establish even the special case of the inverse square law." Despite ReMine's protestations, nested hierarchies are measurable features of organisms - their presence or absence can be quantified and evaluated with statistics. The prediction of a nested hierarchy follows directly from the hypothesis of common descent.

Furthermore, ReMine is incorrect in claiming that "loss, replacement, anagenesis, transposition, unmasking, or multiple biogenesis would prohibit" a hierarchical pattern. Of course, multiple biogenesis could, but we are not considering multiple biogenesis, we are considering universal common descent. The other processes mentioned all create hierarchical patterns, since character losses, replacements, anagenetic changes, transpositions, and reversals (unmasking events) are all inherited by descendants of an ancestor. For example, if all apes are descendants from a long-tailed primate common ancestor that lost its tail, then all apes will lack tails, while other primates will have tails. If an ape acquired a gene by transposition into the germ-line, then all descendants of that ape would inherit that transposition. If some non-ape primate then had a short tail replace its long tail, then all descendants of the short-tailed primate would inherit that short tail. The result is a nested hierarchy.

      
 _____________________________________________________
|                     primates                        |
|  ________________   _____________   ______________  |
| |      apes      | |  long tails | |  short tails | |
| | ______  ______ | |             | |              | |
| ||  no  ||trans.|| |             | |              | |
| ||trans.||      || |             | |              | |
| | ______  ______ |  _____________   ______________  |
| |                |                                  |
|  ________________                                   |
|                                                     |
 _____________________________________________________

These "simple processes" are the very types of things that make nested hierarchies.

Since this was written, Camp has replied:

There are various ways in which existing organisms could descend from a common ancestor and not exhibit a nested hierarchy. Anagenesis, loss of characters, replacement of characters, transposition of characters, atavism (masking and unmasking), and convergence all work against a hierarchical pattern, and the bare hypothesis of universal common ancestry says nothing about the rate or prevalence of those processes. They can be invoked in whatever blend is necessary to explain whatever pattern is found. Therefore, the claim that the hypothesis of universal common ancestry makes a falsifiable prediction that organisms will exhibit a pattern of nested hierarchy is incorrect.

Notice how Camp avoids all of the points which were made against his argument. Camp does not provide an example of a non-nested pattern. He reiterates the claim that various processes destroy a nested pattern, when in fact those very processes create a nested pattern. These processes cannot be "invoked in whatever blend is necessary to explain whatever pattern is found." Yes, "bare" common descent may not state anything specifically about these processes, but universal common descent is constrained by gradualism, as has been explained many times over. We know empirically the maximum rates of anagenesis, character loss, and character replacement - such processes can be used in scientific explanations, of course, but there are limits on what rates can be used. This was already addressed specifically in predictions 22, 23, 24, 28, and 29. Furthermore, we also know that convergence happens (it is a prediction of natural selection and is observed regularly in the wild and in the lab). However, true structural convergence, in which distantly related taxa perform the same functions with the same underlying structures, is rare relative to divergence. In fact, when considering DNA sequence evolution, we can calculate very precisely what rates of convergence are reasonable and what rates are highly unlikely.

Camp then goes on to quote another confused anti-evolutionist, Michael Denton, in support of his assertion that common descent does not predict a nested hierarchy:

"In the final analysis the hierarchic pattern is nothing like the straightforward witness for organic evolution that is commonly assumed. There are facets of the hierarchy which do not flow naturally from any sort of random undirected evolutionary process. If the hierarchy suggests any model of nature it is typology and not evolution. How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature's divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity." (Denton 1986, 136-137.)

In evolution, "sequence and continuity" are truly only displayed in the time dimension. Horizontal slices of time may hint at continuity, especially between closely related species - but branching and divergence from a common ancestor predicts nested hierarchies at any given time, not a continuum. Denton just doesn't understand what common descent is (or didn't at the time he wrote this passage). Common descent is the hypothesis that all species are strictly genealogically related. That means that species should be organizable into a family tree. It is very easy to see that a family tree gives nested hierarchies at any given single point in time. Someone, like Denton, who doesn't understand even the most fundamental evolutionary concepts really has no business criticizing evolutionary theory. If all of nature were "blurred and indistinct," if the "systema naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes," this would not indicate common descent, it would indicate something like Lamarck's organic progression or the medieval view of the "great chain of being." Camp has replied to these comments:

Next, Dr. Theobald chides me for quoting "another confused anti-evolutionist," Michael Denton. As an aside, I find it fascinating that, according to Dr. Theobald, Denton "doesn't understand even the most fundamental evolutionary concepts." It is fascinating because one often hears that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. And yet, Denton, being ignorant of the most fundamental evolutionary concepts, managed to earn a Ph.D. in developmental biology (in addition to an M.D.), to write or co-author over seventy articles in professional journals, and to work for decades as a genetics researcher. Apparently knowledge of evolution is irrelevant to a career in science.

I am confident that Michael Denton has contributed greatly to scientific knowledge in his area of expertise. Yet, Camp's logic here is wanting. Someone can have a successful scientific career, especially in an applied field, without understanding the theory behind the science they practice. Plenty of people drive cars and fly in planes who understand not a thing about how cars and planes work. Most people who consider themselves "computer literate" don't really understand how computers do their thing at the most basic level (and I count myself among them). I can program in Basic, Perl, and some C++ and Java - but that doesn't mean I understand how to make a functional silicon computer chip. Even silicon chip designers often know extremely little quantum mechanics, even though electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics ultimately explain the behavior of all electronic devices. Likewise, someone can be a good medical doctor without understanding why the drugs they prescribe work effectively, and someone can do plenty of good biological research without understanding evolutionary biology. Nevertheless, nothing in computing makes sense except in the light of microchip technology, nothing in microchip technology makes sense except in the light of quantum mechanics, nothing in the automobile industry makes sense except in the light of mechanics and thermodynamics, nothing in aviation makes sense except in the light of aerodynamics, nothing in medicine makes sense except in the light of biochemistry, and nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

It is not to the benefit of Camp's argument that he uses quotes from Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. This book is so ridden with errors, false "facts," illogic, and uninformed dialectical rubbish that it is hard to understand how Camp could find any use in it. As one of a myriad of examples, immediately preceding the paragraph quoted by Camp above, Denton writes:

"There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral or transitional forms can be permitted to survive." (Denton 1986, p. 136, emphasis in the orginal).

