[00:00:04] Speaker A: ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
In 1980, influential paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that we can know that evolution has happened by the imperfections and oddities that life shows. But is that true? And what if we took a closer look at those assumed evolutionary oddities and saw instead evidence of engineered elegance?
Joining me today is retired geneticist Dr. Wolf Eckhardt Leunick to discuss his new paper reviewing the debate over the panda's thumb.
Giant pandas have an elongated wrist bone, the radial sesamoid, that allows them to handle and eat bamboo with great dexterity. Some claim it's an imperfectly and inefficiently formed structure, that that is clear evidence of evolutionary processes at work. Others call it one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in the mammalian world and clear evidence of engineering. So which is it? Well, that's the topic of our conversation today.
Now, in case you're not too familiar with the work of Wolf Eckard Lunnick, let me share some details with you. Mathematician and ID theorist Granville Sewell has described Dr. Lunnick as. As an intelligent design pioneer. That's because for over 50 years, Dr. Lunig has been offering robust criticism of Darwinian theory and advocating for intelligent design.
He argued for intelligent Design in his 1971 Masters of Science thesis at the Free University of Berlin. His faculty advisor there, the Director of the Botanical Gardens and Botanical Museum of Berlin, Dalem, had high praise for his thesis, saying this, finally, a master's thesis in which a young man turns decidedly against a sacred cow, Neo Darwinism, or the theory of dissent in general, and demonstrates the sore points of a doctrine which for most minds is thought of not just as a theory, as a great synopsis, but as an impeccable and almost completely proven fact.
Wolf Eckardt would go on to earn a PhD from the University of Bonnie and work as a geneticist for over 25 years at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne. He has continued throughout his career and now in retirement, to criticize Darwinism and promote intelligent design in his writings, several of which have been published in scientific journals. Dr. Leunig, welcome to the podcast. It's an honor to speak with you today.
[00:02:36] Speaker B: Thank you very much for inviting me.
[00:02:38] Speaker A: Now, you've written a paper recently reviewing the debate over the panda's thumb, and over a couple of episodes, I'd like to unpack what you've written because I think it's an important example of the debate over evolution and the argument for intelligent design. Now, first for those who are not very familiar with your work, can you share briefly about your scientific training and your career as a geneticist? How did your career prepare you to question Darwinian orthodoxy?
[00:03:04] Speaker B: Yes, thank you very much for that very nice question.
First, I would like to emphasize that a career in biology does not necessarily prepare you to question orthodox Darwinism. They do everything to keep you away from questioning Darwinian orthodoxy. However, studying the enormously complex biological facts that you are made familiar with, facts which are, on closer examination, often characterized by irreducible and specified complexity, can help you to question Darwinism.
So I studied biology, including botany, zoology, genetics and paleontology from 1965 to 1971 at the free University of Berlin as well as at the Universities of Mainz and Frankfurt. In the following years I became a high school biology teacher. In 1978 and 79 there were the PhD studies and writing my PhD thesis at the Institute of Genetics at the University of Bonn.
There tasked among several others, teaching genetics for biology and medical students, internships and also seminars on the history of biology and human genetics. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize that you don't have to have a career in biology to doubt Darwinian orthodoxy. Any thinking person is capable to do this.
[00:04:53] Speaker A: Those are great points, Dr. Lernick, especially like the one where you just said that, you know, you. You don't get taught how to criticize Darwinian orthodoxy, but the more you learn in your specialized field, the more you're able to understand the gap between the evidence and Darwinian theory. Those are great points. Well, let's give listeners an idea of what we're talking about today with the panda's thumb. Can you describe the giant pandas hand and how it differs from other bears?
[00:05:25] Speaker B: Yes.
Before I do that, I would like to state that in my following answers. For a lack of time, I will not always give the source of my quotations.
Almost all the references can be found in my article on the panda thumb.
Now a short Wikipedia A thumb is visible on its forepaw which helps in holding bamboo in place for feeding.
The Jayant panda paw has an additional digit similar to a thumb and five fingers. So exactly six digits, a thumb and five fingers. It is the thumb like digit which is so important, which helps it to hold bamboo while eating.
