|
Author
|
Topic: The Peppered moth and intelligent design
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 21. August 2003 00:07
Some recent new publications and articles have addressed one of the Icons of Evolution, namely the Peppered Moth. The peppered moth is a very interesting example of how natural selection and variation can explain the distribution of the moth in rural and industrial England (and beyond).
The Times Higher Education Supplement has an article named "A Wing And A Prayer" which discusses the peppered moth and quotes Mike Majerus.
Also a new addition to the Peppered Moth literature is "The Role of Photographs and Films in Kettlewell’s Popularizations of the Phenomenon of Industrial Melanism" by DAVID WŸSS RUDGE in Science & Education 12: 261–287, 2003.
and a symposium abstract by Majerus named "The Peppered Moth: decline of a Darwinian disciple"
My question is simple. If the distribution of the peppered moth can be explained by preferential bird predation, and the data strongly suggest this, is this an example of 'intelligent design'?
What if for instance a particular version of prey tastes better than another version of potential prey, is the 'selection' by predators not an example of intelligent design? Certainly there seems to be a plausible specification and as far as complexity is concerned, my example suffers from the same issues that apply to most applications of the design inference namely a non-trivial calculation. But even assuming that the design inference would reject the example as designed, would this not be an example of a false negative?
In other words, is the peppered moth an example of intelligent design in nature?
[ 21. August 2003, 00:08: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 21. August 2003 09:37
My question is simple. If the distribution of the peppered moth can be explained by preferential bird predation, and the data strongly suggest this, is this an example of 'intelligent design'?
-Pim, I have read quite alot of the back and forth on this subject, since I am planning to incorporate this example into a seminar at my church to elucidate the discussions regarding evolutionary examples. The question posed by Wells was not "Is this a product of ID." Wells states openly that this case may very well be a product of selection. The problem is that as to showing that bird predation is the primary source of selection is simplistic and perhaps erroneous which scholars have pointed out in addition to Wells. The issue is good science, not ID.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 21. August 2003 12:34
Hi Josh,
First of all, indeed the issue is 'good science'. Most researchers familiar with the peppered moth strongly suggest that differential bird predation is the major cause of the distribution of moths.
Majerus for instance
quote:
Work carried out by Kettlewell in the 1950's, which showed that bird predation played a central role in the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth, has recently been attacked by the Intelligent Design (ID) lobby. The main criticisms have related to the way that Kettlewell
performed his predation experiments. Evolutionary biologists have pointed out that a number of Kettlewell's methods (releasing moths onto abnormal resting substrates, offering moths at abnormally high densities, using moths from other regions) may have led to quantitative errors in his results. These biologists have not challenged the qualitative interpretation that differential bird predation has played a significant role in the evolution of melanism. However, opponents of Darwinian evolution have used these criticisms of this classical example of evolution in action to attack the basic theory of evolution by natural selection (e.g. Hooper 2002 Of Moths and Men; Matthews 1999 Scientists pick holes in Darwin moth theory, The Sunday Telegraph 14th March; Wells 1999, Second thoughts about peppered moths, The Scientist 24th May).
The question that I will address is whether melanism in the Peppered moth should still be regarded as an example, par excellance, of Darwinian evolution in action.
also
quote:
Recent scientific writings in respect of the Peppered moth, which have examined the detail of this classical case and have identified some of
the weaknesses in experimental techiques in Kettlewell's work, have been taken by the anti-Darwinian lobby to suggest that the rise and
fall of melanism in the Peppered moth does not provide supportive evidence of evolution by natural selection. This lobby has been extremely vocal in the media and on the Web. The arguments used are highly subjective and based on false premises, on data drawn very selectively from that available and on misquotations. It is relevant to point out here that every scientist I know who has worked on melanism in the Peppered moth in the field still regards differential predation of the morphs in different habitats as of prime importance
in the case. The critics of work on this case and those who cast doubt on its validity are, without exception, persons who have, as far as I know, never bred the moth and never conducted an experiment on it. In most cases they have probably never seen a live Peppered moth in the wild. Perhaps those who have the most intimate knowledge of this moth are the scientists who have bred it, watched it and studied it, in both the laboratory and the wild. These include, among others, the late Sir Cyril Clarke, Professors Paul Brakefield, Laurence Cook, Bruce Grant, K. Mikkola, Drs Rory Howlett, Carys Jones, David Lees, John Muggleton and myself. I believe that, without exception, it is our view that the case of melanism in the Peppered moth still stands as one of the best examples of evolution, by natural selection, in action.
