Review of Sean B. Carroll’s The Making of the Fittest (W.W. Norton, 2006)
By Casey Luskin1
March 5, 2007. Version 1.0.
Copyright © Casey Luskin 2007. All Rights Reserved.
This article was originally published on the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) archives at http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000114.html
(1) Praise Darwin and Preach the Gospel
In November 2006, University of Wisconsin-Madison biologist Sean B. Carroll starkly admitted in a biology journal that “[t]he recurring discovery of persistently unresolved clades (bushes) should force a re-evaluation of several widely held assumptions of molecular systematics.”2 Unfortunately, one of the assumptions he does not recommend re-evaluating is that of common descent itself. This is probably because Carroll believes, as he states in his recent book, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, that Neo-Darwinian evolution is true “beyond any reasonable doubt.”3 However, it would seem that even “reasonable doubt” is not enough for Carroll, as he later admits that it is “a major purpose” of his book to “eliminate any doubt” because “there should be no doubt about the reality of natural selection.”4
Technically, Carroll is right to say that there is “no doubt about the reality of natural selection.” Even skeptics of Darwin readily acknowledge that natural selection is a real force in nature that can effect at least some small-scale changes within species. But Carroll wants us to believe in much more than the mere existence of natural selection. He wants us to accept that all life is related through descent from a common set of microbial ancestors, and that the blind, unguided mechanisms of neo-Darwinism created the diversity of life. When Carroll says “evolution,” he doesn’t just mean changing gene frequencies within a population; he wants us to accept the “evolution of complex bodies and body parts,” as he claims that “direct evidence has poured in as to how complex structures, particularly those of animals, are made and evolved.”5
To ensure the reader adopts his own view of evolution, Carroll resorts to scare tactics. After a bleak discussion of the potentially disastrous consequences of global warming, Carroll explains that “acceptance of [evolutionary biology’s] facts” is not “a matter that should be open to political or philosophical debate.”6 Carroll, who interestingly always capitalizes the term “Nature,”7 quotes Peter Medawar, saying that “the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.”8 Carroll seeks to “focus on the significance of evolution and the importance of adhering to the scientific process in our responsibility to as the stewards of our planet.”9 For Carroll, the salvation of the human species hangs upon acceptance of neo-Darwinism, and there’s no room for dissenting viewpoints (i.e. “debate”) or “any doubt,” and if you don’t accept the facts of Darwin, we’ll all spend eternity in extinction. One might call it the gospel of evolution according to Sean B. Carroll.
Part of Carroll’s rhetorical strategy is to play up Charles Darwin and praise the accomplishments of science. He says that Darwin’s arguments for evolution are “brilliantly constructed, supported by a dazzling breadth of facts” and are “the product of a heroic individual.”10 In Carroll’s eyes, Darwin can apparently do little wrong. In case the reader misses the message, he notes that Darwin’s discussion of pigeons in Origin of Species was merely “the first of many brilliant masterstrokes.”11 Showing little restraint or reflection upon the uses and misuses of evolution, he heaps praise upon the scientific accomplishments of evolution and expresses his complete inability to understand why anyone would disagree with his viewpoint and support intelligent design:
The argument for design by some external intelligence is eviscerated. It is hard to imagine how anyone in command of these facts could harbor any reasonable doubt. These facts are derived from the very same science and technology that has deciphered the genetic cause of hundreds of diseases, invented dozens of new gene-derived medicines, and revolutionized forensics and agriculture.12
Despite his denigration of those who disagree with him, Carroll does have the ability to admit arguments which may challenge his views. For example, he admits that before the “new molecular age” we somehow knew, based upon the fossil record and comparative anatomy, that “the outcome was the survival of the fittest, but we did not know how the fittest are made.”13 In other words, the evidence for evolution no longer comes from fossils or comparative anatomy, it now comes from genes. For an author who is willing to admit that “[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most metazoan phyla remained unresolved,”14 he appears extremely confident that the entire future of the world depends on accepting all his arguments. To those, we must now turn.
(2) How Carroll Supports Natural Selection
Carroll offers many arguments in support of evolution. Some of them are familiar canards, such as animal-breeding (pg. 44), peppered moths (pg. 52), or junk-DNA, while others, dealing with opsin proteins, are less common. We’ll begin with the most familiar examples.