This is obviously false and nicely illustrates the wanton ignorance concerning basic evolutionary concepts displayed in this book. This passage is, additionally, directly pertinent to the present discussion of nested hierarchies. Denton immediately follows the above statement with:

"This can be seen by examining the tree diagram above on page 135. If any of the ancestors X, Y and Z, or if any of the hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the divisions would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes and what remained of the hierarchic pattern would be highly disordered." (Denton 1986, p. 136)

The absurdity of these statements is evident when one includes the ancestors X, Y, and Z in Denton's nested hierarchy figure. All the ancestors (including a hypothetical transitional connecting species, W) fit in the existing nested hierarchy just fine, without blurring the distinctness of divisions or contributing disorder to the hierarchical pattern. If Denton could not even work out the simple evolutionary predictions based upon his very own figures and examples, it is no wonder that he thought that "the hierarchic pattern is nothing like the straightforward witness for organic evolution that is commonly assumed."

Figure C2. A phylogeny and the corresponding nested hierarchy, as given by Michael Denton (Denton 1986, p. 134-135). Denton's figure is reproduced in black. Additions by Theobald are shown in red.

Dr. Theobald's disparaging comment notwithstanding, Denton's point about the nested hierarchy observed in nature has merit. The discreteness or discontinuity of the groupings does not flow naturally from a random, undirected evolutionary process. One must explain why the morphological space between the groups exists, as opposed to the divisions being blurred and indistinct. The point is not that evolutionists cannot explain it but that it is something that requires an explanation.

If that is the point then it is a moot one for our present discussion. All natural phenomena require an explanation, scientifically. Is there supposed to be something problematic about that? In fact, "discreteness or discontinuity of the groupings" does "flow naturally from a random, undirected evolutionary process." Extinction is an observable fact, both in the fossil record and in the present. Extinction is all that is needed to cause discontinuity (though other processes can also be involved). Extinction is also largely random and undirected.

Interestingly, it appears that Denton may have finally rectified his misunderstanding about nested hierarchies and common descent, since in his latest book he unconditionally assumes the validity of the nested hierarchy, common descent, and the "tree of life" (Denton 1998, pp. 265-298). For example, in the chapter entitled The Tree of Life from Nature's Destiny, Denton discusses the phylogeny of several closely related species (the primates) and directly contradicts his previous misstatements presented by Camp above:

"In the case of primate DNA, for example, all the sequences in the hemoglobin gene cluster in man, chimp, gorilla, gibbon, etc., can be interconverted via single base change steps to form a perfect evolutionary tree relating the higher primates together in a system that looks as natural as could be imagined. There is not the slightest indication of any discontinuity." (Denton 1998, p. 277)

This was written by the same man who scribed:

"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary theory." (Denton 1986, p. 290)

One wonders how Camp can feel justified in quoting Denton's past confusions about common descent. Camp has responded to this:

Dr. Theobald apparently misunderstands Denton's point in the quote, as he claims that Denton subsequently contradicted himself in opining that the hemoglobin gene cluster in primates was not discontinuous. Just because Denton believes there is no discontinuity requiring an explanation in that particular instance does not mean he denies there is discontinuity elsewhere. So Dr. Theobald's comment ("One wonders how Camp can feel justified in quoting Denton's past confusions about common descent") is misguided.

Contrary to Camp's later protestations, here Denton is not referring to primate DNA as an exception - he now sees it as an example of a generality of life. That is why Denton prefaces this case with "for example." One wonders if Camp has read Denton's new book.

Unsupported Theology and Projection

At this point, Camp leaves science and enters into theological arguments:

The notion that the nested hierarchy of organisms is incompatible with creation is based, not on science, but on the unprovable theological assumption that if God created life he would do it in some other way. As biologist Leonard Brand explains: The hierarchical arrangement of life illustrated in Fig. 9.6 has been used by Futuyma (1983) and others as evidence that life must have evolved. They believe that if life were created, the characteristics of different organisms would be arranged chaotically or in a continuum, not in the hierarchy of nested groups evident in nature. If we think of that concept as a hypothesis, how could it be tested? Actually, to state how a Creator would do things and then show that nature is or is not designed that way is an empty argument. Such conjecture depends on the unlikely assumption that we can decide what the Creator would be like and how he would function. (Brand, 155.)

In fact, no theological assumptions or arguments are made at all in the essay. The "29 Evidences" is not an argument against creation - it is the scientific argument for common descent, no more, no less. The evidence for common descent can only be evidence against creation if one believes the two are mutually incompatible. A belief that Divine creation and common descent are mutually exclusive alternatives is indeed a theological assumption, and it is one that Ashby Camp makes, not I. If Camp has independent evidence that a Creator has created life to result in a nested hierarchical classification, let him present that evidence. If the hypothesis that a Creator created in this manner is testable and falsifiable, let Ashby Camp tell us how. Personally, I agree with Brand when he says that "to state how a Creator would do things and then show that nature is or is not designed that way is an empty argument. Such conjecture depends on the unlikely assumption that we can decide what the Creator would be like and how he would function" (Brand 1997, p.155). Camp also concurs, as he says that predictions about how God would create are "based, not on science, but on the unprovable theological assumption that if God created life he would do it in some [specific] way." The creation hypothesis that a Creator created life with nested hierarchies is not scientific; as Brand and Camp note, it is untestable. It is highly ironic that Camp has tried to turn a fatal weakness of creationism into a weakness of the theory of common descent.

Throughout his criticism, indeed in every section, Camp relentlessly accuses me of making theological assumptions which I do not make. Frankly, I find this to be highly offensive, since in reality it is Ashby Camp who makes the theological assumptions and then projects his bias on me. I personally believe that an omnipotent, omniscient Creator could have created in any manner that he chose. For a theist, the pertinent question is not "what is an omnipotent Creator capable of?" but rather "how exactly did/does the Creator create?". The first question is purely theological, and as such is left unaddressed in the "29 Evidences"; in contrast, the second question is one that science can answer (given the assumption of a Creator).

