Peppered moths are back

Evolution research 1 - IDC Mothra monster 0.

No rematch expected at this time, the mothra disappeared among the tree trunks and can't be pinned down.

I may be missing something, but when I try to listen to the show, the BBC site says it's not available.

The BBC only allows you to 'listen again' for a week after broadcast. Stupid legalities...

I have a copy of the podcast for this broadcast if anyone wants it and can tell me how to make it available.

The peppered moth story is good science in action. I was taught it at a Northern English school too many years ago to think about and was disappointed later when the facts didn't seem to match the theory. Majerus's quiet collection of observed data now corrects that misunderstanding. Coyne doesn't go of in a huff, refusing to believe the new data because it contradicts his previous comments, instead he embraces it.

How different from the creationist/ID movement. This from the uncommondescent web site:-
"Majerus is unlikely to persuade skeptical evolutionary biologists that the peppered moth story, even when told with Kettlewell’s shortcomings corrected, is a good model for evolutionary theory generally."

Perhaps they should rename themselves cynical anti-evolutionary non-biologists, purely in the interests of accuracy.

Perhaps they should rename themselves cynical anti-evolutionary non-biologists, purely in the interests of accuracy.

— Acleron

But it's still just a Lepidoptera !

(I'd use a more specific taxon name, but I don't know where peppered moths fit on the http://www.tolweb.org/Lepidoptera/8231 tree.)

Henry

Acleron -- if you could email it to matzkeATberkeley.edu or set up a private FTP I would be grateful.

You can get a PowerPoint file (pretty big) of a talk by Majerus or a transcript in PDF here:

http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/majerus.htm

The PowerPoint file has some excellent pix but does not add much to the transcript.

This is all fine and good, but the really important thing is: are the moths in the photo glued in place?

The moth photos in Majerus's powerpoint are unstaged, as-found-in-nature moths. The moths in the opening post above look like they are alive, but they are on a piece of cloth or something -- I bet they are moths that Majerus raised.

"I don’t think this has been blogged yet"...

Oh, that hurts!

Just to be an antennahead geek: Peppered moths are Biston betularia, in the family Geometridae (inchworm moths.)

Is that in this clade with the swallowtail moths - http://www.tolweb.org/Geometroidea/12031 ?

Biston betularia

thanks ive been misspelling that for years (blushes, cuz i should know better)...Betulas are birches.Betulas are birches. Betulas are birches

What I find most offensive about the Peppered Moth saga is the way so many say that photos of moths pinned to trees are fraudulent - eg Well, a YEC"geologist" Art Chadwick and many others .

This alone shows them for what they are

Michael

Creationist misunderstanding knows few bounds. The moth story is one of miicroevolution which they claim to accept. Do they have better examples of microevolution? (Do they understand microevolution?)

I think something about that moth story just bugs them. :)

Henry

Nice article!

By the way, please check out my blog, I am currently doing a series called "Evolution for Creationists" and I want to hear what you have to say.

http://aigbusted.blogspot.com

-Ryan

Creationist misunderstanding knows few bounds.

— Les Lane

The moth story is one of microevolution which they claim to accept. Do they have better examples of microevolution? (Do they understand microevolution?)

— Les Lane

But whatever tussles exist over the air corps' mission, Lt. Col. Abdul Shafi Nouri says the corps is far happier these days than during its years under the Taliban. The Afghan engineer in charge of maintenance says the Taliban didn't care whether the aircraft were airworthy. If one went down, so be it. Nouri recalls how a Taliban official stopped his team from approaching one particular crash site. The official lifted his hands in the air and said a prayer for the dead crew. He then sent Nouri's team away, saying the crash was God's will and merited no further review.

I wish that Majerus would back away from the absolutely ludicrous position that seems to be shared by too many practicing science that Creationism should be taught in philosophy or ethics classes. I can suppport that only if one adds that the philosophy classes should look at just how Creationism must reject scientific methodology in order to perservere. I'm not exactly sure the proper way to teach Creationism in ethics. I'm not exactly sure it's easy to explain to even undergraduate students why it's wrong to reject science in favour of a particular view of the world.

