Skip to main content
Log in

A Tale of Two Crocoducks: Creationist Misuses of Molecular Evolution

Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although some creationist objections to evolutionary biology are simplistic and thus are easily refuted, when more technical arguments become widespread it is important for science educators to explain the relevant science in a straightforward manner. An interesting case study is provided by misguided allegations about how cytochrome c data pertain to molecular evolution. The most common of these misrepresentations bears a striking similarity to a particularly glaring misunderstanding of what should be expected of a transitional form in a fossil sequence. Although evangelist Kirk Cameron’s ridiculous injunction of a hypothetical ‘crocoduck’ as an example of a potential transitional form is frequently invoked to illustrate the ignorance of many critics of evolutionary science, a strikingly analogous argument was applied to cytochrome c data by biochemist Michael Denton in 1985. The details of this analogy are worth exploring to clarify the fallacy of the widely circulated molecular argument.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. Müller and Reisz (2005), Nesbitt et al. (2010), Nesbitt (2011).

  2. See for example Baum and Offner (2008), Baum and Smith (2013), Catley (2006), Catley et al. (2010), Crisp and Cook (2005), Gregory (2008), Mead (2009), Meisel (2010), Novick et al. (2010, 2011), Padian (2008).

  3. See for example Chiappe (2009), Garner et al. (1999), Padian (2001), Xu and Guo (2009), Xu et al. (2010).

  4. See for example Padian (2001, 2008), Padian and Angielczyk (1999, 2007).

  5. For historical accounts see for example Dietrich (1998), Hagen (1999, 2011), Morgan (1998), and for some of the early research see for example Smith and Margoliash 1964, Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962, 1965a, b).

  6. Dayhoff (1969b, 1978), Dayhoff and Park (1969), Dayhoff et al. (1978).

  7. See for example Dickerson (1971), Fitch and Margoliash (1967), Margoliash and Fitch (1968), McLaughlin and Dayhoff (1973), Kimura (1968).

  8. For example see Brauer and Brumbaugh (2001), Eldredge (1986), Landau (1989), Ridley (1985), Speith (1987).

  9. For access to this enormous topic, see, for example, de Queiroz (2014), Graur and Martin (2004), Lanfear et al. (2010), Lynch (2010), Pulquério and Nichols (2006), Thomas et al. (2006), Welch and Bromham (2005).

References

  • Ayala, F. (2011). Walter Monroe Fitch 1929–2011 a biographical memoir. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, D. A., & Offner, S. (2008). Phylogenies and tree-thinking. The American Biology Teacher, 70(4), 222–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, D. A., & Smith, S. (2013). Tree thinking: An introduction to phylogenetic biology. Greenwood Village, CO: Roberts and Company Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brauer, M. J., & Brumbaugh, D. R. (2001). Biology remystified: The scientific claims of the new creationists. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics (pp. 289–334). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. (2007). Rational response debate with Kirk Cameron pt.6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6EmOQLf25s. Accessed October 27, 2013.

  • Catley, K. M. (2006). Darwin’s missing link—A novel paradigm for evolution education. Science Education, 90(5), 767–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catley, K. M., Novick, L. R., & Shade, C. K. (2010). Interpreting evolutionary diagrams: When topology and process conflict. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 861–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappe, L. M. (2009). Downsized dinosaurs: The evolutionary transition to modern birds. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 248–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J. A., Zhou, Z., & Zhang, F. (2006). Insight into the evolution of avian flight from a new clade of Early Cretaceous ornithurines from China and the morphology of Yixianornis grabaui. Journal of Anatomy, 208, 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crick, F. H. C. (1958). On protein synthesis. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, 12, 138–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, M. D., & Cook, L. G. (2005). Do early branching lineages signify ancestral traits? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(3), 122–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dao, C. (2009). New ICR Research Associate: Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. Acts & Facts, 38(9), 9.