The "29 Evidences" concerns scientific evidence only - that means only hypotheses which can be tested against hard empirical evidence, only hypotheses that can be either confirmed or falsified in principle. Unfortunately, Camp forwards numerous meaningless, untestable "creation hypotheses" throughout his critique, apparently under the self-deceiving illusion that they have some relevance to the present issue. However, in the quoted section above, Camp states outright that conjecture about how a Creator created is not scientific, because such conjecture cannot be tested and because we cannot know the Creator's intent in the first place. Thus, every alternative "creation hypothesis" that Camp proffers is scientifically meaningless by his own admission.

Camp continues:

It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness. It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology. (See, e.g., ReMine, 367-368, 465-467.) The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution. Accordingly, "[i]t is not evidence for or against either theory." (Brand, 155.)

Creation theory can, to my knowledge, accommodate any possible outcome and is therefore untestable, unfalsifiable, and unscientific. If Camp has an opposing view and has examples of observations that would falsify creation theory, let him present them. Common descent, on the other hand, cannot accommodate any outcome; common descent predicts observable nested hierarchies. If rates of evolution are extremely fast (or extremely slow), nested hierarchies will be observed only for very recently diverged taxa (or for very distantly related taxa). Fortunately, we observe a range of evolutionary rates in different characters and thus observe nested hierarchies at many levels in biology. It is worth pointing out here that it is in fact possible to have a "reciprocal" pattern from nested hierarchies. Mathematically, a nested hierarchy is the result of specific correlations between certain characters of organisms. When evolutionary rates are fast, the characters become randomly distributed with respect to one another, and the correlations are weakened. However, the characters could also be anti-correlated in theory - it is possible for them to be correlated in the opposite direction from what produces nested hierarchies. The observation of such an anti-correlated pattern would be highly inconsistent with common descent, regardless of evolutionary rates.

Confusion about Evolutionary Theory

Camp concludes his criticism of this point with an attack on the very notion of cladistic classification:

Dr. Theobald's claim that "specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc." cannot be classified in a nested hierarchy requires elaboration. In terms of mere classification, it is incorrect. Buildings and vehicles have both been used as examples of nesting (Ridley 1993, 52-54; Fastovsky and Weishampel, 51-53; Brand, 165-166).

Camp's assertion stems from a misunderstanding, one that is addressed in detail in the new version of the "29 Evidences" under prediction 2. Some authors have used more familiar objects for illustrating nested hierarchies; however, these are only for explanatory purposes and are not meant to be strict analogies. Of course buildings and cars can be arbitrarily sorted into nested hierarchies. The point is that they do not form natural nested hierarchies; they do not meet the mathematical requirements of nested hierarchies. Camp seems not to understand this point, in spite of the fact that one of his favorite anti-evolutionists explains it clearly:

"Any system of objects can be forcibly classified into a nested hierarchy. Some systems do not have to be forced, rather they display a nested pattern with clarity without having to be coerced. Life has such a pattern. There are no tetrapods that are not based on the vertebrate body plan. There are no amniotes that are not based on the tetrapod body plan. There are no mammals that are not also amniotes. These are the familiar examples, and many more can be given. They are powerful generalizations. Life is like nested Chinese boxes of subsets within subsets within subsets. Life is comprised of nested similarities. This significant pattern must be explained." (ReMine 1993, p. 344)

And common descent explains it.

A Classic Out-of-Context Quote

Camp concludes this misunderstanding with a quote from a well-known evolutionary biologist, which only appears to support his point:

"Any set of objects, whether or not they originated in an evolutionary process, can be classified hierarchically. Chairs, for instance, are independently created; they are not generated by an evolutionary process: but any given list of chairs could be classified hierarchically, perhaps by dividing them first according to whether or not they were made of wood, then according to their colour, by date of manufacture, and so on. The fact that life can be classified hierarchically is not, in itself, an argument for evolution." (Ridley 1985, 8.)

Camp carefully and quite misleadingly omits the very next sentence:

"The argument for evolution comes from a particular property of the classificatory hierarchy, the kind of traits that define it." (Ridley 1985, 8.)

Ridley goes on to make a good qualitative argument for the uniqueness of genealogically generated nested hierarchies, of how life's nested hierarchy is not "forced." However, Ridley was of course unaware of the more rigorously defined mathematical differences between "pseudo"-hierarchies of things like cars, chairs, or buildings and the real hierarchies of organisms or languages, because the mathematics for examining cladistic hierarchical structure was first worked out six years later, in 1991. Outdated science is not an argument against modern theories. What would Camp think if I were arguing against the existence of X-rays and, in support of my position, quoted Lord Kelvin when he said, "X-rays will prove to be a hoax"?

Camp has since replied to this criticism of his argument given above:

I wrote that "[i]n terms of mere classification," the statement was incorrect. To back up the claim that such specially designed objects can indeed be classified in a nested hierarchy (regardless of whether they possess genuine hierarchical traits), I pointed out that they are often used as examples of nesting. It is in that context that I quoted Ridley. The point was that "[a]ny set of objects, whether or not they originated in an evolutionary process, can be classified hierarchically" (emphasis supplied), not that all sets of objects possess bona fide hierarchical traits. I omitted Ridley's statement that life exhibits a genuine hierarchy because it was irrelevant to my point. So Dr. Theobald has quoted me out of context in accusing me of quoting out of context! He then builds on his confusion in suggesting that I intentionally sought to mislead people ("Camp carefully and quite misleadingly omits the very next sentence").

First, I never suggested that Camp intentionally sought to mislead people. I did claim that Camp "carefully" omitted an important part of Ridley's statements, and Camp has admitted to that. I also claimed that omitting that sentence is misleading, which it is. It makes it appear as if Ridley meant something different than what he intended. Whether Camp intentionally wrote that line to mislead people is something only Camp himself can know.

Second, I did not quote Camp out of context. I included Camp's sentence "In terms of mere classification, it is incorrect."

Third, it is now quite clear that Camp understands that there are important differences between artificial and "bona fide" nested hierarchies:

... I was not quoting Ridley to deny there is a difference between artificial and genuine hierarchies but only to support my contention that specially designed objects can be classified in a nested hierarchy ...

