Re: [asa] Kettlewell had design problems

Rudge observes

<quote>
Several outside commentators have interpreted the discrepancies
between the popular presentation of industrial melanism as one of the
best (or the best) example of natural selection and the reservations
held by scientists about our understanding of the mechanism as
evidence of a conspiracy. Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the
Discovery Institute – well-known for its advocacy of intelligent
design – identifies the peppered moth as one of ten 'icons of
evolution', where evidence is 'distorted' by advocates of Darwinism
[17]. *** His chapter-long analysis of the multiple discrepancies
associated with the 'story of the peppered moth' is based upon a
series of quotations taken out of context that collectively suggest
there is great disagreement amongst scientists who have worked on the
phenomenon, but neglect broad areas of agreement [18]. ***

For instance, when discussing research on where peppered moths rest,
Wells claims that 'peppered moths in the wild don't rest on tree
trunks'. As evidence, he draws great attention to Cyril Clarke's
reported lack of success in finding moths in natural settings, but
fails to mention Michael Majerus' observations over the past 34 years
previously [19]. Of the 47moths Majerus located away from moth traps,
more than a quarter were on tree trunks. Of 203 he found in the
vicinities of traps, about a third were on tree trunks. Based on his
observations, Majerus argued that the most common resting site appears
to be at the junction between the trunk and branch of a tree. What is
clear from his data is that the moths sit all over the
trees, including their trunks.
</quote>

> Rudge DW.
> Myths about moths: a study in contrasts.
> Endeavour. 2006 Mar;30(1):19-23.
>
> The phenomenon of industrial melanism is the preeminent example of
> natural selection in textbooks and the popular media. Much of its fame
> stems from a set of pioneering and apparently definitive
> investigations by H.B.D. 'Bernard' Kettlewell in the early 1950s.
> There is a marked contrast in how the phenomenon and Kettlewell's work
> on it are perceived by the public and scientists. Tensions between
> these two perceptions have recently led to calls for the removal of
> the example from textbooks, and indeed allegations that Kettlewell
> committed fraud. This article (part of the Science in the Industrial
> Revolution series) will show that these charges are baseless and stem
> from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science as a
> process.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 16 18:19:46 2007