Carroll discusses many historical examples of animal breeding which has selected for specific traits in various species. He observes that “[s]ome patterns were intermediate between the patterns of the original breeding stocks, but others were more extreme, beyond the limits of the original variation present.”15 As if this is supposed to be impressive, he points us to a diagram of 13 rats which have different black, white, and gray coloration patterns, all selected through breeding. But he neglects the obvious point that they are all still highly similar rats. Thus, the classic rejoinder to citation of animal breeding is appropriate. Animal breeders are always stopped by impregnable barriers of the amount of change they can effect in a species.
Carroll tells the standard peppered moth story as an example of natural selection, except he asserts that “[t]he agents of natural selection on the peppered moth are birds.”16 From the research of Jonathan Wells, we know that this is the missing element in the story.17 As Wells writes in The Scientist:
Carroll extensively uses the classic Darwinist icon of junk-DNA, claiming that he will “ignore this junk”:
One type of alleged junk-DNA he discusses extensively is the “pseudogene.” Carroll’s rule of thumb is that when it comes to DNA, you “[u]se it or lose it.”20 Carroll gives various examples of “pseudogenes,” which he also calls “fossil genes”—claiming they are useless stretches of DNA that used to be functional genes but acquired deleterious mutations due to misuse that caused the original gene to stop working. He cites the bacterial pathogen that causes leprosy, Mycobacterium leprae, as having 1600 functional genes and 1100 “fossil genes.” Carroll’s explanation is that it can survive with the 1100 genes “fossilized” because it acts as a parasite, living off of its hosts, and no longer needs them. Perhaps Carroll is right and M. leprae’s “fossil genes” really are just non-functional junk. But Carroll’s “use it or lose it” rule also implies that if something has not been lost, perhaps it is still being used. Maybe the reason this bacteria species has not completely lost its “fossil genes” is because it’s still using them for something. Indeed, he recounts one pseudogene in the coelacanth, a species which, from what paleontologists can tell, has remained unchanged for 360 million years.21 Could a pseudogene remain unerased for so long if it were truly non-functional? Instead of considering this possibility, Carroll always assumes that these “fossil genes” truly have no function.
Similarly, Carroll claims that half the human genes for smell (olfactory receptor genes) are now “pseudogenes” and do not make functional receptors. I see 3 possible explanations:
(2) They don’t have function but were initially designed (i.e. intelligently designed) to be functional but lost that function via natural processes;
(3) They don’t have function and they were never actually designed in the first place.
Carroll claims that the mutation rate for mice is 2 x 10-9 per base pair per generation,24 and other sources indicate that mouse generation time is 3 months.25 This means that a non-functional mouse “pseudogene” should be completely rewritten in about 125 million years. According to Neo-Darwinists, humans and mice supposedly shared a common ancestor between 75 and 125 million years ago,26 which means that any such shared “pseudogenes” could have been 60%-100% rewritten by neutral mutations. Could we still recognize a “pseudogene” it were 60% rewritten? 75%? 100%? I’m not sure, but further investigation on this topic could shed light on whether these “fossil” olfactory genes are truly non-functional “fossils” or functional stretches of DNA for which we simply need to find the function. Indeed, I find it suspicious that all mammals have the same types of “fossil” olfactory “pseudogenes,” making me wonder if perhaps these are necessary genetic components in the mammalian genome which performs an important function. Perhaps this could be an active area of research. But Carroll explores none of these arguments which indirectly would imply that these “pseudogenes” do indeed have some function.
Regardless, it is interesting to see Carroll claim that “pseudogenes” are an argument against design, as that would imply that intelligent design makes testable predictions.
Antarctic Icefish AntiFreeze Genes
Throughout the book, Carroll uses Antarctic “icefish” antifreeze proteins as one of his favorite examples of how genes evolve. He calls this a “prime example of how evolution works”27 but admits that the gene has a “simple structure” because it is “made up of 4 to 55 repeats of just three amino acids.”28 Most genes don’t consist solely of repeats of amino acids, and have a much more complicated sequence structure. So his “prime example” of evolution is from an atypically simple gene. Here is Carroll’s vague explanation of how the gene evolved:
First, evolving a new functional gene is not remotely as simple as “presto—duplicate 9 nucleotides encoding 3 amino acids and you have a functional gene.” Assuming Carroll’s description of the nature of this gene is accurate, creating a functional antifreeze gene would still require the simultaneous duplication of the 9-letter stretch plus the evolution of a start sequence, a stop sequence, and any introns and regulatory domains associated with the gene. Indeed, the paper Carroll cites to explain “[t]he origin of icefish antifreeze”30 recognizes these requirements and states that the evolution of this gene required more than the mere duplication of the “nine-letter piece”:
The second—and most egregious—problem with Carroll’s explanation of the evolution of this gene is that he drastically understates the real complexity of this gene. Carroll claims that the proteins are merely “made up of 4 to 55 repeats of just three amino acids.”33 Perhaps that’s true for the final peptide product, but the process by which these small peptides are generated requires a much more complicated interaction of various genes.
