|
Author
|
Topic: The Peppered moth and intelligent design
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 25. February 2004 10:57
It shows an important component of evolution namely natural selection in action. Being the first to show conclusively evidence of natural selection in action is not a minor feat.
Kettlewell indeed deserves to be congratulated for his series of experiments. It helps us understand an important component of evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 25. February 2004 14:13
To avoid offering my own appraisal of natural selection, I offer the opinion of the greatest Russian biologist of his day, Leo S. Berg.
"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard".
Nomogenesis page 406
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 25. February 2004 21:29
I am not sure what Nosivad is trying to argue with his latest response. I hope we can focus the topic onto the issue of the peppered moth.
I appreciate Nosivad quoting Leo Berg. I found another interesting quote from this biologist.
quote:
We are enabled to work fruitfully in the field of natural science only by the aid of forces recognized in physics, and every naturalist should endeavor to interpret nature by mechanistic means. . . .
Berg, Leo, Nomogenesis: or Evolution Determined by Law, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reprint, 1969 p.6.
For what that is worth...
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 26. February 2004 05:33
I am focusing on mimicry of which the peppered moth is an example. Also quoted in Nomogenesis is Reginald Punnett's view on natural selection and mimicry.
"Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an already existing likeness, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed". page 314
In short, natural selection is not a creative process, which explains why it has not been demonstrated as a macroevolutionary device. For a further elucidation I refer to "Is Evolution Finished?"
Of course, I agree completely with Berg's appraisal of the role of physics in the pursuit of the truth.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 26. February 2004 12:25
Nosivad: I am focusing on mimicry of which the peppered moth is an example.
And a fascinating example indeed since it shows how natural selection (selective bird predation in this case) played a major role in the distribution of the variants of the peppered moth.
The relevance of natural selection on evolution can be easily studied and without natural selection not much happens. What natural selection does is to increase the information in the genome by increasing the mutual information between the genome and the environment. This increase in information in the genome requires natural selection.
In that sense, natural selection is a _creative process_ since without it, variations would not have much of an evolutionary relevance. Thus when looking at genes one can determine which genes have been under selective pressure showing how accumulation of such selective differences took place over time.
It seems that Nosivad agrees with me that the peppered moth does make for an excellent example of natural selection in action although he objects to its relevance on evolutionary processes. Of course our knowledge has much increased since Darwin or Berg published their books. Thus much of Berg's objections to natural selection may have to be rejected due to this new data and knowledge.
As far as your quote is concerned, on your website you seem to reference Punnett as the originator of the quote and not page 314 but page 152.
quote:
Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an already existing likeness, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed.
(my emphasis)Mimicry in Butterflies (1915), page 152
Is p. 314 referencing the original claim by Punnett perhaps?
More recent books on moths and mimicry include
Majerus "Moths" 2002
Majerus "Melanism"
Btw a better term for the moth is crypsis not mimicry. See p. 205 of "Moths" for a detailed discussion of these subtleties.
Or as this website puts it "Another approach to survival is protective colouration or crypsis. The formula for success with this survival technique is quite the opposite to mimicry. Here, instead of drawing attention to yourself, the implementers goal is to camouflage their presence"
Of course mimicry and crypsis have been confused in the past
quote:
Some authors (e.g. Cott, 1940; Edmunds, 1974a) regard similarities of organisms with the substrate or background, for instance the resemblance of a leaf-like butterfly to a leaf, as a special case of mimicry. Although these kinds of similarity may also lead to deception of predators, they are now recognised as very distinct phenomena, more commonly referred to as crypsis or camouflage (Vane-Wright, 1980; Edmunds, 1981; Endler, 1981, 1991)
Nosivad:Of course, I agree completely with Berg's appraisal of the role of physics in the pursuit of the truth
in response to Berg's statement
quote:
We are enabled to work fruitfully in the field of natural science only by the aid of forces recognized in physics, and every naturalist should endeavor to interpret nature by mechanistic means. . . .
How does Nosivad envision combining this interpretation with intelligent design?
