Re: [asa] Coulter on the peppered moth

At 06:47 PM 6/18/2006, Pim van Meurs wrote:

>Just when I finished the posting Ian Musgrave
>posted on Coulter's extremely poor treatment of
>the peppered moth Count the errors in just one
>topic she discusses: The peppered
>moth. <quote>As usual with Creationist writing,
>it requires far more space to explain why
>Coulter is wrong than it took her to make the
>creationist arguments in her original
>manuscript. To give you a flavour of how she
>handles evolution in general, I’ll look at her
>treatment of natural selection and peppered
>moths.</quote>
>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php

@ The confusion of non-scientists is partially
the result of the confusion of scientists, faulty
dictionary definitions - including "science"
dictionaries, etc. Read on. ~ Janice

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
What is Evolution? Copyright © 1993-1997 by Laurence Moran

M
Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused
about precise definitions of biological
evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to
the inability of scientists to communicate
effectively to the general public and also to
confusion among scientists themselves about how
to define such an important term.

When discussing evolution it is important to
distinguish between the existence of evolution
and various theories about the mechanism of
evolution. And when referring to the existence of
evolution it is important to have a clear
definition in mind. What exactly do biologists
mean when they say that they have observed
evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists
has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely
change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies,
languages, and political systems all evolve.
Biological evolution ... is change in the
properties of populations of organisms that
transcend the lifetime of a single individual.
The ontogeny of an individual is not considered
evolution; individual organisms do not evolve.
The changes in populations that are considered
evolutionary are those that are inheritable via
the genetic material from one generation to the
next. Biological evolution may be slight or
substantial; it embraces everything from slight
changes in the proportion of different alleles
within a population (such as those determining
blood types) to the successive alterations that
led from the earliest protoorganism to snails,
bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution
refers to populations and not to individuals and
that the changes must be passed on to the next
generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable
changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of
evolution; one that can be used to distinguish
between evolution and similar changes that are
not evolution. Another common short definition of
evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as
any change in the frequency of alleles within a
gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th
ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a
definition (and we have often quibbled on these
newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of
what evolution really is. When biologists say
that they have observed evolution, they mean that
they have detected a change in the frequency of
genes in a population. (Often the genetic change
is inferred from phenotypic changes that are
heritable.) When biologists say that humans and
chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they
mean that there have been successive heritable
changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution
outside of the scientific community are
different. For example, in the Oxford Concise
Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the
present diversity of plant and animal life arose
from the earliest and most primitive organisms,
which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science.
Not only does this definition exclude
prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it
specifically includes a term "gradual process"
which should not be part of the definition. More
importantly the definition seems to refer more to
the history of evolution than to evolution
itself. Using this definition it is possible to
debate whether evolution is still occurring, but
the definition provides no easy way of
distinguishing evolution from other processes.
For example, is the increase in height among
Caucasians over the past several hundred years an
example of evolution? Are the color changes in
the peppered moth population examples of
evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which
higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers
"evolution: ...the development of a species,
organism, or organ from its original or primitive
state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately
it is common for non-scientists to enter into a
discussion about evolution with such a definition
in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate
since the experts are thinking about evolution
from a different perspective. When someone claims
that they don't believe in evolution they cannot
be referring to an acceptable scientific
definition of evolution because that would be
denying something which is easy to demonstrate.
It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!

Recently I read a statement from a creationist
who claimed that scientists are being dishonest
when they talk about evolution. This person
believed that evolution was being misrepresented
to the public. The real problem is that the
public, and creationists, do not understand what
evolution is all about. This person's definition
of evolution was very different from the common
scientific definition and as a consequence he was
unable to understand what evolutionary biology
really meant. This is the same person who claimed
that one could not "believe" in evolution and
still be religious! But once we realize that
evolution is simply "a process that results in
heritable changes in a population spread over
many generations" it seems a little silly to
pretend that this excludes religion!

Scientists such as myself must share the blame
for the lack of public understanding of science.
We need to work harder to convey the correct
information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well
but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On
the other hand, the general public, and
creationists in particular, need to also work a
little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 18 23:29:27 2006