The icefish antifreeze genes are actually polyproteins that do not merely contain repeats of 3 amino acids. One of these polyproteins uses at least 10 amino acids--Methionine, Lysine, Leucine, Alanine, Isoleucine, Glycine, Threonine, Proline, Phenylalanine, Valine, Asparagine, Arginine.34 A polyprotein is a type of protein which, “after synthesis, is cleaved to produce several functionally distinct polypeptides.”35 In other words, these antifreeze proteins are complex many-in-one proteins designed to be cut into many pieces if specific lengths, each of which performs an important antifreeze function.
In these antifreeze polyproteins, the different segments are separated by special separator markers and cleaved by a “chymotrypsin-like protease.”36 According to other literature, this polyprotein is unique and may require multiple “cleaver” proteases in order to be broken into its constituent segments:
Carroll relies upon opsin proteins in order to argue that new proteins can evolve with only a few small mutations. Opsin proteins are light-sensitive molecules in animal eyes which respond to particular wavelengths of light to permit vision. Carroll finds that two opsin proteins in humans and other primates are highly similar, such that changes in their function could be mostly accounted for by merely 3 amino acid changes. Because this provides Carroll with a good example of how a new protein might evolve, it is when discussing opsins that Carroll encourages his readers to extrapolate from his examples to accept the grander claims of evolution:
Carroll does not consider the possibility that the opsins are similar due to common design. However, common design may be suggested by the fact that some opsin proteins among widely divergent species show “convergence,” even at the molecular level. This will be discussed in the next section.
(3) Problems for Neo-Darwinism Part 1: Convergent Molecular Evolution
Carroll provides a fascinating discussion of what evolutionists would term “molecular convergence.” Essentially, he finds that it is not uncommon to see the same amino acid sequences in the genes of widely unrelated organisms where their common ancestor was not thought to have that sequence.
Carroll’s first example deals with rhodopsin, a light-sensitive opsin protein which aids vision. He explains that distantly related deep-water species, such as deep-sea eels (fish), dolphins and whales (both mammals) each have similar amino acids at critical positions in their rhodopsin proteins. In a similar fashion, fresh-water eels have similar amino acids to mammals which use light near the surface of the water or above water (like cows, humans, or manatees). Carroll writes that these similarities must have evolved “independently”:
At the DNA level, such different structural details are expected to involve evolutionary changes in different genes. What makes the howler case so remarkable, as well as many of the other examples I will describe in this chapter, is that the recurring events in different species involve the same genes, and sometimes the very same letters of DNA code.44
While Carroll is surprised at this data, it would have been completely expected under a theory of common design, where the same genetic blueprint might be re-used in different organisms. In fact, molecular similarities among widely different organisms are precisely what one would expect if an intelligent designer were involved.
(4) Problems for Neo-Darwinism Part 2: Phylogenetic Trees
Carroll is upfront about the problems encountered when constructing phylogenetic trees. He never questions neo-Darwinism, but he does admit that contradictions between morphological and fossil-based trees existed even before molecular data was analyzed:
(5) How are the fittest made?
Chapter 8, “The Making and Evolution of Complexity,” promised to be the most important of the book, which after all is titled The Making of the Fittest. We are forewarned at the beginning of this chapter that we may have to sometimes employ “extrapolation”51 from his examples in order to understand how evolution works. That’s an understatement, given the paucity of the examples he provides.
Carroll’s primary example is the fact that the gene Pax-6 is used in widely different organisms—from vertebrates to mollusks to arthropods to echinoderms—to build eyes. He has a useful diagram on page 195 showing how the amino acid sequence of Pax-6 is nearly identical between fruit flies, mice, and humans, even though mammals and insects have completely different types of eyes.
Carroll recounts how it was originally thought, due to the widely different types of eyes among animals, that eyes evolved independently many different times—perhaps between 40 and 65 times. When it was discovered that Pax-6 controlled eye development in so many diverse types of eye-bearing animals, Carroll explains that “it is very unlikely that each happened upon the use of Pax-6 by accident.”52 Evolutionists thus assume that the first eye-bearing animals must have used Pax-6 and that the usage was passed down to all of their descendants.
