Best evidence for neo-Darwinian NS?
david ford
natural selection is:
the changes in percentages of peppered moth populations having dark
vs. light coloration?
the changes in finch beak shape and size in the Galapagos Islands?
the changes observed in the lab in fruit fly populations?
what?
Bobby D. Bryant
Theories aren't about proofs. Theories are attempts to explain what we
observe.
Have you got a better explanation than the ToE?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is the scientific theory of creation. How, if any
way, can we test that theory using the scientific method?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Severian
The best evidence for your alleged god's contribution to the creation
is:
the changes in percentages of creationists having young vs. old
trappings?
the changes in flood depth between biblical accounts and mountain
heights?
the changes observed in creationist populations?
what?
--
Sev
Richard Forrest
In 'The Origin of the Species' Darwin goes into exhaustive detail on
the evidence for natural selection. It's still worth making the effort
to read it.
RF
howard hershey
You mean evidence that naturual selection occurs? All of them. And
many other experiments and observations. Collectively, the weight of
evidence that the environment is capable of discriminating among
existing genetic variants on the basis of their effects on phenotype is
overwhelming as measured by the metric of reproductive success. Even
the "exceptions to the rule", like selection for the peacock's tail or
deer's antlers or selection for frequency dependent traits turn out to
be evidence for natural selection. Do you have any evidence that the
environment doesn't do this? Do you have any evidence that the
environment creates variations? What alternative hypothesis are you
proposing?
PeteM
>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:41:06 +0000, david ford wrote:
>
>> The best evidence for the alleged creative powers of neo-Darwinian
>> natural selection is:
>> the changes in percentages of peppered moth populations having dark
>> vs. light coloration?
>> the changes in finch beak shape and size in the Galapagos Islands?
>> the changes observed in the lab in fruit fly populations?
>> what?
>
>Theories aren't about proofs. Theories are attempts to explain what we
>observe.
He probably knows this, since he used the word "evidence". It was you
who introduced the word "proof", apparently for the purpose of shooting
it down.
>
>Have you got a better explanation than the ToE?
>
What does the theory say? Does it claim that natural selection acting on
genotypic variation was the cause of *all* evolutionary changes in
populations throughout prehistory? Or just that of *some* such changes?
--
PeteM
mel turner
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
>
>The best evidence for the alleged creative powers of neo-Darwinian
>natural selection is:
That we observe it occurring, in both the lab and the wild?
>the changes in percentages of peppered moth populations having dark
>vs. light coloration?
That's just one illustration.
>the changes in finch beak shape and size in the Galapagos Islands?
That's another.
>the changes observed in the lab in fruit fly populations?
That's another. The bacterial examples like the nylonase genes
is another likely one.
>what?
All of the above, and many similar examples.
Oh, and the patterns of shared traits among related organisms
that show how the various adaptative features we see will
have arisen by gradual, small steps from common ancestral forms.
cheers
Andy Groves
No, just some of the changes.
Andy
Andy Groves
No, just some of the changes.
Andy
Andy Groves
No, just some of the changes.
Andy
Frank J
He is not proposing an alternative hypothesis, and he knows it. If
this were an audience where most members were clueless as to the
tactics of pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists, I would say that he
was pulling the usual trick of implying that evidence of NS claims to
be evidence for everything from abiogenesis to common descent. But
most people who browse this NG are familiar with the tactics. So
what's the point other than, perhaps trying to ridicule
anti-evolutionists?
Al Klein
>The best evidence for the alleged creative powers of neo-Darwinian
>natural selection is:
.... the fact that intelligent parents produced an offspring like you,
totally lacking in intelligence.
Just think - if lack of intelligence ever becomes an advantage, your
descendants will rule the world.
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean anything bad by insinuating that you should
think.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
Von Smith
I wasn't aware that natural selection alone was alleged to have
creative powers. Are you asking about just selection, or the entire
model, which includes mutations?
