From: Keith Miller (kbmill@ksu.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 14:21:42 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.
What I object to is Wells promoting a conspiratorial view of the scientific
community and misrepresenting the nature of scientific investigation. The
Peppered Moth studies (and other cases of industrial melanism) are excellent
examples of field research into the operation of selective mechanisms. If
you haven't, you should read the excellent book by Majerus on melanism.
Together with Grants work on finches and others work on guppies, these
studies have tremendously advanced our understanding of how natural
selection operates in wild populations.
Kettwell's studies were ground breaking. There were problems and
inadequacies in his work - but they laid the foundation for much fruitful
research. That is how science works at it best. To treat these studies as
a means to cast doubt on the integrity of the researchers is dishonest.
These studies deserve honored places in our textbooks as examples of how
evolutionary science advances, and how evolutionary theories can be tested
in the field.
I agree with your statement of irony. Wells certainly does not treat this
topic as irrelavant to the validity of modern evolutionary theory. He is
misusing and misrepresenting it in order to raise doubts in his readers
about the validity of evolutionary science and the integrity of evolutionary
scientists.
Keith
BTW: Wells does clearly misrepresent Majerus's critique of Kettlewell.
--Dr. Keith B. Miller Department of Geology Thompson Hall 108 Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66506-3201 ph: (785) 532-2250 webpage: http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 12:11:08 EDT