So to emphasize this point, the other species of the Bayer family do not have such an additional digit and one can make a long discussion about the bones. I simply would like to show this picture. This is a sum which you can see here.
And this is digit 1, digit 2, 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 5 and this thumb like digit.
So that special sum has been cited for decades as a special proof for the theory of evolution. In fact it has become really an icon of evolution. Darwinians have called it to be a crude structure.
They have called it built from an odd part, clumsy, highly inefficient, imperfect, suboptimal, an example of bad design and altogether an imperfection which no intelligent designer would ever have made and only evolution by mutations and natural selection could have produced.
[00:07:36] Speaker A: And I appreciate you sharing that image because as you say it really helps to kind of see what we're talking about here. And you can't always do that when, when it's audio but thankfully we're recording videos so we can, we can see some of these visual aids. Well the pandas thumb as you're saying has been a key example in discussions about evolution, particularly due to the. Well with a well known work of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. He formulated his argument for the panda stom in several books and works pretty much over 20 years starting in 1978 with a column that he published in Natural History through his summary of the argument in his magnum opus the Structure of Evolutionary Theory which he published in 2002. So let's spend a few minutes just talking about Gould's perspective. Why did he consider the pandas thumb to be an example of a striking imperfection or a clumsy but workable solution?
[00:08:32] Speaker B: Yes, Gould has argued as follows.
He said we can know that evolution has happened by the imperfections and oddities that life shows.
The panda must use parts on hand and settle for an enlarged wrist bone and a somewhat clumsy but quite workable solution.
The sesamoid thumb wins no prize in an engineer's derby.
The pandasam demonstrates evolution because as all gold it is clumsy and built from an odd part, the radial sesamoid bone of the wrist.
Good. Also the pandasam is highly inefficient. If God had designed a beautiful machine to reflect his wisdom and power, surely he would not have used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes. So far quotations according to Google One may immediately ask after that how did Google know for sure what God would have done and what God would not have done?
Interestingly, a group of researchers have pointed out recently the Aelurids as the red panda, the Tulpit moats, the Pobosidians, elephants, Sigmodontian rodents including New World rats and mice and Tibermut rodents like Tukutuko. They all infect their thumb like structure understood to be a modified set of it. Now this is six times independently in different groups of animals where the sample occurs and then if evolution has produced it, it has six times independently made the same stupid mistake to take that wrist bone. There's recently a paper on the cotton rats and the enlarged radial sesamoid bone and that of the giant panda have a similar morphology and size relative to the rest of the hand.
So this would be convergence in evolutionary terms six times, at least six times independently.
And this is really as Meyer, Minnie Moneymaker, Nelson Silge once said, convergence is a deeply intriguing mystery given how complex some of the structures are. Some scientists are skeptical or skeptical that an undirected process like natural selection and mutation would have stumbled upon the same complex structure many different times.
And another biologist, Herr Henningkale from University of Widowfeld at that time. Now it is precisely the phenomenon of convergence that poses further major problems for Neo Darwinism. For if the one time emergence of completely adapted organs or characteristics through selection and random mutations can hardly be explained, the multiple formation of similar organs eludes the neo Darwinian interpretation even further.
So evolutionists have a heavy problem with at least six times independently arisen digits, although much smaller than in the panda.
In almost all cases it is a problem for neodorism.
But on the other hand, an intelligent cause may reuse or redeploy the same module in different systems without their necessarily being any material or physical connections between those systems. Even more simply, intelligent causes can generate identical patterns independently according to nuts and not wells, an intelligence course. As I said, they reduce and redeploy the same module in different systems.
[00:13:05] Speaker A: Yeah, and that is a great point. And convergence happens to be also very convenient to explain on the Darwinist's point of view how things came about seemingly independently, multiple times. But it is definitely a mathematical and logistical problem for Darwinian theory. Yeah, we'll definitely include a link to your paper in the show notes for this episode. Now that paper highlights that not everyone agrees with Gould's assessment. What evidence do you review in the paper, in your paper that contradicts the idea that the panda's thumb is sub optimal?
