Confusion or Purposeful Misrepresentation?

Fred Williams has been referencing his article "15 Evolutionary Gems Refuted" on this website. One of the many errors I found was in this refutation:"REFUTED: This is another example of adaptation. In fact, they provide creationist evidence for rapid speciation after the flood: The effect is reinforced by non-random dispersal; individual birds select and breed in different habitats in a way that increases their fitness." The authors conclude that when gene flow is not homogeneous, evolutionary differentiation can be rapid and can occur over surprisingly small spatial scales. They forget that these non-random changes have nothing to do with evolution[11]."Footnote [11] reads:"As evolutionist Douglas Futuyama states in his college textbook Evolutionary Biology, "The argument that adaptively directed mutations does not occur is one of the fundamental tenets of modern evolutionary theory" [emphasis added]. Evolutionary Biology, 1998, p 282."This is quite the bait and switch. I would like to think that Mr. Williams is honestly confused on the issue, but I doubt it.The error is quite obvious. Futuyama is talking about the randomness of mutation. He is stating that one of the tenets of neo-Darwinism is that the mechanisms which produce mutations are independent of the needs of the organism. That is, mutation and fitness are independent.Mr. Williams is trying to refute natural selection which is non-random. This is the bait and switch. Mr. Williams conflates the randomness of mutations with the non-randomness of selection due to environmental pressures. This is made quite clear in this quoted section:"individual birds select and breed in different habitats in a way that increases their fitness"Sexual and environmental selection are non-random, and nowhere does Futuyama claim that selection is random. What Futyama does say is that mutations are random with respect to fitness, not selection.It is these types of errors that make any radio debate with Fred Williams a no go. He is willing to misrepresent scientific data.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Perhaps by participating you could bring this error to the attention of the show's audience.--Percy

Thread copied here from the Confusion or Purposeful Misrepresentation? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Fred claims to be refuting this: While I understand the fallacy he employs in his rebuttal, I have no idea what it is he's rebutting. What is "differential dispersal in wild birds?" An example would probably help.--Percy

While not cited by Mr. Williams, he does appear to be referencing this paper:

quote:

---

Nature. 2005 Jan 6;433(7021):60-5.

​

Evolution driven by differential dispersal within a wild bird population.

​

Garant D, Kruuk LE, Wilkin TA, McCleery RH, Sheldon BC.

​

Edward Grey Institute, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford

​

Comment in:

​

Nature. 2005 Jan 6;433(7021):23-4.

​

Abstract
Evolutionary theory predicts that local population divergence will depend on the balance between the diversifying effect of selection and the homogenizing effect of gene flow. However, spatial variation in the expression of genetic variation will also generate differential evolutionary responses. Furthermore, if dispersal is non-random it may actually reinforce, rather than counteract, evolutionary differentiation. Here we document the evolution of differences in body mass within a population of great tits, Parus major, inhabiting a single continuous woodland, over a 36-year period. We show that genetic variance for nestling body mass is spatially variable, that this generates different potential responses to selection, and that this diversifying effect is reinforced by non-random dispersal. Matching the patterns of variation, selection and evolution with population ecological data, we argue that the small-scale differentiation is driven by density-related differences in habitat quality affecting settlement decisions. Our data show that when gene flow is not homogeneous, evolutionary differentiation can be rapid and can occur over surprisingly small spatial scales. Our findings have important implications for questions of the scale of adaptation and speciation, and challenge the usual treatment of dispersal as a force opposing evolutionary differentiation.
[emphasis mine]

---

The authors suggest that selection pressure based on habitat quality and settlement decisions is affecting the differences in body weight between the populations. The authors do not claim that non-random mutations are driving the differences, which is the claim made by Mr. Williams that uses Futuyama for support.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

In the other thread I explained why a radio show is not a viable format for discussing these topics. However, I would open to an online debate if Mr. Williams would be so inclined. My application to be a poster at his forum site has been declined before, but maybe he will change his mind.

Perhaps by participating you could bring this error to the attention of the show's audience._________________
Scoundrels dvd
dexter dvdEdited by cocolove, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Spamify the links.

A slovanian MEP was not paying the bills for a flat that he rented from the country, when the bills where overdue the eletcric companies or water... sent the bills to the state and got the money for those bills because it is the owners duty to see that the bills are payed.The MEPs response with a serious voice :" in my whole life i have never seen a payment slip/bill, and i am from the country side i did not know you have to pay costs to live in flats."I dunno who he riled up more with this statements the people from the country side that where made to look like we still only know goods trade an onion for a egg, or the city folk for thinking that they are stupid enough to fall for it. Edited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.