Frank J:

Creationist misunderstanding knows few bounds.

— Les Lane

When they complain about "might makes right," and the cruelty of natural selection, all evolution is suspect, but when cornered they conveniently "forget" that "microevolution" alone can rationalize all their negative implications.

Les Lane Wrote:
Creationist misunderstanding knows few bounds.

I disagree. It is what we do understand very well, evolution's claims, that makes many of us believe in Creation.
The more of it I read, the more secure I am.

Dr. Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" is a typical example of how evolutionists are rejecting
evolution. I wouldn't be surprised if ID is actually a child of evolution, of scientists rejecting methodological
naturalism, and following the evidence where it leads. Dr. Antony Flew's "There is a God" illustrates this.

Microevolution is not evolution, but genetic variations using previously existing genetic material.

Evolution requires massive additions of genetic material, life from non-life (spontaneous generation), etc.

Louis Pasteur dealt what he called "a mortal blow" to spontaneous generation in 1862, but he failed to realize that
people would continue believing in evolution in spite of the evidence.

David Martin said: Les Lane Wrote: Creationist misunderstanding knows few bounds. I disagree. It is what we do understand very well, evolution’s claims, that makes many of us believe in Creation. The more of it I read, the more secure I am. cut for length Evolution requires massive additions of genetic material, life from non-life (spontaneous generation), etc. Louis Pasteur dealt what he called “a mortal blow” to spontaneous generation in 1862, but he failed to realize that people would continue believing in evolution in spite of the evidence.

One thing that bugs me about the criticism of the photographs as fraudulent. Is a family photograph fraudulent because you don't find families standing shoulder to shoulder, unmoving and facing the same direction?

I doubt that creationists will take any notice of the peppered moth's redemption. We will hear that it is a fraud so long as there are creationists.

David Martin lying: Dr. Michael Denton’s “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” is a typical example of how evolutionists are rejecting evolution. I wouldn’t be surprised if ID is actually a child of evolution, of scientists rejecting methodological naturalism, and following the evidence where it leads. Dr. Antony Flew’s “There is a God” illustrates this.

scientists rejecting methodological naturalism, and following the evidence where it leads.

CJO: The above-quoted phrase makes no more sense than "carpenters rejecting the use of hammers, in order to drive nails."

“the ornithomorphorgical signature of fossils in the Atlas mountains is significantly different from the fossils of the Andes and it conclusively proves the impossibility of common descent between the Patagogian taxons with Australo-African genera. The primordial magnetic nucleus decay is completely different!”

- what? an African or European swallow?

- eh? I don't know AAAAAAHHHH

“the ornithomorphorgical signature of fossils in the Atlas mountains is significantly different from the fossils of the Andes and it conclusively proves the impossibility of common descent between the Patagogian taxons with Australo-African genera. The primordial magnetic nucleus decay is completely different!”

-do you mean an African or European swallow?

-eh?, I don't know AAAAHHHHGGHHH (cast into abyss)

:)

David Martin: Les Lane Wrote: Creationist misunderstanding knows few bounds. I disagree. It is what we do understand very well, evolution's claims, that makes many of us believe in Creation. The more of it I read, the more secure I am. Dr. Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" is a typical example of how evolutionists are rejecting evolution. I wouldn't be surprised if ID is actually a child of evolution, of scientists rejecting methodological naturalism, and following the evidence where it leads. Dr. Antony Flew's "There is a God" illustrates this. Microevolution is not evolution, but genetic variations using previously existing genetic material. Evolution requires massive additions of genetic material, life from non-life (spontaneous generation), etc. Louis Pasteur dealt what he called "a mortal blow" to spontaneous generation in 1862, but he failed to realize that people would continue believing in evolution in spite of the evidence.

I disagree. It is what we do understand very well, evolution’s claims, that makes many of us believe in Creation. The more of it I read, the more secure I am.

— David Martin

I disagree. It is what we do understand very well, evolution’s claims, that makes many of us believe in Creation. The more of it I read, the more secure I am.

jasonmitchell: -do you mean an African or European swallow? -eh?, I don't know AAAAHHHHGGHHH (cast into abyss) :)

David Martin wrote:

"I disagree. It is what we do understand very well, evolution’s claims, that makes many of us believe in Creation. The more of it I read, the more secure I am."