[00:13:44] Speaker B: Well first I would like to quote Paul Nelson, fellow of the Discovery Institute. He reports about his personal conversation with Gould the following points. He first asks how did Goual know that this structure, the pandas thumb was sub optimal? And then he said so I asked Goual one on one sitting in his office what's the evidence that the thumb was actually suboptimal? And he said Paul just look at it, just look at it. It is obvious. Nelson added, well, the fact is it is not obvious. Every reverence from the pandas natural history literature that I have found praised the structure in the highest terms, like a forceps with an utmost precision peri, etc. Richard Perry points out that pandas can hold a single piece of sugar cane or slice of bread. They can pick up a tin dish like a duck dish in their forearms.
[00:14:53] Speaker A: Gould thinks it's obvious. Gould and others like him think it's obvious. But it's only obvious if you're coming from a bottom up reductionist view of how, you know, organic systems emerge. If you're, if you're coming from the opposite end of the, the spectrum, you know, a top down designed approach, then it's equally obvious that it's an engineered masterpiece. So there, there's the rub. So for a layperson, it's one thing to talk about bones but another to understand how they're used. Can you give us briefly some examples of the panda's dexterity when using its radial sesamoid?
[00:15:34] Speaker B: Well, there's a Japanese evolutionary search group of Endo et al. And they commented the way in which the giant panda uses the radial sesame bone, its pseudo thumb for grasping make this one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution.
They also said the radial sesame bone and an accessory carpal bone form a double pincer like apparatus in the medial and lateral sides of the hand, respectively, enabling the panda to manipulate with great dexterity. Interestingly, now that's a very important point. Although evolutionary biologists who had spoken about the pandas as being crude, built from an odd part, being clumsy, highly inefficient, imperfect, sub optimal and so on, which would be a mistake which no intelligent designer would ever have made. And only evolution by mutations into natural things would have produced these same evolutionists, when they were watching the pandas more closely alive, they went to Zeus and looked at that.
And evolutionists, evolutionary biologists like Davis and Gould, both originally involved in the bad design argument, have confessed things like the following. Listen to Gouald. I was amazed by their dexterity and wondered how the scion of a stock adapted for running could use his hand so adroitly.
In plain English, he was amazed, astonished, surprised that a member of the bear family could use its four feet for bows, running and eating bamboos so perfect.
The other is Dwight D. Davis. He had that famous big anatomy book about the panda thumb and pandas in general. He said he went to a zoo and then he reported the skill and precision with which objects are grasped and Manipulated by the forefeet is astonishing.
I have observed animals pick up small items like single straws and handle them with the greatest precision.
Small discs of candy less than an inch in diameter were handled deftly and placed into the mouth.
So I think it's so interesting that these leading evolutionary biologists who invented the story of the clumsy inefficiency, imperfection and so on, now when they saw it, they were enthusiastic how wonderfully these bears handled single straws and more. And I myself went to two different zoos and spent time, much time looking and studying them there. And I can only agree with Gould and I can only agree also with David.
[00:19:03] Speaker A: Yeah, it, you know, as soon as you throw out the word clumsy, which is what Gould and others have done, it sort of paints that picture, you know, of just the accidental evolutionary make do to of apparatus. But as you're saying and as you're painting with words, it certainly doesn't seem that way when you're looking at these animals. When you're observing them, there's great dexterity and great precision as they handle small objects and sugar cane and even picking up dishes in various experiments. Well, in your paper you quote molecular biologist Dr. Douglas X suggesting that our inability to design such structures ourselves might disqualify us from judging their perfection or lack thereof. How does our lack of skeletal engineering influence our understanding of the Panda's Anatomy?
[00:19:55] Speaker B: In 2017, Douglas Axe stated that none of these people, he speaks of, the illusionists, however earnest they may be, have any deep grasp of the principles of design and development underlying sesame bones and thumbs, to say nothing of pandas. Indeed none of us do, and this is still true in 2025. Recently, Kew et al have published a paper analysis based on the function of false sum in animals possessing false sums. And they state there are still a number of factors that cannot be explained, including the inability to fully explain the genetic mechanisms behind Ford's fingers and the role of environmental factors that influence the growth of these structures.