From Majerus "Moths" 2002, p. 252
Grant notices
quote:
Industrial melanism in peppered moths remains one of the best documented and easiest to understand.
and
quote:
Majerus allows that the basic story is more
complicated than general accounts reveal, but it is also true that none of the complications so far
identified have challenged the role assigned to selective predation as the primary explanation for
industrial melanism in peppered moths.
In other words, the bird predation experiments by Kettlewell are good science with some known issues to be addressed. For instance birds see in UV light and Majerus has done some work to show the effect of lichens in UV light on the relative camouflage. Or take the claims that the peppered moth (never) rests of tree trunks when actual data seem to disprove this. But the overall story of bird predation being one of the major selective forces in the peppered moth remains quite strong.
But my question is more general. If bird predation is the selective factor then is this not a good example of intelligent design?
Rudge writes
quote:
It is clear from
his correspondence that Kettlewell thought he had a special moral obligation to ensure that the science was not corrupted by the media. Early on he had several bad experiences with the press misrepresenting the nature of his work. Kettlewell regularly insisted on being able to review texts of articles to ensure scientific accuracy before they were published,13 and was particularly distressed when changes were introduced after he had reviewed the alleged “final” version of the text.
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 21. August 2003 15:19
Not everyone is as optimistic. See discovery institute for further diaologue:
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=1320
Nature 396, 35 - 36 (1998); doi:10.1038/23856
Not black and white
JERRY A. COYNE
Jerry A. Coyne is in the Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, 1101 E. 57 Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA.
Melanism: Evolution in Action
by Michael E. N. Majerus Oxford University Press: 1998. 338,pp.
£55, $105 (hbk), £23.95, $45 (pbk)
Cautionary tale: the classic account of industrial melanism in the peppered moth now looks flawed.
From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong. We no longer use chromosomal polymorphism in Drosophila pseudoobscura to demonstrate heterozygous advantage, flower-colour variation in Linanthus parryae to illustrate random genetic drift, or the viceroy and monarch butterflies to exemplify Batesian mimicry. Until now
, however, the prize horse in our stable of examples has been the evolution of 'industrial melanism' in the peppered moth, Biston betularia, presented by most teachers and textbooks as the paradigm of natural selection and evolution occurring within a human lifetime. The re-examination of this tale is the centrepiece of Michael Majerus's book, Melanism: Evolution in Action. Depressingly, Majerus shows that this classic example is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention.
According to the standard textbook litany, before the mid-nineteenth century, all B. betularia in England were white moths peppered with black spots, a form called typica. Between 1850 and 1920, typica was largely replaced by a pure black form (carbonaria) produced by a single dominant allele, the frequency of which rose to nearly 100% in some areas. After 1950, this trend reversed, making carbonaria rare and typica again common. These persistent and directional changes implied natural selection. In a series of studies, this conclusion was verified by several investigators, most prominently Bernard Kettlewell of Oxford.
According to these workers, the evolution of colour was caused by birds eating the moths most conspicuous on their normal resting site — tree trunks. The increase in black moths was attributed to pollution accompanying the rise of heavy industry. A combination of soot and acid rain darkened trees by first killing the lichens that festooned them and then blackening the naked trunks. The typica form, previously camouflaged on lichens, thus became conspicuous and heavily predated, while the less visible carbonaria enjoyed protection and increased in frequency. After the passage of the Clean Air Acts in the 1950s, trees regained their former appearance, reversing the selective advantage of the morphs. This conclusion was bolstered by a geographical correlation between pollution levels and morph frequencies (carbonaria was most common in industrial areas), and most prominently by Kettlewell's famous experiments which showed that, after releasing typica and carbonaria in both polluted and unpolluted woods, researchers recaptured many more of the cryptic than of the conspicuous form. The differential predation was supported by direct observation of birds eating moths placed on trees. Finally, Kettlewell demonstrated in the laboratory that each form had a behavioural preference to settle on backgrounds that matched its colour.