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04021...@posting.google.com>...
> > The best evidence for the alleged creative powers of neo-Darwinian
> > natural selection is:
> > the changes in percentages of peppered moth populations having dark
> > vs. light coloration?
> > the changes in finch beak shape and size in the Galapagos Islands?
> > the changes observed in the lab in fruit fly populations?
> > what?
>
> I wasn't aware that natural selection alone was alleged to have
> creative powers.
I didn't say it did.
> Are you asking about just selection, or the entire
> model, which includes mutations?
Of your 2 choices, I'd say [VS]"the entire model, which includes
mutations."
For a longer discussion, see
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
aka
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
david ford
> david ford wrote:
>
> > The best evidence for the alleged creative powers of neo-Darwinian
> > natural selection is:
> > the changes in percentages of peppered moth populations having dark
> > vs. light coloration?
> > the changes in finch beak shape and size in the Galapagos Islands?
> > the changes observed in the lab in fruit fly populations?
> > what?
>
> What, if anything, is the scientific theory of creation. How, if any
> way, can we test that theory using the scientific method?
What do you mean by [LF]"scientific" in the phrase [LF]"the scientific
theory of creation"?
R.Schenck
ford) wrote:
>"\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote in message news:<402ebd87$1...@corp.newsgroups.com>...
>> david ford wrote:
>>
>> > The best evidence for the alleged creative powers of neo-Darwinian
>> > natural selection is:
>> > the changes in percentages of peppered moth populations having dark
>> > vs. light coloration?
>> > the changes in finch beak shape and size in the Galapagos Islands?
>> > the changes observed in the lab in fruit fly populations?
>> > what?
>>
>> What, if anything, is the scientific theory of creation. How, if any
>> way, can we test that theory using the scientific method?
>
>What do you mean by [LF]"scientific" in the phrase [LF]"the scientific
>theory of creation"?
i think that says it all doesn't it??
Jack Crenshaw
Richard Forrest wrote:
You mean like the part where he analogizes the "natural selection" of
intelligent-design dog breeders?
Yeah, boy, _THAT_ was convincing.
Jack
Ian Braidwood
Interesting that your should chose the evidences you do, especially
since the first predates the new synthesis, which created
neoDarwinism.
Of course, what you really want us to do is boil all our evidence down
so that you can say 'is that all?' and reject it. Well knowledge only
boils down so far and I am so bored with giving answers to irrational
Christians that I'm not willing to do your work any longer.
Given that I had no choice but to study the Bible, why don't you read
On the Origin of Species? Rationality demands that you read the pro,
as well as the con.
This onerous task might of course, rob you of as much as an entire
week of your precious life. You might even suffer muscle strain
holding the book up, but at least your criticisms might actually have
something to do with the theory, rather than flap around uselessly,
like a windsock in a gale.
More importantly, you will come to appreciate just how deep Darwin's
knowledge of life was. That he didn't propose Natural Selection just
to upset a load of mindless bigots, but to further human
understanding.
Perhaps then you will learn respect, for us and for yourself.
(-: Ian :-)
Seppo Pietikainen
Jack, what seems to be the problem? Dog breeding for *artificial* reasons
has been a big business for a couple of centuries now. Natural selection
just works on different principles. *Human* selection picks up specific ears,
specific hair, specific eyes, specific pelt color, etc. ad infinitum.
Natural selection picks us features that assist that dog (wolf, coyote,
whatever) family to manage better, with more offspring, *right now*.
Seppo P.
david ford
Absolutely, yes, [RS]"that says it all."
Floyd
I wouldn't even say these are different principles. Human
"artificial" selection, on dogs, various species of grasses, cows,
sheep, pigs, chickens, etc. etc. etc. *is* selecting characteristics
that will allow the organism to have more offspring. Sure, we have
often chosen characteristics that would be disadvantageous to the
organism if it lived in an environment that didn't contain humans.