[ 26. February 2004, 12:53: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 26. February 2004 14:21
I have always regarded Intelligent Design as self-evident. As for the natural incorporation of information into the genome, I have offered several times a challenge to document such an event and have yet to receive a convincing example. I have also rejected both Lamarckian and Darwinian models as being unsubstantiated. Having employed the time honored method of the elimination of alternatives has led me to the Prescribed Hypothesis for evolution, a position which denies any significant role for the environment in evolutionary change. I have based this conclusion largely on the work of Leo Berg and Pierre Grasse, both of whom completely rejected the Darwinian model as I am sure you are aware. Evolution as I see it was (past tense) an entirely emergent process in which chance played at best a trivial role. The forces which have driven that emergence remain obscure but I, like Berg and Grasse, do not recognize chance as one of them. In support of the Prescribed Hypothesis, let me simply quote the authors on whom that hypothesis firmly rests.
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of preexisting rudiments". Nomogenesis page 406
"Selection in nature acts upon species to eliminate the "not-so-good", the flawed, the disabled. That is its chief role". Grasse page 129
I am sure you are aware of my published position on these matters and I will be happy to respond to any specific questions you or any other member of this forum may have. I am not at all sure that the thread on the Peppered Moth is the appropriate place for me to defend my views, especially since "Is evolution finished?" presents my most recent thoughts on the great mystery of organic evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 26. February 2004 23:40
Nosivad: have always regarded Intelligent Design as self-evident.
From a theological perspective I agree but from a scientific perspective nothing can be considered self evident.
Nosivad: As for the natural incorporation of information into the genome, I have offered several times a challenge to document such an event and have yet to receive a convincing example
Schneider "ev: Evolution of Biological Information" Nucleic Acids Res, 28(14): 2794-2799, 2000
Adami Evolution of Biological Complexity (2000) PNAS Vol. 97, Issue 9, 4463-4468, April 25, 2000
The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features
Nature. 2003 May 8;423(6936):139-44. Lenski RE, Ofria C, Pennock RT, Adami C.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/
http://www.livejournal.com/community/ref_nature/1245.html
There are countless examples of gene duplication, followed by selection. Perhaps Nosivad may help us understand why he rejects these scientific findings?
Research has moved forward significantly since Grasse or Berg. Fascinating findings.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 27. February 2004 04:00
I am certainly not impressed with computer simulations, which are the only two references I can immediately examine. Of course there are countless examples of gene duplication. The fact remains that there is not a single documentable instance of even speciation resulting from the most intensive form of selection of duplications or any other example of a point (base pair substitution) mutation. Such changes are either deleterious or neutral or trivial as in the case of the Peppered Moth. I am, or rather was, a bench scientist who believes that hypotheses succeed or fail when subjected to experimental test. The Darwinian model is the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. It is fundamentally atheistic which is the primary reason it still prevails. As far as theology is concerned, I have rejected metaphysics as I refuse to accept the notion that any aspect of the universe is unknowable, a position I believe I share with Albert Einstein. Science is nothing but the discovery of what is there. Mendeleef did not invent the Periodic Table, he discovered it just as Galileo discovered the Laws of Falling Bodies and the Pendulum. Newton and Einstein did the same. Everything in the universe has been prescribed and awaits our discovery. Darwin and Wallace discovered nothing. They independently dreamed up an hypothesis out of thin air. Wallace finally abandoned it completely much to his credit. I am very much aware of the significance of modern biological research. More and more it supports the concept first introduced by Leo Berg, Robert Broom and William Bateson that phylogeny has resulted, exactly as has ontogeny, from the derepression of preformed and predestined information. In short, there has been a plan. I further believe the plan has been realized which is why I have published "Is evolution finished?". I am disappointed but not surprised that it has elicited no comment from the members of this forum. Unfortunately, I am inclined to agree with George Bernard Shaw -
"Silence is the most pefect expression of scorn".
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 27. February 2004 07:46
Excuse my typo - "Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn" perfect, not pefect.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 28. February 2004 17:16
I am sorry to hear that Nosivad is not impressed by these more recent scientific findings. If in addition, Nosivad's assertion is that no evidence of speciation has been documented then I am not sure how this can be defended in light of the countless examples in this area.