So what? That is a very trivial point; someone could artificially classify pennies as "square rabbits", too. It is of course valid to state that pennies cannot be classified as squares or rabbits, because pennies obviously do not satisfy the requirements of geometrical squares or biological animals. The comment that Camp was contesting was the first line of the following:

Real world examples that cannot be classified as [nested hierarchies] are elementary particles (which are described by quantum chromodynamics), the elements (whose organization is described by quantum mechanics and illustrated by the periodic table), the planets in our Solar System, books in a library, or specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc. That certain organisms merely are similar to each other is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern that satisfies the macroevolutionary process is very specific. ... Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme. ... As a specific example (see Figure 1), plants can be classified as vascular and nonvascular (i.e. they have or lack xylem and phloem). Nested within the vascular group, there are two divisions, seed and non-seed plants. Further nested within the seed plants are two more groups, the angiosperms (which have enclosed, protected seeds) and the gymnosperms (having non-enclosed seeds). Within the angiosperm group are the monocotyledons and the dicotyledons. ... Few species are ever found that combine characteristics of different nested groupings.

Again, Mr. Camp has taken a quote out of context and used the resulting ambiguity to infuse it with a meaning contrary to its intent. When someone says "X cannot do Y," it does not necessarily mean that "it is impossible for X to do Y" - it can also mean that "it is impermissible for X to do Y" (see the definition of can in the Merriam-Webster dictionary). It is of course clear from the context in the above passage that can was used in the second sense, since the reasons why some objects have genuine hierarchical characteristics and others do not was explained.

In this light, it is quite curious that Camp made such a fuss over the fact that someone could artificially categorize certain non-hierarchical things in nested hierarchies. That was not the point made in Prediction 2 of the "29 Evidences" - so why include the Ridley quote to begin with? The point was simply that species form natural nested hierarchies, while chairs, books, the planets, the elements, and fundamental particles do not - and Camp evidently agrees. I suppose I made a mistake in assuming that Camp's arguments and supporting quotes were actually directed against the evidence for common descent?

Prediction 3: Convergence of independent phylogenies

More Misrepresentation of Evolutionary Theory

Common descent predicts that independent determinations of phylogenetic histories should be similar. Once again, Camp denies that this is a prediction of common descent. However, this time, his basis for denial is that he thinks this prediction has been falsified, and since scientists do not toss out common descent, this must not be a prediction of common descent. Camp's error lies in his belief that this prediction has been falsified. Camp says:

The important point is that it is not a prediction of the hypothesis of common ancestry that phylogenies constructed from comparisons of biological molecules will match phylogenies constructed from comparisons of morphology. This is obvious from the fact molecular and morphological phylogenies often are inconsistent, and yet the hypothesis of common descent is not considered falsified. The discordant data are simply accommodated by the theory.

Camp is correct that often independently determined phylogenies are not exactly the same (i.e. they are incongruent). But in science, independent measurements of some value (such as a physical constant like the charge of the electron, the mass of the proton, or the speed of light) are never exact. There always exists some error in the measurement, and all independent measurements are incongruent to some extent. Of course, the true value of something is never known for certain - all we have are measurements that we hope approximate the true value. Scientifically, then, the important relevant questions are "When comparing two measurements, how much of a discrepancy does it take to be a problem?" and "How close must they be to be a strong confirmation?" Scientists answer these questions with probability and statistics. This issue is specifically addressed in the revised version of the "29 Evidences" under prediction 3. The upshot is that the degree to which even the most incongruent trees match is extraordinary. Penny and Hendy have done a detailed statistical analysis of the significance of similar phylogenetic trees, and here is their conclusion:

"Biologists seem to seek the 'The One Tree' and appear not to be satisfied by a range of options. However, there is no logical difficulty in having a range of trees. There are 34,459,425 possible trees for 11 taxa (Penny et al. 1982), and to reduce this to the order of 10-50 trees is analogous to an accuracy of measurement of approximately one part in 10⁶." (Penny and Hendy 1986, p. 414)

For a more realistic universal phylogenetic tree with dozens of taxa including all known phyla, the accuracy is orders of magnitude smaller (better).

So Camp is incorrect on two counts. First, common descent does indeed predict that independently determined trees should be similar - if there really is a true genealogical tree of species, how could this not be the prediction? This is exactly why all the scientists that Camp quotes are concerned about incongruent trees. Second, the trees are stunningly similar - even the most incongruent ones. Incongruent trees are a "problem" in the sense that we biologists wish to attain perfection in our science, and incongruent trees are imperfect. Even so, the differences are just much too minor to falsify common descent; to the contrary, they confirm this prediction of common descent to a much higher degree than is found in any other scientific discipline.

Self-contradiction

Unfortunately, Camp's argument is fundamentally flawed at a much deeper level. Camp contradicts himself; in his eagerness to "disprove" common descent, Camp simultaneously argues for two opposing views. Camp states:

... molecular and morphological phylogenies often are inconsistent, and yet the hypothesis of common descent is not considered falsified. The discordant data are simply accommodated by the theory.

and follows with this a few paragraphs later:

The availability of such ad hoc adjustments for resolving incongruities makes the claim of falsifiability an illusion. Any result can be accommodated by the theory by revising one or more of the underlying assumptions.

Why is there any discordant data if any result can be changed at will with ad hoc revising of the assumptions? These statements are contradictory, and obviously both cannot be true. In fact, both are false.

A Malign Accusation Based on Misunderstanding of the Scientific Method and Evolutionary Methods

Biologists cannot "adjust the assumptions" to give any desired result. Camp is making the slanderous claim that biologists unethically manipulate their data to result in a predetermined outcome. Here's a test: if Camp's malign accusation is true, he should be able to adjust the assumptions of a phylogenetic analysis to result in a tree of my choice. Using any molecular data of his choice, Camp should be able to generate a phylogenetic tree with a standard tree-building program (such as PAUP, Phylip, MacClade, etc.) that places chimps closest to fish, humans closest to birds, cows closest to insects, and bacteria closest to marsupials, specifically as shown below:

C F H B Cw I B M
\/  \/  \  / \/
 \  /    \/  /
  \/     /  /
   \    /  /
    \  /  /  
     \/  /
      \ /
       V
       |

The truth is that Camp will be unable to meet this challenge. All scientists, including biologists, must deal with this annoying thing called "reality." Real data cannot be arbitrarily fit to any model with equal success. Even more importantly, scientists do not uncritically accept ad hoc assumptions. Valid assumptions must be reasonable and independently testable.