But that's just restating the obvious point that selection is
environment-specific. Change the environment (to include/exclude a
resource, a competitor, or a predator) and the beneficial
characteristics change.
Jack's comment is off-base mainly because he is over-emphasising the
ability of humans to operate with foresight. We can, through forced
matings, favor some characteristics in dogs for a few generations, but
there is no way for us to predict the long-term effects of our
actions. In the future, we might have dogs the size of mice, for
example, bred specifically as companions for people who live in small
apartments. There is no way that the first people to tame wolves
could possibly have imagined that scenario, and yet it is a direct
result of their actions.
Put it another way. About 10KYA, someone in Southwest Asia throught
that maybe they could eat some of those funny seeds, and if they
brought some home, a garden full of them might tide the family over
when the antilope hunt didn't go well. As a result of that person's
first cultivation of wild wheat, you and I can converse over the
internet. The first cultivator couldn't have predicted a
telecommunications corporation laying a T1 down the middle of the
street a block from my house, but if wheat hadn't been cultivated,
that event might never have happened. In the meantime, wheat
cultivation allowed populations to grow so substantially that
ultimately, the cultivators filled up their available environments and
had to migrate, ultimately across the Atlantic, where they found
previously unknown (to them) continents where a similar process was
already underway. If wheat had not been cultivated, it's quite
possible that the maize-based agricultural societies of Mexico could
have expanded eastwards, and we'd be conversing in Aztecan.
The analogy to deliberate breeding is actually stronger than most
people realise, because like nature, humans can not predict the
long-term repercussions of their selection. Our behaviours seem
"deliberate" when viewed up close, but in the long term, we can not
bias selection in advantageous directions any more than "mindless"
nature can.
/rant
-Floyd
Chris Krolczyk
So you think that Schenk's comment is accurate, then?
He *does* seem to be taking issue with your apparent
inability to understand what the word "scientific"
means, so your response seems a bit...off.
-Chris Krolczyk
Richard Forrest
Please don't embaras yourself by demonstrating that you have not read
the book you are criticising.
RF
david ford
david ford:
> >The best evidence for the alleged creative powers of
> >neo-Darwinian natural selection is:
>
> That we observe it occurring, in both the lab and the wild?
What is [mt]"it"? The [df]"creative powers of
neo-Darwinian natural selection"?
> >the changes in percentages of peppered moth populations
> >having dark vs. light coloration?
>
> That's just one illustration.
When you learned the classic peppered moth story had
serious flaws, did you have a reaction similar to Coyne's,
Coyne revealing, [Coyne]"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."?
Do you agree with Coyne that the classic peppered moth
story [Coyne]"is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for
the glue factory, needs serious attention"?
Are you aware of anyone that, like Coyne, became
[Coyne]"embarrassed at having taught the standard _Biston_
story for years"?
Do you agree with Coyne that the field of evolutionary
biology [Coyne]"is not self-correcting"?
If "yes," do you think creationists serve a useful role in
pointing out areas in the field of evolutionary biology
needing correction?
What are 2 classic stories about which criticisms in
evolutionist circles [Coyne]"have circulated in samizdat for
several years" without the criticisms yet surfacing openly?
Besides the instances mentioned below, what are 3 instances
where [Coyne]"evolutionists re-examine[d] a classic
experimental study and find [found], to their horror, that it is
flawed or downright wrong"?
Coyne, Jerry A. 1998. "Not black and white" _Nature_
396:35-36. This is a book review of _Melanism: Evolution
in Action_ by Michael E. N. Majerus (Oxford University
Press: 1998), 338pp. From Coyne's review, including the
last 5 paragraphs:
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 reexamination 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,.... 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).
....
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.
> >the changes in finch beak shape and size in
> >the Galapagos Islands?
>
> That's another.
>
> >the changes observed in the lab in fruit fly populations?
>
> That's another. The bacterial examples like the nylonase
> genes is another likely one.