First, the logic here is flawed. How could any problem with any naturalistic theory possibly lead you to conclude a supernatural explanation was correct? Why not just develop a better naturalistic theory?

Second, anyone can see that "the more of it I read" does not refer to reading scientific papers about evolution, but to reading creationist garbage about it. I guess that explains why rejecting one natural explanation leads you to a supernatural explanation. That is the garbage the people you are reading are pushing.

And by the way, being more secure doesn't make you right. Getting a distorted view of reality reinforced by those with a religious agenda may make you feel better, but it has no bearing whatsoever on reality.

Real scientists do not reject methodological naturalism either. Some might conclude that it is not sufficient to provide them with every answer to every question, but I defy you to name one example of a real scientist who claims that methodological naturalism has not been wildly successful in helping to explain the natural world around us. It has it's limits, but within those limits it has performed very well indeed.

I disagree. It is what we do understand very well, evolution’s claims, that makes many of us believe in Creation. The more of it I read, the more secure I am.

David Martin said Microevolution is not evolution, but genetic variations using previously existing genetic material.

Louis Pasteur dealt what he called “a mortal blow” to spontaneous generation in 1862, but he failed to realize that people would continue believing in evolution in spite of the evidence.

I picture some sort of creationist deck of cards, for sale wherever bullshit is sold, where each card has some totally bogus creationist claim printed on one side. It's a very large deck. Then people like David Martin, after too many beers, sit down to play the "dumbass game". They shuffle the deck, select half a dozen cards, and regurgitate them in the order the cards were drawn. At no point was the addled brain required to do more than find the next beer.

Flint -

I resent that insult to beer.

Flint said:

I picture some sort of creationist deck of cards, for sale wherever bullshit is sold, where each card has some totally bogus creationist claim printed on one side.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alun/47427141/

harold: Flint - I resent that insult to beer.

Richard Simons:

David Martin said Louis Pasteur dealt what he called “a mortal blow” to spontaneous generation in 1862, but he failed to realize that people would continue believing in evolution in spite of the evidence.

If you believe that Pasteur dealt a mortal blow to spontaneous generation and thus to the acceptance of evolution, you clearly know very little about the differences between spontaneous generation, abiogenesis and evolution. As virtually all the world's biologists disagree with you, has it not crossed your mind that perhaps you are mistaken?

Stanton Richard, you honestly think that a creationist like David Martin would actually attempt to swallow his pride and admit he was mistaken? How positively silly of you.

Insults to beer should be the yeast of anyone’s, save brewers, problems

— Stanton

Saccharomyces cereveisiae is man’s best friend.

yeah, but they're lousy at catching frisbees.

Les Lane Wrote: Creationist misunderstanding knows few bounds. I disagree. It is what we do understand very well, evolution’s claims, that makes many of us believe in Creation. The more of it I read, the more secure I am.

— David Martin

Dr. Michael Denton’s “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” is a typical example of how evolutionists are rejecting evolution.

I wouldn’t be surprised if ID is actually a child of evolution,

of scientists rejecting methodological naturalism, and following the evidence where it leads.

Dr. Antony Flew’s “There is a God” illustrates this.

Microevolution is not evolution,

but genetic variations using previously existing genetic material.

Evolution requires massive additions of genetic material,

life from non-life (spontaneous generation), etc.

Louis Pasteur dealt what he called “a mortal blow” to spontaneous generation in 1862,

but he failed to realize that people would continue believing in evolution

in spite of the evidence.

Louis Pasteur dealt what he called “a mortal blow” to spontaneous generation in 1862, but he failed to realize that people would continue believing in evolution in spite of the evidence.

Nigel D, a couple of points of clarification. William Paley was fifteen years dead by the 1820s, but his version of the teleological argument for God appeared in 1802 in his "Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature" which included his rewriting of the Watchmaker analogy. Denton’s “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” is a typical example of creationist argument and quote mining, notable for having inspired Phillip Johnson to take up anti-evolution, and later pick up the "intelligent design" label pioneered by the cdesign proponentsists of "Of Pandas and People".