Criticisms of this story have circulated in samizdat for several years, but Majerus summarizes them for the first time in print in an absorbing two-chapter critique (coincidentally, a similar analysis [Sargent et al., Evol. Biol. 30, 299-322; 1998] has just appeared). Majerus notes that the most serious problem is that B. betularia probably does not rest on tree trunks — exactly two moths have been seen in such a position in more than 40 years of intensive search. The natural resting spots are, in fact, a mystery. This alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks, where they are highly visible to bird predators. (Kettlewell also released his moths during the day, while they normally choose resting places at night.) The story is further eroded by noting that the resurgence of typica occurred well before lichens recolonized the polluted trees, and that a parallel increase and decrease of the melanic form also occurred in industrial areas of the United States, where there was no change in the abundance of the lichens that supposedly play such an important role.
quote:
Finally, the results of Kettlewell's behavioural experiments were not replicated in later studies: moths have no tendency to choose matching backgrounds. Majerus finds many other flaws in the work, but they are too numerous to list here. I unearthed additional problems when, embarrassed at having taught the standard Biston story for years, I read Kettlewell's papers for the first time.
Majerus concludes, reasonably, that all we can deduce from this story is that it is a case of rapid evolution, probably involving pollution and bird predation. I would, however, replace "probably" with "perhaps". B. betularia shows the footprint of natural selection, but we have not yet seen the feet. Majerus finds some solace in his analysis, claiming that the true story is likely to be more complex and therefore more interesting, but one senses that he is making a virtue of necessity. My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.
Occupying a quarter of the book, the Biston analysis is necessary reading for all evolutionists, as are the introductory chapters on the nature of melanism, its distribution among animals, and its proposed causes. Majerus, however, designed his book for both professional and lay readers, and this causes some unevenness in the material. The Biston story is sandwiched between less compelling chapters, including long sections on the basic principles of genetics and evolution, which can be skipped by evolutionists. Other discussions, involving melanism in ladybirds and other Lepidoptera, as well as the author's unpublished work on habitat selection, are full of technical details that will overwhelm the lay reader. Unfortunately, most of the work described is inconclusive; despite the widespread occurrence of melanism, its evolutionary significance is nearly always unknown.
What can one make of all this? Majerus concludes with the usual call for more research, but several lessons are already at hand. First, for the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution. There are many studies more appropriate for use in the classroom, including the classic work of Peter and Rosemary Grant on beak-size evolution in Galapagos finches. It is also worth pondering why there has been general and unquestioned acceptance of Kettlewell's work. Perhaps such powerful stories discourage close scrutiny. Moreover, in evolutionary biology there is little payoff in repeating other people's experiments, and, unlike molecular biology, our field is not self-correcting because few studies depend on the accuracy of earlier ones. Finally, teachers such as myself often neglect original papers in favour of shorter textbook summaries, which bleach the blemishes from complicated experiments.
It is clear that, as with most other work in evolutionary biology, understanding selection in Biston will require much more information about the animal's habits. Evolutionists may bridle at such a conclusion, because ecological data are very hard to gather. Nevertheless, there is no other way to unravel the forces changing a character. We must stop pretending that we understand the course of natural selection as soon as we have calculated the relative fitness of different traits.
[ 21. August 2003, 15:27: Message edited by: Josh ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 22. August 2003 12:30
Hi Josh,
I would caution you to rely on second hand accounts of the peppered moth or Discovery Org's presentations to make your presentation at your church. Nor is wholesale copying of copyrighted material very effective in furthering one's arguments. A much better resource is actually reading the two excellent books by Majerus on this issue "Melanism" and "Moths" in which Majerus describes the actual research. Or even Grant's Fine tuning the peppered moth paradigm
A great Website that catalogues the "controversy" has some good links to Grant's and Coyne's responses.
