That is the claim that Pandas makes repeatedly as a "prediction" of evolutionary theory. However it is simply not true that any evolutionary biologist has ever made such a prediction (significantly, Pandas does not cite any references for its claims). Pandas then examines the data and shows that the frog and human sequences are equally distant from that of the worm. That, it argues, is contrary to the evolutionary prediction.
This is simply not true. I honestly do not know if the authors of Pandas intentionally misrepresented evolutionary predictions or if they simply did not understand them.
I don't have my copy of Pandas with me, but this whole section is obviously cribbed from Michael Denton's (since self-repudiated) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. I'm not sure what edition Pandas is in now, but I know that at least as of the second edition there was a blatant error carried forward from Denton's book. There is an illustration that shows "humans" and "apes" as "equally separated" groups; that is non-overlapping groups in a Venn diagram. The reference in Pandas is to Denton's book, but when you look in Denton's book his reference is to a particular table in Susan Dayhoff's venerable Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure (if I'm recalling that title correctly). However when I looked up the Dayhoff table years ago (I think it was for one of the globins) I found that human and chimpanzee versions of the protein were identical whereas the gorilla differed from both in one or two amino acids. IOW, even allowing for the faulty Pandas interpretation of the molecular data, humans and chimps should have been in the same group "equally isolated" from other apes!
Here's something else I found from a message I wrote many eons ago on some bulletin board or another regarding an interesting difference between the first and second editions of Pandas:
Ronnie Hastings and I gave a presentation for our local skeptics group on the creationist textbook _Of Pandas and People_, by Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon. [...]Ronnie, however, had gone through the second edition more thoroughly, and based his presentation on a review of the differences between it and the previous version.
One of the more interesting differences concerned _H. erectus_. The first edition strongly (though not unequivocally) favored the view that _H. erectus_ was human. It suggests that:
"Perhaps _Homo erectus_ and _Homo sapiens_ are really a single species, and, like Neanderthal man, _Homo erectus_ should be reclassified under _Homo sapiens. It is never wise to be dogmatic about our interpretations; it is especially so here, since the data allow so many interpretations." (p. 112)"_H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_ are so similar that it is possible to consider them as one human species as shown." (p. 113)
The second edition, however, claims, in direct contradiction to the first, that "[_H. erectus_] had significant anatomical differences from modern man that have prevented its classification as _H. sapiens_." (p. 110)
The real clincher, however, comes in the conclusion... In this case it is baldly stated, without considering the possibility of alternative "design proponent" interpretations (apparently ignoring both the conclusions of the first edition as well as its caution about "dogmatic ... interpretations"), that:
"Design adherents, however, regard _H. erectus_, as well as the other hominids discussed in this section, as little more than apes, and point instead to the abrupt appearance of the culture and patterns of behavior which distinguish man from the apes." (pp. 112-113)
You should contact the author of Talk.Origins' Ape-or-Human page about this. Apparently he's still maintaining that page; I'm sure he'd be interested in adding Davis & Kenyon to the list of creationists who can't make up their minds about just what kind of missing link H. erectus isn't.One of the more interesting differences concerned _H. erectus_. The first edition strongly (though not unequivocally) favored the view that _H. erectus_ was human. It suggests that:
"Perhaps _Homo erectus_ and _Homo sapiens_ are really a single species, and, like Neanderthal man, _Homo erectus_ should be reclassified under _Homo sapiens. It is never wise to be dogmatic about our interpretations; it is especially so here, since the data allow so many interpretations." (p. 112)"_H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_ are so similar that it is possible to consider them as one human species as shown." (p. 113)
The second edition, however, claims, in direct contradiction to the first, that "[_H. erectus_] had significant anatomical differences from modern man that have prevented its classification as _H. sapiens_." (p. 110)
The real clincher, however, comes in the conclusion... In this case it is baldly stated, without considering the possibility of alternative "design proponent" interpretations (apparently ignoring both the conclusions of the first edition as well as its caution about "dogmatic ... interpretations"), that:
"Design adherents, however, regard _H. erectus_, as well as the other hominids discussed in this section, as little more than apes, and point instead to the abrupt appearance of the culture and patterns of behavior which distinguish man from the apes." (pp. 112-113)