The ID idea is much older, and one hint comes in the statement "what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e. to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." from bishop Joseph Butler's "Analogy of Revealed Religion" of 1736, which is conveniently cited on page ii of "On the Origin of Species".
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F376&pageseq=7

Back to the moths, the whole creationist myth started with an review by Dr. Jerry Coyne which inaccurately said that they'd only been seen on tree trunks twice, which was translated by Jonathan Wells in his "Icons of Evolution" into "the classical story has some serious flaws. The most serious is that peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks." This was despite Wells having already conceded that Majerus listed six moths on exposed tree trunks (out of 47), but Wells argued that this was "an insignificant proportion". This radio broadcast confirms that Coyne dismisses the creationist lies and supports the moths as an example of evolution, but then he said the same in 2000 in a letter to the school board of Pratt County, Kansas, which was then considering ID material. The difference is that Majerus has now done the additional research that Coyne was asking for in his review that sparked the whole stushie.

Nigel D, a couple of points of clarification. William Paley was fifteen years dead by the 1820s, but his version of the teleological argument for God appeared in 1802 in his “Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature” which included his rewriting of the Watchmaker analogy. . .

— dave

. . . bishop Joseph Butler’s “Analogy of Revealed Religion” of 1736, which is conveniently cited on page ii of “On the Origin of Species”.

I have not read [Michael Denton's "Evolution, A Theory In Crisis"], but I can deduce, purely from your description of it, that it will be full of lies or errors (or both).

— Nigel D

Richard, you honestly think that a creationist like David Martin would actually attempt to swallow his pride and admit he was mistaken?

— Stanton

Thanks, Nigel, the quote from bishop Joseph Butler’s “Analogy of Revealed Religion” of 1736 is one of many references to an "intelligent agent", notable because Darwin uses it at the very start of “On the Origin of Species” to show that a Creator producing species through the operation of laws of nature is just as theologically sound as repeated or continuous miracles poofing new species into existence ;)

The ID idea is much older, and one hint comes in the statement “what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e. to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.” from bishop Joseph Butler’s “Analogy of Revealed Religion” of 1736,

In defense of William Paley, he was developing his ideas in the 18th century when fossilization and geological stratification-- the first of the major supports for the theory of evolution-- were just beginning to be studied scientifically. To jump away from theism entirely might have been an impossible leap. But Paley wasn't just playing word games to make creationism work, like the modern creationists.

Charles Darwin practically memorized Natural Theology, and took from it two strong ideas--
1.) To understand God (Darwin was planning to be a minister)study nature rather than ancient texts. That, right there, was a break from the older world view, and every modern scientist benefits from it.
2.) Paley based his "proof" of God on the adaptation of each organism to its environment. So it was really Paley who trained Darwin to look for adaptations.

There is probably a third, negative, idea of Paley's which influenced Darwin. While Agassiz and Owen saw the arrangement of living things in systems as the ultimate proof of God's mind, Paley had trouble with it. If everything was separately designed, why didn't God just design every creature the best way for its environment, without making them fit into genera, orders, families...? He finally came up with a rather weak excuse that God was making it hard on Himself.

Darwin solved the puzzle by taking the idea of adaptation-- and working it back through the generations. Dolphins and bats, for instance, share many mammalian attributes because those attributes were adaptive for their shared ancestors.

So I'm not sure raven is right that Paley and the original "ID" movement didn't produce anything. It can be argued that Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection came out of it.

The problem is, modern IDers want scientists to follow Paley-- but then they want them to fudge. When the evidence for evolution comes up-- as it must-- the IDers want the researchers to veer off and not to take the next logical step. Darwin followed Paley, but he followed him honestly, and let the evidence dictate his conclusions. And what came out was the theory of evolution.

Butler was publishing at a time when theologians had to come to terms with Newton's mechanical universe, operating without miraculous divine interventions to move the sun round the earth. hoary puccoon is right about Darwin's ideas developing after he'd been convinced by Paley, and then become troubled by the "problem of evil", particularly the wasp laying its eggs in a living caterpillar.