Mr. Camp has addressed this challenge:

Dr. Theobald's challenge to construct a molecular phylogeny to his specification ... misses the point. The point is that his specified molecular phylogeny would be compatible with the bare hypothesis of universal common ancestry.

In other words, Camp admits he is unable to meet the specified challenge. By doing so, Camp concedes that it is untrue that "Any result can be accommodated by the theory by revising one or more of the underlying assumptions" (emphasis added). As clearly evidenced by the exchange above, that was the point being discussed here - not that any "phylogeny would be compatible with the bare hypothesis of universal common ancestry." This last point, which Camp urges is the point, is silly. It is of course true in an extremely trivial sense - if we ignore all other relevant data and the requirements of common descent on our planet. But we cannot ignore this data, since the only way we can test the theory of common descent is with real evidence from our world. We test common descent in the real world, on this planet, with the organisms that we observe here - not with some fictional concoction from Camp's head. Theories are tested with specific data from specific cases - a basic scientific point that is completely lost on Camp. It is analogously true that a specified value of 6 x 10^-7 m³ kg^-1 s^-2 for the universal Newtonian constant of gravitation would be compatible with the bare hypothesis of universal gravitation. But the true value is (approximately) 6.673 x 10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2, and the specified hypothetical value is massively inconsistent with all current measurements which have approximated this universal constant. Again, we test universal theories with specific data from independent measurements in the real world - a fundamental aspect of the scientific method with which Camp is clearly unacquainted.

The fact remains that the specified phylogeny given above is massively inconsistent with the morphological phylogeny and all known molecular phylogenies, and the specified phylogeny cannot be constructed with any known molecular sequences, regardless of how the assumptions are adjusted. This is exactly what one would predict if common descent is true, and this is precisely why common descent is a falsifiable hypothesis. My specified tree could be compatible with common descent in a different world - but in our world it is incompatible with common descent, and the real data do not support such a fictitious phylogeny.

Another logical fallacy: the argument from authority

In discussing incongruent phylogenies, Camp uses a favorite quote of "scientific" creationists by Christian Schwabe and Gregory Warr (Camp gets Schwabe's name wrong - it is not "Christopher"):

Two years earlier, Schwabe and Gregory Warr were equally blunt in their criticism of molecular phylogenies. They saw the field of molecular evolution as being mired in subjectivity driven by an a priori commitment to universal common ancestry. They wrote: We believe that it is possible to draw up a list of basic rules that underlie existing molecular evolutionary models: All theories are monophyletic, meaning that they all start with the Urgene and the Urzelle which have given rise to all proteins and all species, respectively. Complexity evolves mainly through duplications and mutations in structural and control genes. Genes can mutate or remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, evolve coordinately, splice, stay silent, and exist as pseudogenes. Ad hoc arguments can be invented (such as insect vectors or viruses) that can transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise explain its presence. This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be observed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our opinion, robs monophyletic evolution of its vulnerability to disproof, and thereby its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory. The absolute, explicit and implicit, adherence to all the monophyletic principle and consequently the decision to interpret all observations in the light of this principle is the major cause of incongruities as well as for the invention of all the genetic sidestepping rules cited above. (Schwabe and Warr, 467.)

Camp quotes Schwabe and Warr without providing any hard evidence to back up their claims. Schwabe and Warr wrote these statements over 15 years ago, when we had only a tiny fraction of the presently known molecular sequences. Frankly, they are wrong. Just because a scientist makes an argument does not mean that his argument is correct. Just because it is published does not make it correct. Publication in peer-reviewed journals is only the first step of scientific peer-review. Schwabe and Warr stated their case, but the evidence acquired since has not supported their views. Science is weighed and measured with hard evidence and specific examples. Does Camp give any to support Schwabe and Warr's claims? No.

Let's examine Schwabe and Warr's claims. First, it is untrue that "All theories are monophyletic ...". The hypothesis of the universal common ancestry of species is not the same as universal common ancestry of proteins and/or genes. In fact, it is virtually certain that genes and proteins have arisen independently many times throughout evolutionary history. We know of many mechanisms for creating proteins and genes de novo. For instance, we have observed the evolution of a completely novel protein in bacteria by mutations which translate a gene in a new reading frame. The resulting protein has no similarity to the initial one (Ohno 1984). Second, increases in complexity due to gene duplications and mutations have been observed in the wild and the lab (Copley 2000; Futuyma 1998, p. 274; Lederberg and Lederberg 1952; Lee, Yoon et al. 1998; Ohno 1984; Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994; Salamone et al. 2002). For example, Flavobacterium recently evolved the ability to metabolize the exclusively man-made chemical nylon as its sole carbon source. This ability required the duplication and mutation of genes for three different enzymes (Negoro et al. 1994; Ohno 1984; Okada et al. 1983). These results have also been duplicated in the lab (Prijambada et al. 1995). Some of these studies have demonstrated that new enzymes have evolved with increased specificity for their substrates (Salamone et al. 2002). This is not ad hoc nor is it "liberal" - it is factual. Third, we observe stochastic (random) mutation of genes regularly (which means we expect that often, simply due to chance, genes will not mutate), we regularly observe lateral transfer (Dowson et al. 1994; Ochman et al. 2000; Widdowson et al. 2000), we have observed genes spread through populations (yes, even when mechanisms are not well understood) (Raymond et al. 2001), we find silent genes, we find splicing genes (Hastings and Krainer 2001), we find pseudogenes (Mighell et al. 2000). We have observed genes evolve coordinately (Copley 2000; Negoro et al. 1994). Again, none of this is ad hoc, nor is it "liberal" it is factual. Fourth, countless times we have observed viral vectors insert genes where monophyly could not explain it (Hindmarsh and Leis 1999; Urnovitz and Murphy 1996). Neither is this ad hoc - it is factual. Finally, Schwabe and Warr state that biologists resorted to the "the invention of all the genetic sidestepping rules cited above" in order to explain their observations. That is absurd. Biologists did not "invent" these mechanisms; they were empirically discovered both in the wild and in the lab over the past few decades. Now, over fifteen years after Schwabe and Warr wrote these words, we have delineated these various processes in considerable detail, both mechanistically and structurally at the molecular level.

