It is simply not true that textbook authors have not taken steps to improve
student understanding of the moth data. On my website below, please look at
entry 8.3e for Kenneth Miller's comments which he supplies for his students
in conjunction with Chapter 14 of his textbook. Entry 8.3d is a
comprehensive review of Wells' book.
Jim Hofmann
Philosophy Department and Liberal Studies Program
California State University Fullerton
http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web
-----Original Message-----
From: RDehaan237@aol.com
To: kbmill@ksu.edu; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: 5/17/2001 3:46 AM
Subject: Re: Johnson and "Icons"
In a message dated 5/15/01 9:31:01 PM, kbmill@ksu.edu writes:
<< Again, Wells' critique of the work on evolutionary change in the
peppered
moth was not his own but substantially drawn from the work of Michael
Majerus (Melanism: Evolution in Action" by Michael E.N. Majerus: Oxford
University Press,1998). Please read this book! >>
Keith,
Your criticism that Well's critique is not his own work is beside the
point
and irrelevant. He doesn't claim to be doing what you criticize him
for.
His point is that the misrepresentations in biology textbooks that he
cites
in his book have been known for a long time, but that the authors and
publishers, and the scientific community did not take steps to correct
them.
Moreover, it's not just peppered moths and embryo drawings that he
criticizes, but eight other misrepresentations and misinterpretations as
well.
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 17 2001 - 10:25:06 EDT