• First, "What's Wrong With Pandas" (1991) was a critique of the first (1989) edition of Pandas, which includes notable features such as the endnotes that Pandas left out (Superscripted numbers were present in the text of Pandas, but there were no corresponding notes at the end of the chapters!).
• Second, "The New Pandas: A Closer Look. Is It Improved?", dated 1994, reviewed the 1993 edition of Pandas -- the second, and last so far the last, edition of Of Pandas and People.
• Sonleitner's 1991 and 1994 reviews were distributed on CD by NCSE during the 1990's. In addition to [url=http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=21]this website[/url], the complete critique currently exists as 189-page digital book, complete with Table of Contents and Index (a zipped Microsoft Word file, 1.1 MB zipped, can be emailed upon request; contact Nick Matzke, matzkeATncseweb.org).
• This document was reformatted into HTML for use in NCSE's Pandas Resources page, followed by an edit; however, minor errors in formatting or character conversion may have occurred during the conversion process. The images have been converted for web format; higher resolution versions can be found in the original sources cited. Please send corrections to Nick Matzke, matzkeATncseweb.org.

Conclusion All the "conclusions" of Pandas are false or irrelevant. Pandas "proves" that spontaneous gen­eration is impossible, then claims that it occurred frequently throughout geological time (as instan­taneous miraculous productions of new forms by designers). Biological organisms might exhibit some characteristics of manufactured things, but in basic ways they are fundamentally different. Changes are limited in experimental breeds because of the slowness of natural production of muta­tions. Increasing the mutation rate by radiation exposure makes further change possible. The fossil record does provide intermediate forms connecting the taxonomic groups. The patterns of similar­ity among organisms do not show what one would expect from common design by a single de­signer. And the molecular data, grossly misinterpreted by Pandas, do corroborate evolution and re­fute intelligent design! Furthermore molecular biology has shown that the hereditary material is full of extraneous copies, nonfunctional pseudogenes and other non-coding garbage, hardly the kind of "blueprint" that an intelligent designer would create. Throughout this critique, we have seen that "intelligent design" (creationism) is empty of explanatory power. The real phenomena do not even fit its alleged predictions.