It is not ad hoc to explain observations with mechanisms that have been observed. It is not a "liberal spread of rules." It is, however, good scientific practice. In many, probably most, cases these proposed mechanisms are independently testable. For example, horizontal gene transfer by viral insertion into a host genome leaves easily recognizable tell-tale signs in the sequences surrounding the inserted gene. If a gene has been inserted by a viral vector, these tell-tale sequences should be there. In fact, it would be unjustified and ad hoc to be aware of all these observations over the past 50 years of various genetic mechanisms and to argue that they were not important in the past 3.5 billion years of evolutionary history. Camp, Schwabe, and Warr appear to be miffed that biology is complex, and that there are many ways for genes to be transmitted between organisms besides linear inheritance between generations. But this is real science, the real world, real biology - the real world is not simple, and biology is the most complex of sciences. Biological data demand complex explanations. Just because a scientific explanation is complex does not mean it is unfalsifiable. Very clear, unambiguous ways exist to falsify common descent, and demonstrating pervasive, highly incongruent phylogenies is one of them, in spite of these various mechanisms which could be used to explain relatively minor incongruencies. For more explanation, refer to prediction 3.

Furthermore, Schwabe and Warr grossly overstate the importance of known incongruent phylogenies. As addressed in prediction 3 and as illustrated by the Penny and Hendy comment above, incongruent data in phylogenetic analyses are much less problematic than incongruent data in other scientific fields, such as particle physics and gravity. As stated above, in reality the known incongruent trees are a "problem" only in the sense that we biologists wish to attain perfection in our science, and incongruent trees are imperfect.

Camp's fallacious appeal to authority falls apart upon even cursory inspection. It is yet another example of using outdated (and marginal) science in an attempt to bolster a flawed argument.

Insufficient Knowledge of Basic Molecular Biology and Genetics

Camp even doubts that correspondence between molecular and morphological phylogenies is evidence for common descent:

Even if a morphological phylogeny was matched closely by multiple molecular phylogenies, that would not prove that the groups in question descended from a common ancestor. The molecular differences could be linked to the morphological differences for some other reason.

Though Camp's point is valid, it already has been addressed extensively in Prediction 3, Prediction 17, and Prediction 18 of the "29 Evidences." It is relatively simple to find genes or parts of genes (the molecular evidence) that are not functionally linked to morphology.

Confusion about Evolutionary Theory

Camp goes on to quote Hunter concerning this point:

Hunter illustrates the point this way: Penny obtained his trees by culling those that were most parsimonious - that is, he selected the trees that showed the least amount of evolutionary change to represent the history of life. The first problem is that Penny's method works perfectly fine on things we know did not come about via Darwinian evolution. For example, Penny's method would also claim that automobiles evolved from one another.

As pointed out above, Hunter is incorrect. Hunter makes the bold claim that "Penny's method would also claim that automobiles evolved from one another" in the absence of any evidence to support that claim. Automobiles might give a most parsimonious tree (though this is not assured), but even if they do, the resulting tree will be bunk. It will not satisfy the mathematical requirements for nested hierarchies, and the reasons are explained in Prediction 2. If Camp and Hunter think otherwise, they should determine a phylogenetic tree of cars, using standard phylogenetic programs, that has statistically significant high values of cladistic hierarchical structure. To really drive the point home, they could derive two trees independently, and then show that they match with statistical significance. If they are correct, they could easily prove their point - but in reality they will be unable to do so.

A False Analogy

Camp continues with Hunter's quote:

Consider a group of vehicles, beginning with a small economy car and increasing in size to larger cars and to minivans and large-sized vans. One could quantify several aspects of the vehicle designs, such as tire size, steering mechanism, engine size, number of seats and so forth. Presupposing the evolutionary paradigm and searching for parsimonious relationships, we would find that most of the design measures suggest the same relationship. The smaller vehicles have smaller tires, manual steering, smaller engines, and fewer seats. The larger vehicles have larger tires, power steering, larger engines, and more seats. In other words, the groupings suggested by the different design measures (tire size, steering mechanism, engine size, etc.) tend to be similar. But of course, the family of automobiles did not evolve from one another via random mutations. The groupings of the design measures are a natural result of engineering and have nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. How then can Penny's results provide "strong support" for evolution? (Hunter, 40.)

Hunter's example is erroneous for another reason - he has obviously chosen characters that are not independent. This is a big "no-no" in cladistic analysis, and it is a rudimentary issue that is addressed early on in any introductory text on phylogenetic analysis. When using characters of organisms in a cladistic analysis, biologists attempt to use characters that are as functionally and developmentally independent of one another as possible. For instance, the size of an animal is only one character. Of course larger animals will in general have larger bodies, larger legs, and larger heads, just as in Hunter's example larger cars have larger tires, larger engines, etc. To be valid, "largeness" cannot be counted more than once. The very obvious solution, which is regularly used by biologists, is to measure the relative sizes of different characters. For instance, having a femur/tibia ratio of 3 is a different character from having a femur/tibia ratio of 1/2, regardless of the overall length of the bones. Biologists know that they must normalize for size, and instead they concentrate on structural details. Hunter's example is a classic strawman.

Penny's analysis (Penny et al. 1982) used five genes, four of which are functionally independent; thus, the result that trees made from several different independent genes match with statistical significance is indeed extremely strong support for common descent. For Hunter's analogy to be valid, he would have to claim that phylogenetic trees made only with cars' steering wheels will match phylogenetic trees made only with cars' tires and trees made only with cars' headlights and trees made only with cars' engines and trees made only with cars' transmissions. Obviously, such a claim would be false, since cars with similar tires (e.g. similar width/diameter ratio, manufacturers, tread, color, materials, etc.) do not generally also have similar engines (e.g. similar manufacturer, injection systems, cylinder arrangement, orientation, etc.), or headlights (e.g. similar shape, brightness, manufacturer, bulb type, position, number, etc.), or transmissions, or steering wheels.