Very likely? Moderately likely? What conceivable data or
observation would make your [mt]"is another likely one"
simply "is another one"?
> >what?
>
> All of the above, and many similar examples.
>
> Oh, and the patterns of shared traits among related
> organisms that show how the various adaptative features
> we see will have arisen by gradual, small steps from
> common ancestral forms.
Is it possible for [mt]"related organisms" to have traits that
are not-[mt]"shared"?
Is it possible for organisms that are not-[mt]"related" to have
traits that are [mt]"shared"?
How can [mt]"patterns of shared traits among related
organisms" demonstrate that traits or [mt]"adaptative
features" arose in [mt]"gradual, small steps," and not in
sudden, large steps?
I am a creationist/ intelligentdesignist. What are the two
very best lines of evidence you have from:
a) observations in the laboratory, and
b) observations in the field or by breeders
that support your position in the creation vs. evolution
controversy?
For more Coyne, see
1992 Orr & Coyne on Fisher
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970329001049.19794A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1992 _American Naturalist_ paper by Orr & Coyne
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980614220859.6338A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
> cheers
Cheers.
R.Schenck
(Chris Krolczyk) wrote:
>dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04022...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> "R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<arbi30hjedk77u5a8...@4ax.com>...
>
>> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:27:29 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
>> > ford) wrote:
>
>> > >What do you mean by [LF]"scientific" in the phrase [LF]"the scientific
>> > >theory of creation"?
>> >
>> > i think that says it all doesn't it??
>>
>> Absolutely, yes, [RS]"that says it all."
>
>So you think that Schenk's comment is accurate, then?
>He *does* seem to be taking issue with your apparent
>inability to understand what the word "scientific"
>means, so your response seems a bit...off.
>
>-Chris Krolczyk
i guess he agrees that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
howard hershey
david ford wrote:
> mel turner <mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> on 15 Feb 2004: david
> ford:
>
>
>>> The best evidence for the alleged creative powers of
>>> neo-Darwinian natural selection is:
>>
>> That we observe it occurring, in both the lab and the wild?
>
>
> What is [mt]"it"? The [df]"creative powers of neo-Darwinian natural
> selection"?
>
>
>>> the changes in percentages of peppered moth populations having
>>> dark vs. light coloration?
>>
>> That's just one illustration.
>
>
> When you learned the classic peppered moth story had serious flaws,
And what, exactly, are those serious flaws? And why are they 'serious'
flaws? Which *parts* of the the original story are in question, and,
equally important, which parts are not?
> did you have a reaction similar to Coyne's, Coyne revealing,
> [Coyne]"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."?
No.
> Do you agree with Coyne that the classic peppered moth story
> [Coyne]"is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue
> factory, needs serious attention"?
Some aspects of the story may need re-examination. Not all of it.
> Are you aware of anyone that, like Coyne, became [Coyne]"embarrassed
> at having taught the standard _Biston_ story for years"?
>
> Do you agree with Coyne that the field of evolutionary biology
> [Coyne]"is not self-correcting"?
No. And notice that he himself has said "From time to time,
evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study..." and find it
"flawed or downright wrong." What is re-examining past studies and
correcting it if it turns out to be wrong but a "self-correcting" process?
> If "yes," do you think creationists serve a useful role in pointing
> out areas in the field of evolutionary biology needing correction?
No. No *recent* creationist has ever served a useful role in pointing
out areas in the field of evolutionary biology that need correction.
Evolutionarily trained biologists have.
> What are 2 classic stories about which criticisms in evolutionist
> circles [Coyne]"have circulated in samizdat for several years"
> without the criticisms yet surfacing openly?
> Besides the instances mentioned below, what are 3 instances where
> [Coyne]"evolutionists re-examine[d] a classic experimental study and
> find [found], to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong"?
>
The below is not an excerpt of the molehill David wants to hype into a
mountain. It is *almost* the entire article. Interestingly, and
tellingly, the only part deleted by elipsis ("According to the standard
textbook litany,....") is where Coyne specifies *exactly* what it is
that he regards as the problem with the standard textbook litany.