That Nosivad, without much evidence, considers Darwinism to be the mostly failed hypothesis in the history of science could benefit from some additional evidence but I doubt that such an attempt would be fruitful to either evolutionary science or intelligent design.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. February 2004 08:12
I agree entirely, and regard yours as the last word on the subject.
IP: Logged
|
|
satsukikun
Member
Member # 1333
|
posted 28. June 2004 23:11
It looks like this discussion has kind of died out, but here is an interesting article about it I recently found. Worth reading I thought.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev0604.htm
Scroll down to this headline:
Angry Evolutionist Seeks to Revive Peppered Moth Story 06/25/2004
Regards,
Satsukikun
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 01. July 2004 13:23
Good point, Satsukikun.
Interesting excerpts from the link provided by you:
Originally taken from: Fiona Proffitt, “Michael Majerus Profile: In Defense of Darwin and a Former Icon of Evolution,” Science, Vol 304, Issue 5679, 1894-1895, 25 June 2004.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/304/5679/1894
"Michael Majerus [the "Angry Evolutionist [who] Seeks to Revive [the] Peppered Moth Story", from the U. of Cambridge]... had confessed that the simplified textbook story of the peppered moth was inaccurate... [However,] his tedious work on peppered moth ecology has another purpose; ammunition. Majerus is preparing to do battle. His defense is to resuscitate the reputation of Kettlewell..."
"Judith Hooper’s scathing account of the men behind the peppered moth story in her 2002 book Of Moths and Men: The Untold Story of Science and the Peppered Moth... helped fuel an anti-evolutionist campaign to remove Biston from school textbooks. “A lot of [the campaign] is pointed at the peppered moth as being the example that Darwinism is debunked,” says Majerus..."
"Jerry Coyne wrote Nature in 5 November 1998 that “for the time being, we must discard Biston as a well-understood example..."
However, Jerry Coyne "Kerryied" in his opinion: "For a later opinion by Jerry Coyne, including a link to his 1998 article, see his review of Judith Hooper’s book mentioned in the 07/05/2002 headline":
http://creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm#darwin145
Interesting comments from the site you linked:
"...it was funny when Coyne described hearing the truth about Kettlewell’s experiments was like finding out that Santa Claus was really his dad. Yes, it was damaging to learn that Kettlewell’s coworkers glued peppered moths to the trunks of trees for some of the famous photographs... this most famous example of evolution was based on flawed experiments."
"Both varieties of moths already existed. Both are members of one species, Biston betularia. The only change was in relative numbers of pre-existing dark and light moths. Kettlewell’s blunders are amusing in hindsight, but they have little to do with the real issue: Nothing evolved."
"One 60s high school biology text [wrongfully] called it [the moth issue]... “a classic example of evolution in action” (Otto and Towle, Modern Biology 1969, pp. 193-194)"
"While it is admirable that Majerus is attempting to accumulate definitive data on the little insects and their behaviors, and prove once and for all whether or not birds eat more of them on contrasting backgrounds, peppered moths are a dead issue to evolution. Like the Sioux proverb advises, the best strategy when riding a dead horse is to dismount."
"Phillip Johnson hit the nail on the head. He has written repeatedly that the problem in the creation-evolution issue is not over evidence, but rather that evolutionists are committed to a materialist philosophy before the evidence has a chance to speak. Science, to them, is no longer a search for the truth, a commitment to follow the evidence wherever it leads; it is a naturalistic philosophy that cannot stomach the thought of a Creator... the alternative, that there really is a God who made the world and the things in it, is philosophically repugnant to them. Their atheism demands a philosophy of science that can describe an unbroken chain of natural causes in a closed system. To suggest otherwise is “dangerous” [as Majerus himself openly declared it] to them because it threatens their chosen world view."