Insufficient Knowledge of Basic Molecular Biology and Genetics

Camp believes that "it would not be surprising from a creation perspective to find that biochemical similarities increase in relation to other similarities of the creatures being compared," and he quotes anti-evolutionists Duane Gish and Leonard Brand in support:

"We know, for instance, that man is more similar to a chimpanzee than he is to a bat; that he is more similar to either a chimpanzee or a bat than he is to a crocodile or a flea. Man, chimpanzee, and the bat are mammals. The creationist would expect, therefore, that his protein, DNA, and RNA molecules, those macromolecules that are among the most important molecules in metabolism, would be more similar to those of the chimpanzee and to those of the bat than to those of the crocodile or the flea." (Gish, 277-278.) "Anatomy is not independent of biochemistry. Creatures similar anatomically are likely to be similar physiologically. Those similar in physiology are, in general, likely to be similar in biochemistry, whether they evolved or were designed." (Brand, 156.)

Both are wrong. There is no known biological reason, besides common descent, to suppose that similar morphologies must have similar biochemistry. At first, the statements made by Gish and Brand may seem obviously correct to the layperson, but all of molecular biology refutes this "common sense" correlation. In general, similar DNA and biochemistry give similar morphology and function, but the converse is not true - similar morphology and function is not necessarily the result of similar DNA or biochemistry. The reason is easily understood once explained; many very different DNA sequences or biochemical structures can result in the same functions and the same morphologies. As a very close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer language - Basic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but don't care that competitors can use the program - it is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons.

Leonard Brand is evidently ignorant of this basic conclusion from modern genetics and molecular biology, since Camp quotes him stating:

"An alternate, interventionist hypothesis is that the cytochrome c molecules in various groups of organisms are different (and always have been different) for functional reasons. ...If we do not base our conclusions on the a priori assumption of megaevolution, all the data really tell us is that the organisms fall into nested groups without any indication of intermediates or overlapping of groups, and without indicating ancestor/descendant relationships. The evidence can be explained by a separate creation for each group of organisms represented in the cytochrome c data." (Brand, 158-159.)

Brand's entire argument is predicated upon his first sentence - "An alternate, interventionist hypothesis is that the cytochrome c molecules in various groups of organisms are different ... for functional reasons." Brand's hypothesis is uncharacteristically testable, which is fortunate. If we can demonstrate that cytochrome c molecules from different organisms are not different for functional reasons, then his argument is moot. In fact, it has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works just fine in yeast (a unicellular organism) that lacks its own native cytochrome c gene, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein. Even the cytochrome c genes from tuna, pigeon, horse, Drosophila fly, and rat all function well in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c. Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome c has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo (a point covered in detail in the original version of the "29 Evidences" under Prediction 17). Obviously, Brand's "alternate hypothesis" is false, as is the rest of his argument. The cytochrome c gene is not exceptional in this regard - similar results have been found for all other ubiquitous genes tested. Biochemically, the reason for this observation is easily explained. Most of the sequence of a protein, like cytochrome c, is used for structural elements. As long as these structural parts of the protein fold into the same structure, the exact sequence is inconsequential. From X-ray crystallographic studies of the atomic structures of proteins, we know that many of the amino acids in any protein are not even used for structure and that many different amino acid sequences can fold into the same structure. Thus, since structure determines function, we fully expect that proteins with very different sequences will give the same function, and that is exactly what we observe. Accordingly, as explained earlier and contrary to Camp's argument, there is no reason to assume (aside from common descent) that similar morphologies and functions are due to similar molecular elements.

Another Red Herring: Insufficient Knowledge of "Neo-Darwinism"

Camp finds yet another "problem" with the cytochrome c data and its implications for common descent:

The cytochrome c data on which Dr. Theobald relies present some puzzles from a neo-Darwinian perspective. First, the cytochromes of all the higher organisms (yeasts, plants, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) exhibit an almost equal degree of sequence divergence from the cytochrome of the bacteria Rhodospirillum. In other words, the degree of divergence does not increase as one moves up the scale of evolution but remains essentially uniform. The cytochrome c of other organisms, such as yeast and the silkworm moth, likewise exhibits an essentially uniform degree of divergence from organisms as dissimilar as wheat, lamprey, tuna, bullfrog, snapping turtle, penguin, kangaroo, horse, and human.

Though mechanisms of adaptive evolutionary change are not addressed in the "29 Evidences," Camp inserts a red herring here and shifts the subject by questioning the efficacy of "neo-Darwinism" to explain the degree of divergence observed in the cytochrome c sequences of various organisms. Camp's line of argumentation regarding rates is off the point. Common descent states nothing specifically about evolutionary rates, whether they must be fast, slow, variable, or constant, and the most commonly used phylogenetic methods make no rate assumptions. Explaining rates is the specific realm of genetic mechanisms, such as genetic drift, neutral theory, natural selection, gene flow, sexual selection, mutation, etc.

Nevertheless, Camp's discussion of cytochrome c rates is flawed and is not based in a working knowledge of the fundamentals of modern genetics or molecular biology. One of the main consequences of the functional redundancy of protein sequences (discussed in preceding paragraphs) is "neutral" evolution. The neutral theory describes the genetic behavior of mutations in protein and DNA sequences that have no, or very slight, selective effects. As mentioned above, about 70% of the cytochrome c protein is redundant. Changes in this 70% have virtually no effect upon function, and thus no selective effect - this 70% is selectively "neutral." One of the major predictions of the neutral theory is that the overall rate of evolution in neutral regions (where "evolution" means change in sequence) will be equal to the background rate of mutation. Mutations are largely due to factors that are relatively constant between different organisms, such as chemical and physical events (such as the spontaneous breaking or formation of bonds in DNA) and "errors" in the ubiquitous DNA repair machinery. Thus, neutral theory predicts that neutral rates of evolution should be nearly constant between organisms for functionally equivalent genes. It directly follows that the divergence of cytochrome c sequences should be nearly equal between two organisms and their last common ancestor. For example, according to the theory of common descent, bacteria, horses, and insects all share a common ancestor in the remote past. If rates of neutral evolution have been constant since that common ancestor, then the cytochrome c proteins of bacteria, horses, insects all should have evolved by the same amount since their last common ancestor. Accordingly, the divergence of cytochrome c between bacteria and horses should be nearly the same as the divergence between bacteria and insects. This is the answer to Camp's next question:

Why would the sequence divergence of cytochrome c between bacteria and horses be the same as the divergence between bacteria and insects? The presumed evolutionary lineage from the ancestral cell to a modern bacterium differs radically from the presumed evolutionary lineage from the ancestral cell to a modern horse, both of which differ radically from the presumed evolutionary lineage from the ancestral cell to a modern insect. How could a uniform rate of divergence have been maintained through such radically different pathways? According to Michael Denton, a molecular biology researcher, "At present, there is no consensus as to how this curious phenomenon can be explained." (Denton 1998, 291.)