> Coyne, Jerry A. 1998. "Not black and white" _Nature_ 396:35-36.
> This is a book review of _Melanism: Evolution in Action_ by Michael
> E. N. Majerus (Oxford University Press: 1998), 338pp. From Coyne's
> review, including the last 5 paragraphs: From time to time,
> evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to
> their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong.
Notice that he said "From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a
classic experimental study..." and then actually modify the results and
interpretations of results when these are found to be "flawed or
downright wrong." That constitutes a major difference between what
scientists do and what creationists do. Creationists repeat lies that
were known to be lies originally and only give up on them in forums
where they would be embarrasing to maintain. They will continue to
repeat those lies to the gullible.
> We no longer use chromosomal polymorphism in _Drosophila
> pseudoobscura_ to demonstrate heterozygous advantage,
Does that mean that science now questions the existence of "heterozygous
advantage"? I rather doubt it.
> flower-colour variation in _Linanthus parryae_ to illustrate random
> genetic drift,
Does that mean that science now questions the existence of "random
genetic drift"? I rather doubt it.
> or the viceroy and monarch butterflies to exemplify Batesian mimicry.
>
Does that mean that science now questions whether "Batesian mimicry"
ever occurs? I rather doubt it.
> 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 reexamination 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.
So, why do you think Coyne says that this classic example (and of what)
is "not yet ready for the glue factory"? Which parts does he consider
to be solid and which parts need "serious attention"?
> According to the standard textbook litany,....
Let's add the "standard textbook litany":
http://rnaworld.bio.ukans.edu/Evolve/links/Coyne/Coyne_review(1998)Nature396,35.html
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). ....
> Finally, the results of Kettlewell's behavioural experiments were not
> replicated in later studies: moths have no tendency to choose
> matching backgrounds.
And, why, exactly, is this a "serious flaw" in the story? I would think
that finding that moths *did* have a tendency to choose matching
backgrounds would be more problematical to the classic interpretation,
wouldn't you?
> 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.
This is the same Majerus, who wrote in that work:
To quote Majerus (p. 116): "In my view,the huge wealth of additional
data obtained since Kettlewell's initial predation papers does not
undermine the basic qualitative deductions from that work. Differential
bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected
by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence
on evolution of melanism in the peppered moth". These critics merely
argued that other factors, such as thermal ecological effects of the
same genes, might be involved as well, and might explain some of the
scatter around the overall geographic and temporal trends in the
evolution of melanism.
Taken from:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/mallet.cfm
> 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.
And, if all we can deduce "is that this is a case of rapid evolution,
probably involving pollution and bird predation", this would be a
"serious flaw" in the idea that here we have a case of rapid evolution
probably involving pollution and differential bird predation in what way?
Natural selection involves a change in population allele frequency as a
consequence of differential selection among phenotypes. So exactly how
does the questioning of whether *all* the differential selection and
allele change is a consequence of differential bird predation amount to
a "serious flaw" in the idea that this is an example of natural selection?
> 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.
Because they already know these basic principles.
> 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.
I would say that it still is an example of natural selection, even if we
do not have all the details specified wrt *all* the causitive agencies
and processes involved. The rate of change in allele frequency is too
rapid and too highly correlated with a particular environmental change
(pollution) to be due to the only other known mechanism of allele
frequency change over time -- neutral drift. Clearly no biologist
thinks that pollution and bird predation played no role at all (it is
still the most likely major culprit, and both Majerus and Coyne would
agree on this), even if creationists would like to pretend that bird
predation related to pollution are completely without effect and are
unrelated to the observed allele frequency change over time.
I would not say that it is an example of *evolution*, since the primary
event in evolution is speciation. It is, rather, an example of the
types of changes that *could* lead to speciation.
> 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.