But where did those first eyes come from? Carroll warns against assuming that the simplest eyes are really “simple”: “But do not be fooled by these eyes’ simple construction and appearance. They are built with and use many of the ingredients used in fancier eyes.”53 These ubiquitous eye similarities include the use of Pax-6, opsin proteins, and other visual pigments. Thus, the earliest eyes had the same basic functional mechanisms as the most advanced eyes known. Carroll expects us to think this explains the evolution of complexity, but he never explains where the first eye came from. The infamous simple “light sensitive spot” is not simple at all, and it requires an explanation which Carroll does not provide. How are the fittest made?
Given a light sensitive spot, Carroll asserts that further eye evolution “is a matter of just arranging larger numbers of the same types of eye cells in three-dimensional space—the same building materials, a different organization.”54 As evidence that this is possible, he asserts that “[c]omputer modeling by Dan Nilsson and Susanne Pelger at the University of Lund in Sweden has suggested that selection on small variations could, in 2000 steps over as few as 500,000 years, produce a camera eye from a simple prototype.”55 But wait—I thought Carroll just told us the earliest eyes weren’t actually so “simple.” And what of this “computer modeling”? According to mathematician David Berlinski, the computer model of eye evolution is a Darwinist urban legend, which was widely promulgated by Richard Dawkins. Berlinski writes:
Carroll finds that the re-usage of common genes in widely different organisms is not restricted to eyes. He writes that discoveries “have also revealed that common genetic tools are used to build the very different hearts, digestive tracts, muscles, nervous systems, and limbs of all sorts of animals.”59
Finally, Carroll gives a few other examples in his chapter explaining “the making and evolution of complexity.” The first involves the fact that single mutations in various genes can abolish eyes or the pelvis in fish. These are simple mutations which turn off regulatory genes, thereby preventing an organ structure from forming. His second example deals with the loss of wing spots on butterfly wings. Again, the mechanism is a simple mutation which turns off the wing-spot genes. These examples all invoke loss of function by turning of pre-existing genes. Exactly how are the fittest made? Carroll’s examples don’t answer that question.
It is from these examples that Carroll asserts that “[t]he argument from design by some external intelligence is eviscerated.” If the loss of function by turning off genes, and the usage of the same genes to build organs in vastly diverse organisms—a fact cited by design-proponents as supporting common design60—are the best facts he can muster against design, then it would appear that ID has very little to fear from the discoveries of evo-devo. To reiterate, after reading this chapter, I fear that I am still left wondering, “How are the fittest made?”
(6) Carroll’s Projections onto Darwin-Skeptics
Carroll’s chapter on “the denial of evolution”61 focuses primarily upon arguments from young earth creationists, such as Henry Morris. He can’t imagine how anyone could doubt the science, and therefore concludes that it must be the result of “religious ideology”: “My fundamental premise is that the denial of evolution, like the other instances of denial, is not about the science. It can’t be. It is about ideology, in this case religious ideology.”62 As noted in the beginning of this review, Carroll is so entrenched in his own mindset that he thinks that no one can have rational scientific reasons for disagreeing with his own viewpoint. After his weak effort in the linchpin chapter on how complexity evolves, perhaps Carroll needs to apply some healthy skepticism to his own perspective. Carroll gives six rationalizations to explain why people doubt evolution. As discussed below, Carroll engages in much projection, so perhaps a little more self-scrutiny would not hurt:
2. “Question the Motives and Integrity of Science”: Carroll claims that Darwin-skeptics are always attacking the motives of scientists who promote evolution. But it is ironic that Carroll tries to expose this “tactic” because he himself states prior to scrutinizing Darwin-skeptics that “[w]e have to pierce those screens to understand the motives behind them.”64 Carroll himself thus attacks the motive of Darwin-skeptics and seems to be projecting this tactic on to Darwin-skeptics.
3. “Magnify Disagreements Among Scientists and Cite Gadflies as Authorities”: Carroll complains about people who “mine” quotes from Darwinists. I’m sure I’ll be accused of this because I cite Carroll so much in this review. Perhaps the first part of this objection stems more from Carroll’s personal frustration than any legitimate complaints. One always has to be careful when citing opponents, but when they make a stark admission, no fault can be charged against those who cite that authority. And given how often Darwin-skeptics commonly cite the highest authorities, like Stephen Jay Gould, Bruce Alberts, or Charles Darwin himself, I see little basis for Carroll’s charge that Darwin-skeptics “cite gadflies as authorities.” Unless Carroll considers himself a gadfly, I assume he will have no objections when I cite him discussing problems the molecular data pose for constructing phylogenetic trees.