And, as we have shown earlier, Michael Denton knows very little basic evolutionary theory¹. The most likely reason why the rate of divergence has been quite uniform in all these "radically different" lineages is that cytochrome c does the exact same thing in all these lineages (it transports electrons in the fundamental cellular process of oxidative phosphorylation), and the mutations that do not destroy or change the function of cytochrome c are necessarily neutral. A better question is "why would the rate be nonuniform in these different lineages?" Contrary to Camp's suggestion, there is a strong consensus explanation for the cytochrome c sequences provided by neutral theory, the one just explicated above. Wesley Elsberry gives a more detailed explanation of the cytochrome c data in "Sequences and Common Descent." It is worthy to note here that the consensus explanation for cytochrome c sequence divergence does not involve natural selection, but only uses neutral theory, mutation, and purifying selection. To my knowledge, none of these standard genetic theories has been seriously criticized by anti-evolutionists (especially the "scientific" creationists).

An inquisitive person might ask further: "Should the divergence between the cytochrome c sequences from different organisms be exactly equivalent?" And the answer is no - mutation, recombination, and sexual reproduction are all stochastic processes (i.e., they have a large probabilistic element to them). We expect, even with exactly equivalent background rates of mutation, that amounts of divergence will be similar, but not equivalent. As with any stochastic process, there is a finite probability that "surprising" things might happen. For instance, whenever we flip 50 quarters, we expect that on average 25 will be heads and 25 will be tails. However, the probability that we will flip exactly 25 heads and 25 tails is rather small (~11%). There is a 0.1% chance that we will flip more than twice as many heads than tails. This means that if we repeat our 50-flip experiment 1000 times, we expect to flip more than twice as many heads as tails at least once (perhaps more). As Penny et al. put it in their article "Testing the Theory of Descent":

"From the proposed stochastic nature of the mechanism of mutation and selection it would be surprising if the trees were identical. Indeed, it would be more devastating to Darwinism if different sets of short sequences always gave identical trees." (Penny et al. 1991)

Thus, given the stochastic nature of genetics, we in fact expect that independently derived trees occasionally will not match exactly and that rates of divergence will vary for the same reasons.

Ignorance of Basic Mathematics: Probability and Statistics

Camp evidently does not understand the probabilistic nature of genetics, since he is surprised at a small minority of "anomalous" cytochrome c sequences:

Moreover, the notion that the rates of divergence remain uniform regardless of evolutionary pathway does not fit all of the cytochrome c data. For example, referring to Dr. Theobald's Figure 1 (reproduced above), lampreys, carp, and bullfrogs allegedly shared a common ancestor above the node labeled "vertebra." Since that time, the branch leading to carp and bullfrogs evolved independently of the branch leading to lampreys. If the rates of cytochrome c divergence remain uniform regardless of evolutionary pathway, then the degree of sequence variance between the cytochrome c of lampreys and carp would be essentially the same as the degree of variance between the cytochrome c of lampreys and bullfrogs. That is not the case. The variance between the cytochrome c of lampreys and carp is 12%, whereas the variance between lampreys and bullfrogs is 20%. (See matrix in Davis and Kenyon, 37.)

These results are expected if genetics is fundamentally probabilistic instead of deterministic, as it is. Camp states: "If the rates of cytochrome c divergence remain uniform regardless of evolutionary pathway, then the degree of sequence variance between the cytochrome c of lampreys and carp would be essentially the same as the degree of variance between the cytochrome c of lampreys and bullfrogs." This is incorrect, and displays a lack of understanding of probability and statistics. Uniform rates are expected to give unequal results (see the discussion on mathematics below after the green box). Even so, Camp is incorrect in his details. I cannot speak for the original citation (Davis and Kenyon 1993), but the values that Camp gives for the divergences of lamprey, carp, and bullfrog cytochrome c are incorrect. The true divergence between the cytochrome c of lampreys and carp is 19%, and the divergence between lampreys and bullfrogs is 20%. Camp has since explained that he was using an outdated source (over thirty years old) for these figures, yet he still "stand[s] by" these figures - even though the sequences I have given above were updated in 1981, 1984, and 2000 (this is easily verified simply by clicking the links I have given).

Camp continues with his surprise that some of the cytochrome c sequences appear anomalous:

Second, the sequences of cytochrome c sometimes differ inversely to the presumed evolutionary proximity of the organisms being compared .... The cytochrome c of the rattlesnake varies in 22 places from that of the turtle but only in 14 places from that of a human. ... the cytochrome c of the human varies in 12 places from that of a horse but only in 10 places from that of a kangaroo. ... Such discrepancies between traditional phylogenies and those based on cytochrome c are well known.

As stated before, such results are expected if heredity is a stochastic process, as it is. Because genetics is stochastic, the theory of common descent does not predict that phylogenetic trees made with single genes will perfectly match other phylogenetic trees - they must be similar, but not necessarily identical. As already explained in the "29 Evidences":

"Gene trees are not equivalent to species trees: from simple Mendelian genetics we know that genes segregate individually, and that throughout time individual genes do not necessarily follow organismic genealogy. An obvious example is the fact that while you may have brown eyes, your child may have the genes for blue eyes - but that does not mean your child is not your descendent, or that your brown-eyed children are more closely related to you than your blue-eyed children. Including multiple genes in the analysis is a solution to this conundrum." (Avise and Wollenberg 1991)

Apparently, Camp not only misunderstands basic genetics but also does not understand basic mathematics (probability and statistics), as