Readers are invited to consider my new paper, “The Panda’s Thumb: Striking Imperfection or Masterpiece of Engineering?” The abstract is below.

Abstract: Key Points of the Contents 

Before going further, a brief note on the synonyms that I’m using here such as the “double/dual/complementary function” of the panda’s thumb. Each of the synonyms has its own subtly different overtones. With this in mind, I hope the basic points discussed below may be better understood. 

1. Above: “Some Key Points in a Long-Lasting Controversy”: Different views of evolutionary biologists on the panda’s thumb. Some assessments of the panda’s dexterity by intelligent design theorists.
2. Introduction: The panda’s thumb has become a paradigm for evolution in general. Links to articles by Stephen Dilley, and notes on the recent controversy between Nathan Lents and Stuart Burgess.
3. If the panda’s thumb is an embodiment of bad design, where are the evolutionists’ proposals indicating how they could have done better?
4. Some citations from a public talk by Stuart Burgess on the ingenious design of the wrist.
5. A massive contradiction within the theory of evolution itself.
6. Double/dual/complementary function is often overlooked.
7. “What makes the modern human thumb myology special within the primate clade is … [the appearance of] two extrinsic muscles, extensor pollicis brevis and flexor pollicis longus.”
8. It is a fundamental mistake to use the human thumb as a yardstick for the perfection or imperfection of the panda’s thumb.
9. A closer look at the differences of the radial sesamoid in a basal ursoid in comparison to that of the panda (Ailuropoda) for gripping and walking and the grasping hand of Homo sapiens according to Xiaoming Wang et al. (2022).
10. In comparison to other bear species, “only in A. melanoleuca can it be considered to be hyper-developed, reaching a similar size to that of the first metacarpal.”
11. Doubts concerning a simple homology of different sesamoid bones in various species.
12. Radial sesamoid as the ideal starting point to develop a thumb-like digit in pandas.
13. Natural selection of the radial sesamoid according to Wang et al. as well as Barrette in contrast to Stanley.
14. Implications of the ruling neo-Darwinian paradigm (gradualism plus natural selection) for the origin of the panda’s thumb.
15. Further discussion of Barrette’s points as “the length of the radial sesamoid, and therefore that of the false thumb, is limited firstly by its location under the hand,” etc.
16. Less efficient feeding would emphasize the enormous problem involved in the theory of natural selection.
17. The panda’s ecological impact and the “Optimal Panda Principle” in contrast to the evolutionary “Panda Principle” of Gould and his followers.
18. How to pick up little Necco candy wafers with thumbless mittens?
19. When directly observing pandas in zoos, Gould and Davis marveled at the dexterity/competence/virtuosity of the panda’s hand. I have done so, too. The panda’s hand is not “clumsy” at all.
20. Key question from two PhD students at the Max Planck Institute of Plant Breeding Research (Cologne) who came to my office and asked: Wouldn’t it be much more economical for an intelligent designer to modify, as far as possible, an already existing structure for some new functions than to create a totally new structure for similar roles/purposes/tasks from scratch?
21. Some comments on Barette’s statement that “We owe this metaphor [of approximate tinkering/bricolage] to François Jacob, a French biologist and recipient of the Nobel Prize. Far from being perfect, such approximate tinkering is a trace left by evolutionary history,” and thus a proof of it.
22. Davis on the enlarged radial sesamoid as “unquestionably” a direct product of natural selection.
23. Possible number of genes involved in the origin of pandas according to Davis and some others.
24. What do we know in the interim about panda genetics?
25. SNPs in the Ursidae including our beloved pandas.

As already mentioned in other articles of mine (for example: https://www.weloennig.de/Hippo.pdf): Note please that virtually all highlighting/emphasis is by W.-E. L. (except italics for genera and species as well as adding a note when the cited authors themselves have emphasized certain points). Why so often? Well, since many people do not have the time to study a more extensive work in detail, these highlights can serve as keywords to get a first impression of what is being discussed. 

Concerning the key points enumerated above: Page numbers may change in a future update, and so are not presented here. Incidentally, citations do not imply the agreement of the authors quoted with my overall views nor vice versa. Moreover, I alone am responsible for any mistakes.

On questions concerning absolute dating methods, see http://www.weloennig.de/HumanEvolution.pdf, p. 28.