In the absence of this knowledge, the question is how can evolutionists be so sure that that the ponder sum is an example of bad design?
And above all, how do evolutionists know that the bundle sum has been formed by many accidental haphazard random mutations which have only slight or even invisible effects on the phenotype, to quote renowned Darbinian Ernst Meyer. Nevertheless, apart from this aspect of our so called, we may call it, the black box, so to speak, there's another now already wide open box, namely what we can really see and study.
And this so far really and clearly understand.
[00:21:49] Speaker A: Well, let's talk about the wrist connection next. We recall that the panda's thumb is actually an enlarged wrist bone called the radial sesamoid. Your paper mentions some debate that relates to the panda stump controversy between Bristol University bioengineer Stuart Burgess and Nathan Lentz, a professor of biology at the City University of New York. Now Burgess has studied human skeletal joints like the wrist and the ankle and argues that they are masterpieces of engineering. Professor Lentz counters this view, asserting that the human wrist has eight bones like a useful useless pile of rocks. He says, you know, you point to Burgess's expertise in engineering and I think I want to dwell on that for just a second just to show listeners and viewers how important his view is on this. You know, when it comes to assessing the optimality of design and biological systems, I mean Burgess is the real deal. He's a professor of engineering design. He has years of experience designing engineering systems, including bio inspired designs. He's worked on Olympic bicycles, he's worked on spacecraft, he's done even work with the Hubble Space Telescope and some military satellites. So he knows complex systems. And I think that's the position you have to be in to really share insight on how difficult it is to create these things in a natural way or an unguided process and just how much engineering is inherent in them. So what is Stuart Burgess counter argument to Nathan Lentz and how does it relate to the panda's anatomy?
[00:23:27] Speaker B: I would first say that seeing that by the paradigmatic work of Burgess all these speculations on superfluous human bones have scientifically been proved to be just what they are, entirely baseless evolutionary fantasies. To speak it frankly, the question may be raised now, could not the evolutionary ideas on the panda thumb also be entirely baseless evolutionary fantasies to call that crude, clumsy, highly inefficient, imperfect subopt and so on, they also be contradicted by the biological facts.
Could the bundles sum not rather be a masterpiece of engineering? Is the question in the mail of 4th April 2024.
Professor Seward Burgess wrote to me to quote in part. I have had asked him to send me a quotable comment on that point. He said, as for the panda's thumb, it is of course an excellent design for the design objectives. When I read works by evolutionists on biomechanics, I am astounded by their lack of knowledge and ability to make sweeping wild assertions. Because evolution predicts bad design, they the evolutionists impose their view of bad design despite the evidence a Great quote there.
[00:25:06] Speaker A: And a good way to remember it. Burges saying to you, excellent design. Speaking of the pandas thumb for the design objectives. I think that's, that's a key way to look at it. Here's my final question for today. Your paper emphasizes the dual function of the panda's hand both for walking and for manipulating bamboo. How does this dual role potentially impact the design and efficiency of the thumb? Could a better thumb for grasping hinder the panda's ability to walk?
[00:25:38] Speaker B: Now please imagine the enormous task to find a solution for one and the same organ for so totally different functions as walking on it and help and being of help for eating.
In the case of the panda, for walking through the bamboo jungles and for eating by manipulating bamboo, it has to grasp, pluck, peel, strip, bite bamboo stems with the same organ.
So in 2022, a group of Chinese and American researchers have made a great step forward into the scientifically correct direction by becoming clearly aware of this key significance of the dual function of the panda thumb. The author state, among many other points to adapt to life as a dedicated bamboo feeder, its extra thumb is arguably the most celebrated and yet, and yet enigmatic organ. In addition to the normal five digits in the hands of most mammals, the giant panda has a greatly enlarged wishbone, which we already heard several times, the radial sesame that acts as a six digits and opposable thumb for manipulating bamboo. To the best of my knowledge, none of the evolutionists have ever critiqued the pundit thumb as being crude, clumsy, highly inefficient, imperfect, suboptimal and better. None of these people has ever suggested a better construction for that thumb, probably because a better, totally different thumb for grasping would hinder the panda's ability to walk properly.
