Someone named Granville Sewell has just posted a message on Uncommon Descent [Is ID Really Rooted in Science?]. He says,Given that the most spectacular documented successes of natural selection are: changing the color of the peppered moth and the length of the beak of the Galapagos Finch, and the development of resistance to antibiotics by bacteria, and that even these trivial examples are now all in dispute, and that no competing natural explanation for evolution has ever been taken seriously by more than a small band of scientists, where is the “overwhelming” evidence that the development of life is due to natural (unintelligent) causes alone?Hmmm ... there are only three spectacular documented examples of natural selection and all three "trivial" examples are disputed. I didn't know that. Has anyone told the textbook writers?
Natural selection is the only game in town according to Granville Sewell. No other explanations have been take seriously by more than a "small band of scientists." I didn't know that either. The textook writers need to be informed. There are entire chapers that have to be purged.
It seem no matter how much information we supply to the IDiots they refuse to listen. I know for a fact that Dembski and O'Leary have been told about other explanations. I have records of them both agreeing that there's more to evolution than just natural selection. I have written confirmation that they understand the concept of random genetic drift and why it's so incredibly important in molecular evolution.
So, let's sit back and see how long it takes them to correct their colleague. I'm gonna hold my breath 'cause it won't be long. Dembski and O'Leary are honorable people, aren't they?
3 comments :
so ID'ers have used the dissent from darwinism within science to say the theory is "in crisis" but suddenly it is just a handful of researchers
I do wish that textbooks would stop using Biston betularia (the peppered moth) as a good example of natural selection. Unfortunately, it's quite a mess.
Melanism's increased in *pigeons* and ladybirds in the same region (which is probably not a result of differential predation in the case of pigeons). There are hints that it's associated with hormonal changes that helped the moths (and pigeons I guess) breed in winter, as well as increased effect of solar energy absorption in smoky environments.
Moreover, it does appear that some of the early experiments on this were flawed in a number of ways (i.e. attaching the moths to bark instead of in the tree canopy). Michael Majerus and Judith Hooper have both written fascinating books on this topic.
However, the Galapagos finches (not just beak length! but shape too) and bacterial evolution are pretty rock solid examples though.
Other favorites of mine include the Larson and Losos work on anolis lizard body size in island populations, Dolph Schluters work on selection in fish species (Xiphophorus?), plenty of Drosophilia lab experiments...it goes on.
“Michael Majerus and Judith Hooper have both written fascinating books on this topic.”
Agree with you about the former. Definitely don’t agree with you about the latter. Every entomologist, I’ve met thinks Hooper’s book is terrible.
I know Mike Majerus is fed up with Hooper too. Here’s what he’s said:
“Hooper’s book, Of Moths and Men is so littered with errors, misrepresentations, misinterpretations and falsehoods that it is impossible to innumerate them all here. The writings of Wells and some of the other critics of the peppered moth story are similarly plagued. However, they cannot be simply dismissed, as many of the readers of these critics are not armed with the knowledge of evolutionary biology, genetics and ecological entomology necessary to perceive the errors and manipulations within these works. Their writings are lively and readable, and their arguments can be persuasive to those with limited or no training in evolutionary genetics or entomology. Furthermore, few of their readers will have the time to refer to original and review papers on the peppered moth written by those who have worked with the peppered moth, to judge the veracity of the words of people such as Hooper and Wells.”
For a fair summary of the present state of knowledge on the peppered moth (and an object lesson in how real scientific uncertainty can be distorted by IDiots), Go to Mike’s website here:
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/majerus.htm
scroll down to 'The Peppered Moth: Decline of a Darwinian Disciple' and click the Word Document link.
Post a Comment