Majerus recently re-addressed some of the issues
quote:
In 1998, Oxford University Press published my book Melanism: Evolution in Action, which details the complex evolutionary ecology of industrial melanism. Jerry Coyne reviewed the book in the journal Nature. His article was in essence favourable. But Coyne's main message was that "for the time being we must discard the peppered moth as a well-understood example of natural selection in action". I did not recognise this as a review of my book and I had certainly not made such a claim.
Coyne's review, and a follow-up article in The Sunday Telegraph became grist for the creationists' mill. This culminated in last year's publication of Judith Hooper's Of Moths and Men: Intrigue, Tragedy and the Peppered Moth. This book purports to give the untold story of the humble creature's rise to fame. But it does not.
What it gives is an ill-informed, quasi scientific, subjective potted history of the peppered moth story, undermined throughout by Hooper's relentless, unfounded suspicion of fraud, aimed at Kettlewell and his mentor, E. B. Ford.
Coyne's 'review' of Majerus is in some ways quite inaccurate as are accounts by Discovery and its contributors that "the peppered moth never/rarely rests on (exposed) tree trunks".
So let me caution against refering only to book reviews and socio-political organizations for one's seminar. Good examples of the effect inaccurate science may have on religious faith can be found among formal YEC'ers. See for instance Glenn Morton's story or the transformation of a Young-Earth creationist
Now back to the peppered moth. A vaste majority of those researchers who have worked with peppered moths and studied them (Coyne and the Discovery Institute hardly qualify as experts here), have indicated that they consider bird predation to be one of the major factors explaining the spatial and temporal distribution of the peppered moth.
From Majerus latest
quote:
The only question that remains is whether Tutt's bird predation hypothesis is sound. All the experimental work to date suggests that it is.
Kettlewell's work, and eight other independent studies, all point to bird predation as the main factor in the rise and fall of the black peppered moth.
I have studied peppered moths for 40 years, have found more in the wild than any other person alive, and have read more than 200 scientific papers on the case. My conclusion is simple - this is still a perfect illustration of evolution by natural selection.
And to return to my original question: Is the peppered moth a good example of intelligent design if the major causal factor is bird predation?
I also came across Arthur Lodge's website in which Wells and Ian Musgrave explore and rebut some of the arguments and myths surrounding the peppered moth.
A recent paper by Majerus shows the effects of UV on the visibility of peppered moths against various backgrounds.
Majerus, M.E.N., Brunton, C.F.A. & Stalker, J. (2000) A bird's eye view of the peppered moth. J. Evol. Biol., 13, 155-159
And a new Wiki website on the peppered moth.
[ 22. August 2003, 12:42: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Foster
Member
Member # 79
|
posted 22. August 2003 19:18
Hi Pim:
quote:
And to return to my original question: Is the peppered moth a good example of intelligent design if the major causal factor is bird predation?
I don't understand the question. How might moth morphs under selection be an example of intelligent design? Are you asking a serious question?
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 22. August 2003 22:01
Hi Jack (don't try this on a plane :-) )
I am serious in that I can think of many examples in which the behavior of intelligent organisms can be held responsible (partially) for natural selection. In other words, can the environment be seen as similar to 'intelligent design' or perhaps even equivalent?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Foster
Member
Member # 79
|
posted 23. August 2003 22:16
Pim wrote:
quote:
I am serious in that I can think of many examples in which the behavior of intelligent organisms can be held responsible (partially) for natural selection. In other words, can the environment be seen as similar to 'intelligent design' or perhaps even equivalent?
I agree that intelligent predators are a part of the environment of populations. I don't think that this fact is an example of intelligent design since there is no intelligent intent to shape evolution through predation. Intelligent design can and does happen on the selection side of the ledger, and we call that form of ID artificial selection.
I have no problem with the notion that information can be imparted to a population through the environment via natural selection. I just don't think any and all information can be transferred irregardless of the nature of the variation available to selection. In my opinion, the key to evolvability is the nature of variation; not selection.
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 24. August 2003 07:44
There are something like 4 forms of insularia (intermediate color) between the typica and carbonaria forms. It would be interesting running through Dembski's filter the odds of getting billions of moths at billions of a points on a map to vary their color to match the specification of the pollution distribution from human cities.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 24. August 2003 14:07
Jack :
I agree that intelligent predators are a part of the environment of populations. I don't think that this fact is an example of intelligent design since there is no intelligent intent to shape evolution through predation.