On the other hand, may one not ask why not the possibility of intelligent design?
William Dembsky and Michael B. Have repeatedly emphasized that in our daily method to detect intelligent design there is no magic, no vitalism, no appeal to occult forces involved, and indeed, inferring design is widespread, rational and objectifiable.
All of us, says Dembsky, all of us are all the time engaged in a form of rational activity which without being tendentious, can be described as inferring design.
Inferring design is a perfectly common and well accepted human activity.
People find it important to identify events that are caused through the purposeful, premeditated action of an intelligent agent and to distinguish such events from events due to either law or chance, to repeat and to emphasize there is no magic, nor vitalism, nor appeal to occult Forces inferring design is widespread and original, objectifiable. And at the beginning I mentioned two points, namely irreducible complexity and specified complexity. And these are methods which have been successfully applied to such questions.
[00:29:26] Speaker A: Yeah, that's really good. And a good reminder that the, the appeal to design is not an appeal to occult forces, as Demski is pointing out, or magic. This isn't magic we're saying is doing this or we're proposing. This is a, you know, information coming from a mind and that is something that can positively produce the information that is necessary to explain infusions of, you know, new bio complexity. And you know, this is, this is something that makes sense not on a magic level, but as a mechanism that is capable of doing what we say it does. So yeah, those are, those are great points. Well, I think we need more time to unpack the insights you provide in this paper about the debate over the panda stump.
[00:30:16] Speaker B: May I please interrupt you as you have one little point?
[00:30:19] Speaker A: Absolutely.
[00:30:20] Speaker B: Which I would like to add.
I would like to add that there is a massive contradiction within the theory of evolution itself because Darwin asserted natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing throughout the world every variation, even the slightest rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good, silently and insensibly working whenever and wherever opportunity offers at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.
Nowadays, evolutionary researchers like Professor John Avis is heard natural selection comes close to omnipotence. Professor Christopher Exley is indeed convinced that both the beauty and the brilliance of natural selection are reflected in its omnipotence. To explain the myriad observations of life virtually in agreement with Dawkins, Coin, Futuyman, Dodd, Ayala Meyer and many other renowned evolutionary authors, or take Nobel laureate Francois Jacom, the genetic message. The program of the present day organism resembles a text without an author. That proofreader has been correcting for more than 2 billion years, continually improving, refining and completing it. Now the important point, he continues, gradually eliminating all imperfections. And now on this background, as a result of this unlimited omniscient, omnipotent natural selection, gradually eliminating all imperfection. Now this crude, clumsy, highly inefficient, imperfect, suboptimal and bad design of the Bunda thumb question mark. This is, I think it's really a massive contradiction within the theory of evolution itself.
[00:32:35] Speaker A: Well, in part two we'll discuss what you refer to in your paper as the optimal panda principle and how this differs from Stephen Jay Gould's argument. We'll also consider why proponents of evolutionary processes haven't offered any alternative designs for this seemingly imperfect and clumsy wrist bone in giant pandas. And then we'll delve a little into the genetic aspects of the panda, allowing us to question whether natural selection can really be credited for the seemingly coordinated development of complex features like the panda's thumb. In short, we'll continue to probe our central question. Is there evidence that the panda's thumb could be in fact a well engineered system tailored to the panda's specific ecological niche? Well, Dr. Lunig, thank you for your time. I look forward to continuing this conversation in our next segment.
[00:33:24] Speaker B: Thank you very much for interviewing me.
[00:33:27] Speaker A: Well, as I said in the show, notes for this episode always
[email protected], we'll include links to Dr. Lunig's paper on the panda's thumb as well as a link to his website where you'll find detailed listings of his research and his publications. That's going to
[email protected] and in the description for this particular episode. And if you enjoyed the content on today's episode, please consider sharing it with a friend and leaving us a five star review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And as always, reach out to me with comments or episode suggestions at Andrew D. The future.com that's AndrewD the future.com well, this is Dr. Leunick. I'm Andrew McDermott. Variety the future thank you very much for tuning in. ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