4. "Exaggerate the Potential Harm": Carroll cites Biblical creationists trying to tie Darwinism to various horrors of the 20th century, such as Nazism or communism. While their tactics may not always be productive or appropriate, again, we see Carroll is projecting. Just as Carroll claims Darwin-skeptics “exaggerate the potential harm” of accepting evolution, Carroll himself suggests that failing to accept evolution could cause the downfall of the whole biosphere: And to what does he compare the coming horror if we fail to accept evolution? He compares the fight against Darwin-sketpics to the fight against “Nazism” and “Soviet-style communism”65:
Carroll tries to lump ID-theorists with global warming skeptics, a lumping which I stridently oppose. The claim that design theorists are both anti-science and anti-conservation doubly fails. I am all for conservation and protecting the environment. But it is odd that Carroll accuses Darwin-skeptics of “exaggerating the potential harm” when he makes the outlandish argument that “the future of nature” is bleak unless we stop doubting Darwin.
5. "Appeal to Personal Freedom”: Carroll argues against teaching any evidence against Darwinism in public schools. This sounds fairly dogmatic, and indeed Carroll acknowledges that he’s not on the side of “personal freedom” in this debate. He cites a now-defunct court ruling that removed a sticker-disclaimer from Cobb County, Georgia biology textbooks which simply suggested that students approach evolution “with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” It’s revealing that Carroll would oppose such innocuous language.
Carroll claims that when Judge Clarence Cooper struck down the stickers, the Judge was troubled that the policy failed to explain why evolution was “the only theory being isolated.” In fact, this badly misrepresents the ruling. In the two sentences of the ruling following the section quoted by Carroll, Judge Cooper explains that he accepted the school board’s singling out of evolution:
Singling out evolution was appropriate precisely because evolution was controversial! Carroll is not a lawyer, so perhaps he did not read the case carefully. (Judge Cooper went on to strike down the stickers on the effect prong due to a bizarre and unorthodox line of reasoning which threatened the political rights of religious Americans, but that’s a story for another day.)
6. “Acceptance Repudiates Key Philosophy”: As his final reason for why people oppose evolution, Carroll explains that evolution “is viewed to be at odds with matters of faith that are not open to scientific evidence.”68 He criticizes Biblical creationists at length, but then affirmatively promotes pro-evolution theology by quoting from various religious organizations that accept evolution. It would be interesting to find out if Carroll, who capitalizes “Nature” throughout the book, holds metaphysical views which would be refuted if evolution were false. Perhaps he should scrutinize his own motives and beliefs rather than simply attacking those of others.
Carroll also tries to refute intelligent design by appealing to “pseudogenes.” He asks, “What Designer designs partial, non-functional genes?”69 Again, that is a legitimate question to ask, and it proves that ID can make testable claims: designers make things which are functional. As I stated earlier, “pseudogenes” really present three options:
(2) They don’t have function but were initially designed (i.e. intelligently designed) to be functional but lost that function via natural processes;
(3) They don’t have function and they were never actually designed in the first place.
What is most revealing about all of this is that while Carroll claims ID is wrong, he treats it as if it is a testable hypothesis. For all of the talk about ID lacking a model, Carroll most certainly treats the “pre-formed” gene hypothesis like it is a testable ID-model. Unfortunately, Carroll then contradicts himself by later suggesting that ID is “not science.”70 I suppose ID just doesn’t fit with his gospel message.
Sean B. Carroll’s book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution makes large promises but fails to delivers. He claims that science will remove “any doubt” about evolution, and he hopes his scare-tactics about a coming environmental apocalypse will convince people to just accept evolution and save the planet. As a conservationist myself, I don’t need, as Carroll taunts me, to “accept evolution or you won’t ‘think at all’” in order to understand the importance of conserving our natural resources.
While Carroll is a good writer who makes science easy to understand, his book has a politically oriented gospel message which is simple: just believe evolution without any doubt, and we may be saved from environmental catastrophe. But Carroll’s scientific arguments fail to back up his big talk. Carroll’s examples of natural selection’s creative power—animal breeding, peppered moths, or loss of function—fail to impress. His repetition of Darwinist urban legends about computer studies of eye-evolution and heavy reliance upon vague just-so stories about icefish give little reason to turn the head of the informed Darwin-skeptic. Carroll’s discussions of junk-DNA and pseudogenes are interesting, but it is disconcerting that Carroll never mentions that his “use it or lose it” rule implies that if a stretch of DNA has not been lost, then perhaps it’s still being used. His observation that widely diverse organisms often use the same or similar proteins only serves to further confirm my suspicions of common design in biology. Incredibly, Carroll uses these examples to claim he has “eviscerated” intelligent design. The ID-proponent who reads this book will feel very encouraged about the strength of her own position, for Carroll failed to provide any compelling explanations for the primary subject of his book: the evolutionary making of the fittest.