The question however is, can the design inference differentiate between intent or not? I would argue that it does not deal in intent and thus would be succeptible to such false positives.
Jack: I have no problem with the notion that information can be imparted to a population through the environment via natural selection.
Thus CSI could in principle increase without the need of intelligence? That seems to go against Dembski's 4th law although it may be that Dembski's 4th law applies only to closed systems and in open systems intelligent designers as well as the environment can freely inject CSI.
Jack: I just don't think any and all information can be transferred irregardless of the nature of the variation available to selection. In my opinion, the key to evolvability is the nature of variation; not selection.
Variation without selection, neutral evolution may indeed be an important contributor to evolvability as has been shown for RNA networks for instance. But key innovations require selectable variation to happen. The exciting research in scale free networks, gene duplication, neutral evolution etc may help us understand the 'missing link'.
Yersinia asks an interesting question, what would Dembski's design inference filter do?
[ 24. August 2003, 14:10: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 27. August 2003 10:08
Coyne's 'review' of Majerus is in some ways quite inaccurate as are accounts by Discovery and its contributors that "the peppered moth never/rarely rests on (exposed) tree trunks".
So let me caution against refering only to book reviews and socio-political organizations for one's seminar. Good examples of the effect inaccurate science may have on religious faith can be found among formal YEC'ers. See for instance Glenn Morton's story or the transformation of a Young-Earth creationist
Perhaps you need to think more critically about this example. Majerus does not represent the sole authority on the issue regardless of who has what opinion. As for Coyne's book review, let me remind you of Coyne's own claim:
I unearthed additional problems when, embarrassed at having taught the standard Biston story for years, I read Kettlewell's papers for the first time.
So, either these people are all incompetent and only Majerus, yourself and whoever you agree with are competent or they have legitimate concerns. Most importantly, the use of this example in the class is not to deny evolution its due and disprove the moth story. That is a simplistic and pointless exercise (and I wonder why you would assume that this would be my goal from the simple statement I made that I would be presenting this example at my church.) The real point is to reveal the biases and nature of the evolution debates and to see firsthand how whatever one reads from some so-called "expert" is often not the final and only word on the issue and should not be accepted as such. You are welcome to disagree, and announce that only protagonists of evolution are correct and worth hearing, but that is your opinion most likely bolstered by your worldview more than the actual science involved.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 28. August 2003 14:11
Josh's response is somewhat puzzling. When I point out that Coyne's review of Majerus and the Discovery's institute's second/third hand reviews of the peppered moth story are inaccurate Josh tells me to think more critically and suggests that there are more researchers than Majerus who have studied the peppered moth. Indeed, I am quite aware of this fact, and I am wondering if Josh has taken Coyne's suggestion to read Kettlewell's original papers, Grant's contributions (Sour grapes of wrath and Fine tuning the peppered moth paradigm, Majerus' books (Moths and Melanism) and recent symposium publication , Clarke and other relevant research?
Majerus however remains one of the foremost experts on the peppered moth and his contributions to the understanding of the peppered moth issue deserve a careful and accurate representation.
Thus when Josh suggests that "So, either these people are all incompetent and only Majerus, yourself and whoever you agree with are competent or they have legitimate concerns. " he seems to be creating a strawman and a slight ad hominem by suggesting that only those who agree with me are competent. Competency is determined by correlating people's contributions and statements with known facts which leads me to caution Josh in using Coyne's review of Majerus or Discovery Institute's arguments on the peppered moth since they seem to not correlate very well with what most of the experts agree upon. Of course there are legitimate concerns about details of the peppered moth and such concerns have been raised by Majerus and others.
quote:
Work carried out by Kettlewell in the 1950's, which showed that bird predation played a central role in the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth, has recently been attacked by the Intelligent Design (ID) lobby. The main criticisms have related to the way that Kettlewell
performed his predation experiments. Evolutionary biologists have pointed out that a number of Kettlewell's methods (releasing moths onto abnormal resting substrates, offering moths at abnormally high densities, using moths from other regions) may have led to quantitative errors in his results. These biologists have not challenged the qualitative interpretation that differential bird predation has played a significant role in the evolution of melanism. However, opponents of Darwinian evolution have used these criticisms of this classical example of evolution in action to attack the basic theory of evolution by natural selection (e.g. Hooper 2002 Of Moths and Men; Matthews 1999 Scientists pick holes in Darwin moth theory, The Sunday Telegraph 14th March; Wells 1999, Second thoughts about peppered moths, The Scientist 24th May).
