From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 09:44:12 EDT
Keith-
It takes little stretch from Coyne's review to see he sees that there are
some serious problems with the peppered moth story. We don't need to take
him out of context, he states it plainly. Also, let's be accurate with
Wells actual position instead of creating a strawman. The most concise
statement of his point, in addition to critiquing the moth story (in the
footsteps of other critics, not just some brazen anti-evolutionist forging
his own path) is:
Ironically, though, the truth or falsity of the peppered moth story is
largely irrelevant to the evolution-creation controversy. If the story were
true, it would show only a reversible shift in the proportions of two
varieties in a preexisting species—a result that even the most
uncompromising creationist could accept. And its falsity poses no threat to
the most uncompromising evolutionist, because there are now other, better
examples of natural selection within existing species.
Sarah-
are you willing to take the time to read it?
I've read enough to get the general idea. If I have time I might get back
to the resources you cited.
Indeed, this is a nice overview of the peppered moth
work by a researcher in the field. Coyne is a fly guy
isn't he? That's not to say he can't understand what
is going on in peppered moth research, but to take
his book review of Majerus' book as an authoritative
pronouncement on the state of peppered moth
research, particularly when the actual peppered moth
researchers have different views, is IMV a little short-
sighted. That's my take on this quote.
Is it the responsibility of a critic or of the person presenting his
argument to solidify his position and demonstrate that he has actually done
the requisite work required to demonstrate whatever he thinks is true?
Rhetorical question aside, a review written in Nature by an evolutionary
biologist critiquing an evolutionary example hardly qualifies as
anti-evolutionary propaganda. But when Wells cites and uses this, he's
misrepresentative and wrong because moths are so proven. I don't get it.
Do you think Coyne has read all the primary papers?
To quote his review "I unearthed
additional problems when, embarrassed
at having taught the standard Biston story
for years, I read Kettlewell’s papers for the
first time. "
Maybe not "All." But probably enough.
However do you think it's correct to incorporate information
from book reviews as opposed to primary research into
textbooks?
What primary research points out errors in interpretation, etc.?
_________________________________________________________________
Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy
patented spam control and more. Get two months FREE!
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 09:46:17 EDT