I disagree, and, if Coyne had thought for a second about the examples of
re-examined experiments he mentioned up above (chromosomal differences
in Drosophilids, flower color variation, and Batesean mimicry in
butterflies) he would realize that evolution is no more immune to
self-correction than many other fields (including molecular biology and
immunology).
> 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.
So, exactly why would this "information about the animal's habits"
resolve the questions posed? It certainly wouldn't if something other
than natural selection (which involves the interaction of the organism
in its environment) were involved, would it?
> 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.
So Coyne proposes more research that would more convincingly demonstrate
what the major selective factor(s) were. BFD.
>>> the changes in finch beak shape and size in the Galapagos
>>> Islands?
>>
>> That's another.
>>
>>
>>> the changes observed in the lab in fruit fly populations?
>>
>> That's another. The bacterial examples like the nylonase genes is
>> another likely one.
>
>
> Very likely? Moderately likely? What conceivable data or
> observation would make your [mt]"is another likely one" simply "is
> another one"?
Let's see. Bacteria growing in nylon wastes are the only ones that
generated nylonase activity. And nylonase activity is a consequence of
a mutational change in a pre-existing gene. Mutations of this type
(frameshifts) are clearly non-random wrt need. So what alternative,
supported by evidence, do you have to the idea that this is a case of a
random mutation producing an enzymatic activity that happened in an
environment where that activity was useful, leading to selection for
bacteria with this variant?
>>> what?
>>
>> All of the above, and many similar examples.
>>
>> Oh, and the patterns of shared traits among related organisms that
>> show how the various adaptative features we see will have arisen by
>> gradual, small steps from common ancestral forms.
>
>
> Is it possible for [mt]"related organisms" to have traits that are
> not-[mt]"shared"? Is it possible for organisms that are
> not-[mt]"related" to have traits that are [mt]"shared"?
Examples of horizontal transfer of information do occur (more often in
procaryotes than eucaryotes, but, in both cases usually only between
relatively closely related species). Most evolutionary change must be
vertical or we would not observe the pattern of DNA sequence changes and
morphology that are observed (the evidence for common descent).
>
> How can [mt]"patterns of shared traits among related organisms"
> demonstrate that traits or [mt]"adaptative features" arose in
> [mt]"gradual, small steps," and not in sudden, large steps?
The pattern of *shared* (or modified) traits is largely inconsistent
with large steps. Surely you are not talking about the *shared* traits
of organisms, but the traits that appear to be major *differences*
between living species.
> I am a creationist/ intelligentdesignist. What are the two very best
> lines of evidence you have from: a) observations in the laboratory,
> and b) observations in the field or by breeders that support your
> position in the creation vs. evolution controversy?
a) The observation that mutations can change phenotypes (either by small
increments or by larger steps) and that the environment can distinguish
between phenotypes and favors the phenotype that is more reproductively
successful in that environment. And the observation that allele
frequencies without selective effect appear to change in a pattern
consistent with neutral drift.
And, conversely, the complete lack of any observation of the
supernatural 'creation' of entirely new genes or organisms from scratch
or by instantaneous poofing in any laboratory experiment. Even when
that result is sincerely prayed for.
b) The observation that organisms in the field and even in breeder's
hands have substantial genetic variation potential. Enough so that
under artificial selection conditions (where man substitutes his
judgement about what phenotype is desirable for the natural
environment's judgement), one can rapidly produce bulldogs, chihuahuas,
dachshunds, toy poodles, Russian wolfhounds, bull terriers, and Great Danes.
And conversly, the absence of any evidence of any of these changes or
existing variations happening in either the field or by breeders via
supernatural poofing.
But to turn the question around, what are the two very best lines of
material evidence you have from: a) observations in the laboratory, and
b) observations in the field or by breeders that *supports* *your*
position [the creation side] in the creation vs. evolution controversy?
Notice that I am asking for material evidence that *supports* your
position. Not argues against mine.