1. The author welcomes feedback and may be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
2. Antonis Rokas & Sean B. Carroll, "Bushes in the Tree of Life," PLOS Biology, Vol 4(11): 1899-1904 (Nov., 2006) (internal citations and figures omitted).
3. Sean B. Carroll, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, pg. 17 (W. W. Norton, 2006).
4. Id. at 192 (emphases added).
5. Id. at 192-193.
6. Id. at 39.
7. For example, see Carroll, The Making of the Fittest, at 142, 243.
8. Id. at 39.
9. Id. at 247.
10. Id. at 31.
11. Id. at 43.
12. Id. at 212-213.
13. Id. at 34.
14. Antonis Rokas, Dirk Krüger, Sean B. Carroll, "Animal Evolution and the Molecular Signature of Radiations Compressed in Time" Science, Vol. 310:1933-1938 (Dec. 23, 2005).
15. Carroll, The Making of the Fittest, at 47.
16. Id. at 52.
17. See Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (Regnery, 2000).
18. Jonathan Wells, Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths: This classical story of evolution by natural selection needs revising," The Scientist, Vol:13(11):13 (May 24, 1999) (internal citations omitted).
19. Carroll, The Making of the Fittest, at 76.
20. Id. at 123.
21. Id. at 119, 123. Of course Darwinists would contend the Coelacanth pseudogene may be a recent change in the Coelacanth species. But we have no way of knowing that apart from assuming that it is non-functional, and therefore must be recent or it would have been lost. Given that our only hard data is the stasis of the Coelacanth species from paleontological data, perhaps that is a questionable assumption indeed.
22. Id. at 136
23. Id. at 128.
24. Id. at 60.
27. Id. at 26.
28. Id. at 25.
29. Id. at 26.
30. Id. at 271.
31. Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries, and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, "Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94:3811–3816 (April, 1997).
32. Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries, and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, “Convergent evolution of antifreeze glycoproteins in Antarctic notothenioid fish and Arctic cod,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94:3817–3822 (April, 1997).
33. Carroll, Making of the Fittest, at 25.
36. See Figure 2B in Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries, and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, “Convergent evolution of antifreeze glycoproteins in Antarctic notothenioid fish and Arctic cod,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94:3817–3822 (April, 1997).
37. K. Hsiao, C.C. Cheng, I.E. Fernandes, H.W. Detrich, and A.L DeVries, “An Antifreeze Glycopeptide Gene from the Antarctic Cod Notothenia coriiceps neglecta Encodes a Polyprotein of High Peptide Copy Number,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 87:9265–9269 (Dec., 1990).
38. See Michael Behe, In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=442 and Michael Behe & David W. Snoke, "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues," Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
39. Carroll, The Making of the Fittest, at 26. 40. Id. at 192.
41. Id. at 109 (emphasis in original).
42. Id. at 16.
43. Id. at 36-37 (emphasis added).
44. Id. at 141.
45. Id. at 98.
46. Id. at 85.
47. Id. at 88.
48. Id. at 99.
49. Antonis Rokas, Dirk Krüger, Sean B. Carroll, "Animal Evolution and the Molecular Signature of Radiations Compressed in Time," Science, Vol. 310:1933-1938 (Dec. 23, 2005).
51. Carroll, The Making of the Fittest, at 192.
52. Id. at 196.
53. Id. at 197.
54. Id. at 197.
55. Id. at 199 (emphasis added).
56. David Berlinski, “The Vampire’s Heart, at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1061
58. Carroll, The Making of the Fittest, at 201.
59. Id. at 202.
60. See Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells, “Homology in Biology: Problem for Naturalistic Science and Prospect for Intelligent Design,” in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, eds., Michigan State University Press, 2003).
61. Carroll, The Making of the Fittest, at 233.
62. Id. at 234.
63. Id. at 234
64. Id. at 234.
65. Id. at 267.
66. Id. at 267-268.
67. Selman v. Cobb County Board of Education, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1309 (N.D. Ga. 2005) (emphases added).
68. Carroll, The Making of the Fittest, at 240.
69. Id. at 241.
70. Id. at 245.