The question that I will address is whether melanism in the Peppered moth should still be regarded as an example, par excellance, of Darwinian evolution in action.
From: Mike Majerus (Cambridge): The Peppered Moth: decline of a Darwinian disciple
But to suggest that "Since biologists have known since the 1980s that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks, not to tell students that the pictures were staged (in many cases by gluing or pinning dead moths to desired backgrounds) constitutes as clear a case of scientific fraud as any on record." is purely rethoric and has no scientific value or contributes in any useful manner to the discussion of the peppered moth.
My point was that by quoting from publications which do not accurately represent the full story one runs the risk of undermining people's religious faith. Since you said you were going to present your case to your church I added my words of caution.
Quickly browsing via google reveals many religious websites titled "The Hoax of the Peppered Moth" "Goodbye, peppered moths" , "Evolutionists and the Moth Myth" all uncritically rejecting the peppered moth story.
If Josh objects to me using established researchers of the peppered moth as experts and faults what he believes to be my worldview for doing such, then surely he has created a beautiful strawman which only superficially resembles my statements.
[ 28. August 2003, 14:15: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 28. August 2003 17:16
Pim,
You've illustrated my point beautifully.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 28. August 2003 18:50
Josh, you're welcome although I am not sure what point you are refering to.
Anyway, there are a few more interesting articles to be found
Shapiro reviews Hooper's "Of moths and men" mentioning Sargent et al's alternative view of the peppered moth.
PAINT IT BLACK Arthur M. Shapiro, Evolution: Vol. 56, No. 9, pp. 1885–1886.
quote:
Kettlewell's most persistent critic, the American Ted Sargent, advances a complex model of industrial melanism whereby environmental factors modulate gene expression. It is plausible but highly unparsimonious, and therefore the burden of persuasion is on Sargent. He shows little interest in testing it empirically himself. Hooper tries half-heartedly to make Sargent the “hero” of the book—but he comes across as a classic square peg in a round hole, a man with as many personal “issues” as the Oxonians, and no more sympathetic. The matter is not helped by a sappy story involving Sargent and a supposed “mockingbird death song” (p. 257) which is intended to show us what a keen observer he is.
And of course Bryan Clarke's review of same book
Bryan Clarke, The art of innuendo Heredity (2003) 90, 279–280.
Compare this with the following webpage EVOLUTIONISTS AND THE MOTH MYTH and it's easy to appreciate the dangers of making scientific claims related to religious issues.
quote:
But, there is still no evidence whatever for macroevolution or the introduction of new information into the genetic system of any basic kind of organism, including the famous moth. Evolution has always been nothing but a pagan myth.
Remarkable how the webpage does not seem to mention any of the other researchers of the Peppered moth other than Sargent. Fascinating material.
Ah, they do mention Maj-erus "Cambridge lepidopterist, Michael Maj-erus, in his book, Melanism: Evolution in Action "left no doubt that the classic story was wrong in almost every detail" (Hooper, p. 283). Yet, amazingly, he still believed the basic story of the shift in coloration of the peppered moth as caused by bird predation and natural selection. "
An actual reading of Majerus would have helped the author understand the context of the statement. Relying on the mining of second hand or third hand scientific references seems to easily doom one's arguments to inaccuracy and strawmen.
[ 28. August 2003, 20:23: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 25. February 2004 07:28
When Kettlewell was congratulated for finally demonstrating natural selection, I understand that he responded by saying that industrial melanism was due to nothing more than selection for one or a few genes. Is that evolution? I, for one, don't think so.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic