> The illustration is not far-fetched: some early workers on peppered moths
> proposed that melanism in some insects was induced directly by
> environmental pollution, which (they claimed, affected the early embryo.
> The induction hypothesis was swept aside by Darwinists after Kettlewell,
> but it still remains a theoretical possibility.
I realize you are probably taking this from somewhere in the present
discussion, but I suggest that it is convenient historical revisionism.
Assuming that you took it from someone citing Sargent et al (fide Wells?), I
suggest you consult the original for dates of the controversy (p. 302).
Sargent et al claim early support (pre-1900) for induction, I suspect much
of it was speculation. Twentieth century references are nearly all from the
1930's and before. The controversy is well documented in Sargent et al for
the 1930's, 20 years before Kettlewell published. Lambert (co-author of
Sargent et al) cites himself four times in defending experiments by Harrison
in the '20s and '30s - alone in half a century apparently (except for some
work he cites on flax induction).
It's a "theoretical possibility" that researchers have difficulty finding
resting moths because they teleport to another dimension each dawn.
Personally, I prefer things researchers can, and are, working on. "Swept
aside" is a REALLY cheap answer, Art (fide Wells again?). Are the
black-hooded Darwinist terrorist squads preventing someone from
experimenting on what at first blush looks like a straightforward hypothesis
to test? When are you going to quite whining about the overbearing evil
Darwinists and ask why your erstwhile group can't just show us the evidence?
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can do this trick deserves top billing
for showing what doesn't seem likely now. Cripes, this is Nobel stuff as
far as I'm concerned!
Don