Another aspect is that we tend to see the controversy about Darwin's theory as suddenly disrupting established religion, when in practice it was just one in a series of larger theological conflicts. When the Evangelicals started at the end of the 18th century they promoted both biblical literalism and a belief that doubt was sinful and should be suppressed. To thinking people they were seen as dishonest, trying to hide from the issues raised by developments in science. Much greater rows were caused by "higher criticism" in which theologians analysed the Bible as a historical document rather than taking it as revealed unquestionable truth.
http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/altholz/a2.html

dave-- I believe you mean the 19th century (1800's), not the 18th century. Otherwise, right on. The "problem of evil" was certainly another issue that forced Darwin to go beyond Paley.

The problem is, modern IDers want scientists to follow Paley– but then they want them to fudge. When the evidence for evolution comes up– as it must– the IDers want the researchers to veer off and not to take the next logical step. Darwin followed Paley, but he followed him honestly, and let the evidence dictate his conclusions. And what came out was the theory of evolution.

— hoary puccoon

dave said

Butler was publishing at a time when theologians had to come to terms with Newton’s mechanical universe, operating without miraculous divine interventions to move the sun round the earth. hoary puccoon is right about Darwin’s ideas developing after he’d been convinced by Paley, and then become troubled by the “problem of evil”, particularly the wasp laying its eggs in a living caterpillar.

Another aspect is that we tend to see the controversy about Darwin’s theory as suddenly disrupting established religion, when in practice it was just one in a series of larger theological conflicts. When the Evangelicals started at the end of the 18th century they promoted both biblical literalism and a belief that doubt was sinful and should be suppressed. To thinking people they were seen as dishonest, trying to hide from the issues raised by developments in science. Much greater rows were caused by “higher criticism” in which theologians analysed the Bible as a historical document rather than taking it as revealed unquestionable truth. http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/altholz/a2.ht…

I am sorry but I cant buy your comments. At the end of the 18th century evangelicals did not promote biblical literalism. Many supported the new geology - T Chalmers, GS Faber and a good number of evangelicals were geologists especially Sedgwick, who gave us the Cambrian etc , Fleming who anticipated Lyell on uniformitarianism , Huh Miller etc. In the US there were the evangelical geologists Hitchcock and Silliman.

As for evangelical opposition to science that is a myth all will be clear in my forthcoming book Evangelicals and Science.

You give a URL to Altholz's article - it is largely fictional!

Michael

dave said

Butler was publishing at a time when theologians had to come to terms with Newton’s mechanical universe, operating without miraculous divine interventions to move the sun round the earth. hoary puccoon is right about Darwin’s ideas developing after he’d been convinced by Paley, and then become troubled by the “problem of evil”, particularly the wasp laying its eggs in a living caterpillar.

Another aspect is that we tend to see the controversy about Darwin’s theory as suddenly disrupting established religion, when in practice it was just one in a series of larger theological conflicts. When the Evangelicals started at the end of the 18th century they promoted both biblical literalism and a belief that doubt was sinful and should be suppressed. To thinking people they were seen as dishonest, trying to hide from the issues raised by developments in science. Much greater rows were caused by “higher criticism” in which theologians analysed the Bible as a historical document rather than taking it as revealed unquestionable truth. http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/altholz/a2.ht…

I am sorry but I cant buy your comments. At the end of the 18th century evangelicals did not promote biblical literalism. Many supported the new geology - T Chalmers, GS Faber and a good number of evangelicals were geologists especially Sedgwick, who gave us the Cambrian etc , Fleming who anticipated Lyell on uniformitarianism , Huh Miller etc. In the US there were the evangelical geologists Hitchcock and Silliman.

As for evangelical opposition to science that is a myth all will be clear in my forthcoming book Evangelicals and Science.

You give a URL to Altholz's article - it is largely fictional!

Michael

Michael, thanks for the advice about Altholz’s article being largely fictional, I'll treat it with more caution.

