Re: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

A lie is such a problematic concept. Let's look at what some
researchers of the peppered moth have to say about these claims by
Wells

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/grant-pratt-tribune.html

Bruce Grant writes in Pratt Tribune that LETTER: Charges of fraud misleading

<quote>
Unfortunately, Dr. Wells is intellectually dishonest. When I first
encountered his attempts at journalism, I thought he might be a
woefully deficient scholar because his critiques about peppered moth
research were full of errors, but soon it became clear that he was
intentionally distorting the literature in my field. He lavishly
dresses his essays in quotations from experts (including some from me)
which are generally taken out of context, and he systematically omits
relevant details to make our conclusions seem ill founded, flawed, or
fraudulent.
</quote>

Take an example from Wells

<quote>Then, in the 1980s, biologists realized that peppered moths
almost never rest on tree trunks (as Kettlewell wrongly supposed when
he initially released the moths onto tree trunks, creating atypical
conditions). </quote>

Much of this has already been discussed on ASA when Wells claimed that
moths never rest onto tree trunks. But even the revised statement was
shown to be wrong. Wells was informed of this by Ian Musgrave
http://members.tripod.com/aslodge/id77.htm

<quote>
1. Can you give me references to justify your claim that many photos
of moths on tree trunks are not staged?

MUSGRAVE:
Majerus MEN, "Melanism", 1998, Oxford University Press, see plates
3a-d (page 146 on).
Mikkola K, (1984), Biol. J Linn Soc 21, 409-421

LODGE:
  2. Can you give me references to justify your claim that moths rest
on tree trunks about 25% of the time?

MUSGRAVE:
Majerus MEN, "Melanism", 1998, Oxford University Press, page 123,
Table 6.1 Howlett JJ and Majerus MEN (1987), Biol. J Linn Soc, 30,
31-44.

Actually, the figure for trunks is higher because in the main category
of resting sites, trunk-branch joints, the moths are actually resting
on the trunk.
</quote>

Recent research has shown even more evidence that this argument is flawed

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/peppered-moths-1.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/wells-on-moths.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/peppered-moths.html

Majerus

In summary, these results show that:

i) The majority (50.4%) of moths rest on lateral branches.
ii) Of the moths on lateral branches, the majority (89%) rest on the
lower half of the branch.
iii) A significant proportion of moths (37%) do rest on tree trunks
(so Kettlewell wasn't so wrong in releasing his moths onto tree
trunks).
iv) Of those that rest on trunks, the majority (86.8%) rest on the
north, rather than the south half.
v) A minority of moths (12.6%) rest under or among twigs
vi) There was no significant difference in the resting sites of males
and females.
vii) There was no significant differences in the restings sites used
by typica, carbonaria or insularia forms.

It's a combination of innuendo, flawed claims, unfamiliarity with the
research and more which has led to this unfortunate mess.

Will ID come clean here and recognize its errors? I have my concerns.

On Dec 15, 2007 3:22 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> Actually, I am surprised. Can you quote exactly what they said that was
> a lie? Are you saying they are outright lying or lying by way of
> distorting the facts?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:18 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie; ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute
> against harmonizing?
>
> Of course. The DI is as usual quite wrong on this. Are you surprised
> about this?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Dec 15 20:13:01 2007