Peppered Moth

[Furrowed Brow]

Those of you who don’t get the New Scientist here’s a bit of news.

The peppered moth has been a bone of contention in the anti evolutionary debate. Due to some flaws in the original 1950s study undertaken by a guy called Kettlewell, some dodgy staged photos in some text books, and quote mining by creationist, a persistence corrosive campaign has left Kettlewell’s study appearing - if you believe the anti evolutionist - to fall somewhere between woefully poor science or just plain down right fraud. As a direct result the peppered moth was removed from one some school text books as an example of evolution.

Well a Cambridge scientist Michael Majerus has just spent seven years redoing the study whilst removing the flaws of Kettlewell’s work. The results are in and the basic point made by Kettlewell bears out - birds do indeed eat more of the moths they can spot more easily, leaving the genes of the surviving moths, and therefore their shading characteristics to dominate a population.

As far as Majerus is concerned the anti evolutionary criticsm have been debunked and the peppered moth should be put back in the biology books.

The peppered moth story is easy to understand because it involves things that we are familiar with: vision and predation and birds and moths and pollution and camouflage and lunch and death. That is why the anti-evolution lobby attacks the peppered moth story. They are frightened that too many people will be able to understand.

1/ Has Majerus made a valid point? Do anti evolutionist want to keep easy to understand examples of evolution away from the children?

2/ Do school text books have to meet the same rigorous criteria of the research they attempt to communicate and explain. For example, for heuristic purposes is it acceptable to stage a photo showing a bird eating a moth to communicate the concepts at work, or is it a form of lying to the kiddies?

3/ For those anti evolutionist who say they accept micro evolution but not macro evolution, would you be happy for your children to now be taught about the peppered moth as an example of evolution? Even if the book contained staged photos.

[Easyrider]

Those of you who don’t get the New Scientist here’s a bit of news.

Resurrecting the Peppered Moth (Mothra Strikes Again)

The peppered moth has been a bone of contention in the anti evolutionary debate. Due to some flaws in the original 1950s study undertaken by a guy called Kettlewell, some dodgy staged photos in some text books, and quote mining by creationist, a persistence corrosive campaign has left Kettlewell’s study appearing - if you believe the anti evolutionist - to fall somewhere between woefully poor science or just plain down right fraud. As a direct result the peppered moth was removed from one some school text books as an example of evolution.

Well a Cambridge scientist Michael Majerus has just spent seven years redoing the study whilst removing the flaws of Kettlewell’s work. The results are in and the basic point made by Kettlewell bears out - birds do indeed eat more of the moths they can spot more easily, leaving the genes of the surviving moths, and therefore their shading characteristics to dominate a population.

As far as Majerus is concerned the anti evolutionary criticsm have been debunked and the peppered moth should be put back in the biology books.

The peppered moth story is easy to understand because it involves things that we are familiar with: vision and predation and birds and moths and pollution and camouflage and lunch and death. That is why the anti-evolution lobby attacks the peppered moth story. They are frightened that too many people will be able to understand.

1/ Has Majerus made a valid point? Do anti evolutionist want to keep easy to understand examples of evolution away from the children?

2/ Do school text books have to meet the same rigorous criteria of the research they attempt to communicate and explain. For example, for heuristic purposes is it acceptable to stage a photo showing a bird eating a moth to communicate the concepts at work, or is it a form of lying to the kiddies?

3/ For those anti evolutionist who say they accept micro evolution but not macro evolution, would you be happy for your children to now be taught about the peppered moth as an example of evolution? Even if the book contained staged photos.

What the Independent article fails to acknowledge is that criticism of the peppered moth experiments did not hinge on whether or not the population observations were correct. It was the experimental methodology and the conclusions that were criticized. If the population distribution evidences are correct, then this is no problem for creationists. After all, we have here an example of moths evolving into ... well, moths. This involves a rearrangement of genetic information that already was in existence. It does not involve an increase in genetic information of the kind that would be required for “molecules-to-man” evolution.

Kettlewell’s techniques were first criticized not by creationists, but by fellow evolutionists. It is alleged in Judith Hooper’s book, Of Moths and Men, that some of the famous photographs were taken by gluing dead moths to trees. This is because the moths do not tend to settle on the bark, but fly up into the canopies. A criticism of this methodology does not negate the population observations, and if Majerus now has proof that birds are eating the relevant amounts of moths, then creationists would have no problem with that.

It is noteworthy that the Independent article suggests that there were flaws with Kettlewell’s methodology. The article ought to state what these flaws were; otherwise, the accusation that “scientists at the centre of these experiments set out to prove the story irrespective of the evidence” still stands. In a scientific study, the end does not justify the means. Even if the conclusion is correct, the experiment is rendered invalid if the methodology is dishonest.

The article claims that peppered moths were “the quintessential example of Darwinism in action.” This is not correct. If true, then the peppered moth experiment is an example of natural selection (which creationists accept), not evolution. Despite the use of the term Darwinian natural selection, true natural selection merely involves the selection of attributes genetically, for example, by the environment. Natural selection does indeed happen—it can be observed. Darwinian natural selection (i.e., natural selection, for a Darwinist assuming molecules-to-man evolution), however, would require additional genetic information.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... moths-back

[Furrowed Brow]

Kettlewell’s techniques were first criticized not by creationists, but by fellow evolutionists. It is alleged in Judith Hooper’s book, Of Moths and Men, that some of the famous photographs were taken by gluing dead moths to trees. This is because the moths do not tend to settle on the bark, but fly up into the canopies. A criticism of this methodology does not negate the population observations, and if Majerus now has proof that birds are eating the relevant amounts of moths, then creationists would have no problem with that.

Interestingly it was Majerus who put the powder in this gun. His 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action addressed the floors in Kettlewell’s work. A reviewer Jerry Coyne wrote one sentence.

For the time being we must discard Biston as a well understood example of natural selection in action.

Neither Majerus nor Coyne were rubbishing Kettlewell’s work. They were just being scientifically critical in the proper sense of the word. Neither realised at the time that the creationist band wagon was about to set rolling. Hooper’s 2002 book fed off Majerus’ original and tempered criticism.

As for micro evolution v macro evolution and the creationist question regarding genetic information, we can and have argued these point out in other threads. I’m wanting this thread to concentrate on the politics of the science and I want to explore the creationist insecurities - if they exist - regarding peppered moths as examples of what gets called mircro evolution.

Would your care to take a head on crack at question 1 to 3?

[byofrcs]

.......

1/ Has Majerus made a valid point? Do anti evolutionist want to keep easy to understand examples of evolution away from the children?

2/ Do school text books have to meet the same rigorous criteria of the research they attempt to communicate and explain. For example, for heuristic purposes is it acceptable to stage a photo showing a bird eating a moth to communicate the concepts at work, or is it a form of lying to the kiddies?

3/ For those anti evolutionist who say they accept micro evolution but not macro evolution, would you be happy for your children to now be taught about the peppered moth as an example of evolution? Even if the book contained staged photos.

1) as an example it is easier to see than say pictures of the common cold or various drug resistant TB that now crop up in the UK.

2) Yes they should but no staged photos. If a particular scenario needs to be drawn then it can be done using a more modern style of graphic (which the Newscientist and the BBC uses very well to explain concepts).

3) I'm an atheist who feels macro-evolution makes more sense than what little there is in Genesis (or the rest of the Bible) and yet the UK school system is quite happy to mandate a daily act of worship of a Christian theme. I think this is a fair balance. But again there is no need for "staged photos" anywhere when graphics will work fine.