  • Davis, P., & Kenyon, D. H. (1993). Of pandas and people: The central question of biological origins (2nd ed.). Dallas: Haughton Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayhoff, M. O. (1969a). Computer analysis of protein evolution. Scientific American, 221(1), 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayhoff, M. O. (Ed.). (1969b). Atlas of protein sequence and structure 1969 volume 4. Silver Spring, MD: National Biomedical Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayhoff, M. O. (Ed.). (1972). Atlas of protein sequence and structure 1972 volume 5. Silver Spring, MD: National Biomedical Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayhoff, M. O. (Ed.). (1978). Atlas of protein sequence and structure volume 5 supplement 3 1978. Silver Spring, MD: National Biomedical Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayhoff, M. O., & Eck, R. V. (1968a). Evolution of the cytochrome C family. In M. O. Dayhoff & R. V. Eck (Eds.), Atlas of protein sequence and structure 1967–68 (pp. 7–13). Silver Spring, MD: National Biomedical Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayhoff, M. O., & Eck, R. V. (Eds.). (1968b). Atlas of protein sequence and structure 1967–8. Silver Spring MD: National Biomedical Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayhoff, M. O., Eck, R. V., Chang, M. A., & Sochard, M. R. (1965). Atlas of protein sequence and structure. Silver Spring, MD: National Biomedical Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayhoff, M. O., & Park, C. M. (1969). Cytochrome C: Building a phylogenetic tree. In M. O. Dayhoff (Ed.), Atlas of protein sequence and structure volume 4 1969 (pp. 7–16). Silver Spring, MD: National Biomedical Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayhoff, M. O., Schwartz, R. M., & Orcutt, B. C. (1978). A model of evolutionary change in proteins. In M. O. Dayhoff (Ed.), Atlas of protein sequence and structure volume 5 supplement 3 1978 (pp. 345–352). Silver Spring, MD: National Biomedical Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, A. (2014). The monkey’s voyage: How improbable journeys shaped the history of life. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W., & Wells, J. (2008). The design of life: Discovering signs of intelligence in biological systems. Dallas: Foundation for Thought and Ethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denton, M. J. (1985). Evolution: A theory in crisis. Great Britain: Burnett Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denton, M. J. (1998). Nature’s destiny: How the laws of biology reveal purpose in the universe. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denton, M. J. (1999). Comments on special creationism. In P. E. Johnson & D. O. Lamoureux (Eds.), Darwinism defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux debate on biological origins (pp. 141–154). Vancouver: Regent College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, R. E. (1971). The structure of cytochrome c and the rates of molecular evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 1, 26–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, R. E. (1972). The structure and history of an ancient protein. Scientific American, 226, 58–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, R. E. (1980). The cytochromes c: An exercise in scientific serendipity. In D. S. Sigman & M. A. B. Bazier (Eds.), The evolution of protein structure and function (pp. 173–202). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, R. E., & Geis, I. (1969). The structure and action of proteins. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, M. R. (1998). Paradox and persuasion: Negotiating the place of molecular evolution within evolutionary biology. Journal of the History of Biology, 31, 85–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eck, R. V., & Dayhoff, M. O. (Eds.). (1966). Atlas of protein sequence and structure 1966. Silver Spring MD: National Biomedical Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N. (1986). Review of evolution: A theory in crisis by Michael Denton. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 61(4), 541–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, W. M., & Margoliash, E. (1967). Construction of phylogenetic trees. Science, 155, 279–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, B., & Gross, P. R. (2007). Creationism’s Trojan horse: The wedge of intelligent design (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaither, M. (2009). Homeschooling in the USA: Past, present and future. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 331–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, J. P., Taylor, G. K., & Thomas, A. L. R. (1999). On the origin of birds: The sequence of character acquisition in the evolution of avian flight. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 266, 1259–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gish, D. (1993). Creation scientists answer their critics. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, L. R. (Ed.). (1983). Scientists confront creationism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graur, D., & Martin, W. (2004). Reading the entrails of chickens: Molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision. Trends in Genetics, 20(2), 80–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, T. R. (2008). Understanding evolutionary trees. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1, 121–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, J. (1999). Naturalists, molecular biologists, and the challenges of molecular evolution. Journal of the History of Biology, 32, 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, J. (2011). The origin and early reception of sequence databases. In M. Hamacher, M. Eisenacher, & C. Stephan (Eds.), Data mining in proteomics: From standards to applications (pp. 61–78). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homchick, J. A. (2012). March of the pandas: Imitation and intelligent design. Poroi 8(1), 5. 10.13008/2151-2957.1109. Accessed October 27, 2013.