"Thus [for evolutionists] it is necessary... to keep the peppered moths in the textbooks and prevent the students from hearing the problems with the moth myth. [For evolutionists] it is necessary to “make a public stand against teaching creationism and ‘intelligent design’ in biology classes.” "
"...what is dangerous to science is dishonesty, cover-up, lack of scientific rigor, "just-so" storytelling, extrapolation, and obscurantism."
"Let’s ask Bacon, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Maxwell, Pasteur, Carver, von Braun and a few other minor players in the history of science for their opinions":
http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs.htm
Excerpts from other sites:
"...textbook authors are apparently dropping some of the icons [Jonathan] Wells criticized. Wells himself reports that the high school textbook, Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine, has dropped the peppered moth icon."
"Additionally, biologist David Dewitt, of Liberty University, reports that the newest edition of the college textbook, Molecular Biology of the Cell, has dumped at least two icons: Haeckel's embryos and Miller's origin-of-life experiment."
To see the old version of that book (1994), that still includes both "idols" of evolution:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=cell.TOC&depth=2
Within the full free books online section of the NIH (to be up-to-date in molecules, however, separate "the wheat from the tares"):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Books
Biologist Jonathan Wells, a Berkeley's Ph.D., is the author of "Icons of Evolution," and has been vindicated on multiple counts.
Jonathan Wells' book is: "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 2000, Regnery Publishing, paperback, 362 pp.
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b038.htm
A book in which:
"Jonathan Wells has news for you. Everything you were taught about evolution was wrong. Every iconic image--from the "primordial soup" to the changing colors of moths in industrial England, to the ascent of man--is, says Dr. Wells, either inconclusive, incomplete, or even outright fraudulent. Wells commands readers to sharpen their critical thinking and challenge the integrity of scientific thought, while arguing for greater honesty..." "Wells argues that the most famous case studies for evolution "no longer convey the spirit or substance of science, but have become instruments of indoctrination--the icons of evolution." These icons deserve to be toppled for the falsehoods that they are."
On 2002 Mark Hartwig declared: "Wells' book stirred up enormous controversy by pointing out that some of the most powerful "evidence" for evolution cited by textbooks is either misleading, false or-in at least one case-fraudulent. Examples include Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths, Darwin's finches, Miller's origin-of-life experiment, and others."
Hartwig further states: "The omission in the college text is particularly significant because the lead author, Bruce Alberts, is not only a noted cell biologist but also president of the National Academy of Sciences. Alberts' status may put strong pressure on other textbook authors to follow suit."
Other co-author of that book that dropped out those two biased and/or fraudulent "proofs" for evolution is John Dewey Watson, the co-discoverer of the double helix or DNA.
"Hopefully, there will be more changes to come."
"If the Darwinists stop using all of their icons and begin to take a hard look at their 'evidence,' " he said, "the end of Darwinism will be in sight."
The original report of Hartwig on "Wells Vindicated on Multiple Counts" can be seen at:
http://www.arn.org/docs/wedge/mh_wedge_020729.htm
A detailed study with links and quotations regarding evolutionary biases and frauds in the false ~98% genetic identity between chimps and men, versus the facts contrasted, can be seen in:
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=001218
[ 01. July 2004, 13:58: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. November 2004 21:51
It is my understanding and I cannot document the source, that when Kettlewell was congratulated on having finally presented evidence for Natural Selection in action, he responded as follows at least approximately. These findings have nothing to do with evolution. They are little more than the selection for one or a few genes. My view, which I share with Leo Berg, Pierre Grasse and Reginald Punnett, is that Natural Selection is now and never was a creative force but was rather a conservative element serving only to maintain the status quo. Those and other considerations are what led me to propose the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which has been presented in the Main Forum.
In any event I know of not a single documented macroevolutionary event which can implicate any role for the environment. Evolution, which is now largely finished, seems to have been driven, like ontogeny, virtually entirely by internal forces, forces which in my opinion caused the release of preformed information. The cytogenetic basis for this release is correlated with the restructuring of preexisting chromosomal information (position effects). It is my conviction that both the Darwinian and the Lamarckian models have proven to be dismal failures. It is time for a new hypothesis for organic evolution. I have offered one.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic