Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,828 Year: 4,085/9,624 Month: 956/974 Week: 283/286 Day: 4/40 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wells' Icons of Evolution - Peppered Moths
Ediacaran
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 88 (110784)
05-26-2004 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by cromwell
04-27-2004 5:44 AM


Re: The pepped -up myth
Deleted duplicate
This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 05-26-2004 10:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by cromwell, posted 04-27-2004 5:44 AM cromwell has not replied

  
Ediacaran
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 88 (110785)
05-26-2004 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by cromwell
04-27-2004 5:44 AM


Re: The pepped -up myth
Cromwell writes:
The 20 page chapter from Jonathan Wells book The icons of evolution touch on many other aspects used to back up his assertions.However he has made a sweeping statement,but he is not far off the mark. In this book Wells makes the statement on page 140 >> What the text books don’t explain,however,is that biologists have known since 1980’s that the classical story has some serious flaws-The peppered moths in the wild do not even rest on tree trunks. <<
...
Majerus observed the peppered moth over a period of 32 years.If you look at his pie chart for peppered moths found in the wild,you will notice that he only observed 47 moths resting on various points of the trees.Only 12 of these in this period rested on various appropriate parts of the tree trunks.This is equivalent to around 1 moth every three years.

[End of excerpt from Cromwell's post]
So, according to Majerus' data, when moths are observed to rest in trees in the wild, under normal conditions, they rest on the trunks about 25% of the time, a substantial percentage. On p. 260 of Wells' book, one of Wells' suggested "warning labels for biology textbooks" reads:
"WARNING: Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks in the wild, and photos showing them on tree trunks have been staged; Kettlewell's experiments are now being questioned."
- and you assert that Wells was "not far off the mark"?!?
Clearly, Wells is a bald-faced liar.
Wells didn't seem to have any moral objections to staged photos in his dissertation on frog embryos. He should make up a disclaimer for it:
"WARNING: Xenopus frog ovulation is not induced with human chorionic gonadotropin in the wild, and photos of frog embryos stained with Nile Red are staged; John [aka Jonathan] Corrigan Wells' integrity is now being questioned."
Of course, this would be uncharacteristic of Wells, since all the points in the latter warning are true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by cromwell, posted 04-27-2004 5:44 AM cromwell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by cromwell, posted 06-05-2004 8:09 PM Ediacaran has replied

  
Ediacaran
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 88 (110786)
05-26-2004 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by cromwell
04-27-2004 5:44 AM


Re: The pepped -up myth
Deleted triplicate.
This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 05-26-2004 10:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by cromwell, posted 04-27-2004 5:44 AM cromwell has not replied

  
Ediacaran
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 88 (112984)
06-05-2004 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by cromwell
06-05-2004 8:09 PM


Wells' "not entirely true" statements for Father Moon
Misrepresenting my actual words, Cromwell writes:
25%!!! Twenty five percent of peppered moths land on tree trunks in the wild. This is a "load of mothballs". I think that you've got your ratios mixed up. And you insult Jonathan Wells!
Either Cromwell is deliberately building a strawman, or he didn't comprehend what I wrote. At least he understood the aspersion on Wells' character.
Cromwell writes:
Its not the percentage of the moths having been seen by Majerus landing on exposed parts of the tree trunks.
I didn't say it was. Cromwell, how about addressing what I actually wrote, instead of your strawman version of it? Oh, the thoughts you'd be thinkin', you could be another Lincoln, if ....
Stumbling upon the truth, Cromwell writes:
Jonathan wells uses sensationalism..."Peppered moths do not even land on tree trunks" He's selling his material ,as newspapers and product advertisers do.
Indeed, he is. Or as I put it quite succinctly in my previous post, "Clearly, Wells is a bald-faced liar."
Cromwell writes:
Although not an entirely true statement he is close.
Nice to see you recognize that Wells' claim is "not an entirely true statement". A bald-faced "not entirely true statement". Now, if you could only understand Majerus' data, you'd see that Wells wasn't even close.
Now, why is Wells selling sensationalism instead of doing science? Here are his motives, from a sermon Wells wrote for the Unification Church (colloquially known as the 'Moonies' after their spiritual leader, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whom they refer to as their "True Father"):
Wells writes:
At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things.
He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.
Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.
Are you buying what Wells is selling?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by cromwell, posted 06-05-2004 8:09 PM cromwell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by cromwell, posted 06-06-2004 10:35 AM Ediacaran has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024