  • Jeanson, N. (2009). Nathaniel Jeanson, Harvard PhD—Cytochrome C sequence conservation bankrupts evolution! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCVE5BwBrUk. Accessed October 26, 2013.

  • Jeanson, N. (2011). Molecular equidistance: The echo of discontinuity? Acts & Facts, 40(2), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. E. (1993). Darwin on trial (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jukes, T. (1983). Molecular evidence for evolution. In L. R. Godfrey (Ed.), Scientists confront creationism (pp. 117–138). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimura, M. (1968). Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature, 217, 624–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzmiller Trial Transcripts. (2005). http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts. Accessed October 27, 2013.

  • Kjaergaard, P. C. (2011). ‘Hurrah for the missing link!’: A history of apes, ancestors and a crucial piece of evidence. Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 65, 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kofahl, R. E., & Segraves, K. (1975). The creation explanation: A scientific alternative to evolution. Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kofahl, R. E. & Segraves, K. (2003). The creation explanation. http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx.htm. Accessed October 27, 2013.

  • Landau, M. (1989). Protein sequences and Denton’s error. Creation/Evolution Journal, 9, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanfear, R., Welch, J. J., & Bromham, L. (2010). Watching the clock: Studying variation in rates of molecular evolution between species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(9), 495–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louchart, A., & Viriot, L. (2011). From snout to beak: The loss of teeth in birds. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(12), 663–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (2010). Evolution of the mutation rate. Trends in Genetics, 26(8), 345–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margoliash, E. (1963). Primary structure and evolution of cytochrome c. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 50, 672–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margoliash, E., & Fitch, W. (1968). Evolutionary variability of cytochrome c primary structures. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 151, 359–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margoliash, E., & Smith, E. L. (1965). Structural and functional aspects of cytochrome c in relation to evolution. In V. Bryson & H. J. Vogel (Eds.), Evolving genes and proteins (pp. 221–242). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Margoliash, E., Smith, E. L., Kreil, G., & Tuppy, H. (1961). Amino-acid sequence of horse heart cytochrome c: The complete amino-acid sequence. Nature, 192, 1125–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, P. J., & Dayhoff, M. O. (1973). Eukaryote evolution: A view based on cytochrome c sequence data. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 2, 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, L. (2009). Transforming our thinking about transitional forms. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 310–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meisel, R. P. (2010). Teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate biology students. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3, 621–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. (1999). Of pandas and people: A brief critique. http://www.kcfs.org/pandas.html. Accessed October 27, 2013.

  • Morgan, G. (1998). Emile Zuckerkandl, Linus Pauling, and the molecular evolutionary clock, 1959–1965. Journal of the History of Biology, 31, 155–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, H. M. (1984). History of modern creationism. San Diego: Master Book Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, J., & Reisz, R. (2005). Four well-constructed calibration points from the vertebrate fossil record for molecular clock estimates. BioEssays, 27(10), 1069–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesbitt, S. J. (2011). The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 352, 1–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesbitt, S. J., Liu, J., & Li, C. (2010). A sail-backed suchian from the Heshanggou Formation (early Triassic: Olenekian) of China. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 101, 271–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novick, L., Catley, K., & Funk, D. (2010). Characters as key: The effect of synapomorphies on cladogram comprehension. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3, 539–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick, L., Shade, C., & Catley, K. (2011). Linear versus branching depictions of evolutionary history: Implications for diagram design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 536–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padian, K. (2001). Cross-testing adaptive hypotheses: Phylogenetic analysis and the origin of bird flight. American Zoologist, 41(3), 598–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padian, K. (2008). Trickle-down evolution: An approach to getting major evolutionary adaptive changes into textbooks and curricula. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48(2), 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padian, K., & Angielczyk, K. D. (1999). Are there transitional forms in the fossil record? In P. H. Kelley, J. R. Bryan, & T. A. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution–creation controversy II: Perspectives on science, religion, and geological education (pp. 47–82). Pittsburgh: The Paleontological Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padian, K., & Angielczyk, K. D. (2007). “Transitional forms” versus transitional features. In A. J. Petto & L. R. Godfrey (Eds.), Scientists confront intelligent design and creationism (pp. 197–230). New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padian, K., & Matzke, N. (2009). Darwin, Dover, ‘intelligent design’ and textbooks. Biochemical Journal, 417, 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prothero, D. R. (2007). Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulquério, M. J. F., & Nichols, R. A. (2006). Dates from the molecular clock: How wrong can we be? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22(4), 180–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, J. (2002). 15 Answers to creationist nonsense. Scientific American, 287, 78–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, M. (1985). More Darwinian detractors. Nature, 318, 124–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarfati, J. (2002). Refuting evolution 2. Green Forrest, AR: Master Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwabe, C. (2000). Molecular geneology. In: Madame Curie Bioscience Database [Internet]. Austin, TX: Landes Bioscience. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6435/. Accessed October 27, 2013.

  • Schwabe, C. (2001). The genomic potential hypothesis: A chemist’s view of the origins, evolution and unfolding of life. Georgetown, TX: Lands Bioscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, E. C., & Matzke, N. J. (2007). Biological design in science classrooms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 8669–8676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. L., & Margoliash, E. (1964). Evolution of cytochrome c. Federation Proceedings, 23, 1243–1247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speith, P. T. (1987). Review of evolution a theory in crisis. Zygon, 22(2), 252–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, T. (1997). The making of a revolution. Christianity Today, 41, 1416. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1997/december8/7te016.html?paging=off. Accessed October 27, 2013.

  • Strasser, B. J. (2010). Collecting, comparing, and computing sequences: The making of Margaret O. Dayhoff’s Atlas of protein sequence and structure, 1954–1965. Journal of the History of Biology, 43, 623–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Parent Company. (2003a). http://www.parentcompany.com/about_us.asp. Accessed October 27, 2013.

  • The Parent Company. (2003b). The creation explanation. http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx.htm. Accessed October 27, 2013.

  • Thomas, J. A., Welch, J. J., Woolfit, M., & Bromham, L. (2006). There is no universal molecular clock for invertebrates, but rate variation does not scale with body size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(19), 7366–7371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toumey, C. P. (1994). God’s own scientists creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, J. J., & Bromham, L. (2005). Molecular dating when rates vary. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(6), 320–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wile, J. L. (2005). Evolution: The enemy of truth and science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-H4jQHvMmg. Accessed October 27, 2013.

  • Wile, J. L., & Durnell, M. F. (1998). Exploring creation with biology. Cincinnati: Apologia Educational Ministries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wile, J. L., & Durnell, M. F. (2005). Exploring creation with biology (2nd ed.). Kendallville, IN: Apologia Educational Ministries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., & Guo, Y. (2009). The origin and early evolution of feathers: Insights from recent paleontological and neontological data. Vertebrata PalAsiatica, 47(4), 311–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., Zheng, X., & You, H. (2010). Exceptional dinosaur fossils show ontogenetic development of early feathers. Nature, 464, 1338–1341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Z., Barrett, P. M., & Hiltons, J. (2003). An exceptionally preserved lower cretaceous ecosystem. Nature, 421, 807–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerkandl, E. (2006). Intelligent design and biological complexity. Gene, 385, 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerkandl, E., & Pauling, L. (1962). Molecular disease, evolution and genic heterogeneity. In M. Kasha & B. Pullman (Eds.), Horizons in biochemistry: Albert Szent-Gyorgyi dedicatory volume (pp. 189–225). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerkandl, E., & Pauling, L. (1965a). Molecules as documents of evolutionary history. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 8, 357–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerkandl, E., & Pauling, L. (1965b). Evolutionary divergence and convergence in proteins. In V. Bryson & H. J. Vogel (Eds.), Evolving genes and proteins (pp. 97–166). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James R. Hofmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hofmann, J.R. A Tale of Two Crocoducks: Creationist Misuses of Molecular Evolution. Sci & Educ 23, 2095–2117 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9696-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9696-8

Keywords

Navigation