However, it is my understanding that geologists such as Sedgwick, who taught Darwin a Catastrophism which reconciled ancient earth with noah's flood, were well ahead of conservative bishops who still held young earth views in the mid 19th century. It was common for clergymen to be naturalists and scientists, and your point about evangelical opposition to science being a myth is well made - though from what I've seen there were different evangelical factions with very different views, as there still are today.

dave: Michael, thanks for the advice about Altholz’s article being largely fictional, I'll treat it with more caution. However, it is my understanding that geologists such as Sedgwick, who taught Darwin a Catastrophism which reconciled ancient earth with noah's flood, were well ahead of conservative bishops who still held young earth views in the mid 19th century. It was common for clergymen to be naturalists and scientists, and your point about evangelical opposition to science being a myth is well made - though from what I've seen there were different evangelical factions with very different views, as there still are today.

Thanks for that info, Michael. I've tried having a look but have forgotten where I came across a description of the clerical scientists such as Sedgwick being rebuffed by a conservative clergyman, iirc a bishop, whose literalism simply came from lack of knowledge of current science. Aileen Fyfe agrees with what you're saying: "Even the majority of evangelicals were, by the 1840s, willing to accept non-literal interpretations of Genesis which could be fitted with the latest accepted discoveries in geology or astronomy. The few people who stressed the threat to faith of these discoveries tended to be the working-class radicals, while the extreme evangelicals who promoted Scriptural Geology to retain a literal reading of Genesis were an equally vocal minority."
http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science&religion.html

Davis A. Young gives an indication of the complex tussle of ideas at that time.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

However, this is a bit of a sidetrack for me, and I don't know how you'd rate these sources.

dave: Thanks for that info, Michael. I've tried having a look but have forgotten where I came across a description of the clerical scientists such as Sedgwick being rebuffed by a conservative clergyman, iirc a bishop, whose literalism simply came from lack of knowledge of current science. Aileen Fyfe agrees with what you're saying: "Even the majority of evangelicals were, by the 1840s, willing to accept non-literal interpretations of Genesis which could be fitted with the latest accepted discoveries in geology or astronomy. The few people who stressed the threat to faith of these discoveries tended to be the working-class radicals, while the extreme evangelicals who promoted Scriptural Geology to retain a literal reading of Genesis were an equally vocal minority." http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science&religion.html Davis A. Young gives an indication of the complex tussle of ideas at that time. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm However, this is a bit of a sidetrack for me, and I don't know how you'd rate these sources.

Don't forget to point out Majerus' conclusion:

Moths rest on tree trunks, THEREFORE God doesn't exist.

Lying sack o' shit alert.

Mats: Don't forget to point out Majerus' conclusion: Moths rest on tree trunks, THEREFORE God doesn't exist.

Just a final one, but is it relevant.

I am chair of Governors of a Lacashire church school. They won an envirmental competition for schools - the Otter trophy and were presented with a trophy and various books, which were signed by David Bellamy and Michael Majerus. So our school now has a copy of a book on plants and animals of the bible signed by among others Michael Majerus. Sadly I couldnt go to meet him.

Why is everyone so quick to accept Majerus' results in an uncritical fashion?

Look at his powerpoint presentation slides #34-37. In #37, the second column is entitled: "Expected selection against carb. based on form frequency differences between years". What does that mean exactly? How does he calculate it? What numbers does he use?

The third column can be derived from #35's numbers on predation. Well, the correlation coefficient between column two and column three is 75%. Wonderful. But does that mean anything? Compare the columns per year and they're not very impressively the same.

Also, #34 shows a continous decline in the carbonaria form, never rising from one year to the next (based on trapping), yet the "observed selection" for 2006 shows that, in fact, the percentage predation was less for the carbonaria than typica. Not knowing what in the world Majerus means by his 'column two', nonetheless one gets the impression that the number of carbonaria to be found in the trappings should have gone up; but it didn't; it continued to go down.

Have we another "just-so" story on our hands? If we're capable of critical thinking, then I think some more investigating into just what Majerus' methods were is needed before jumping to the conclusion that anything at all has been demonstrated here.

Why is everyone so quick to accept Majerus’ results in an uncritical fashion?

But their still just moths! :p

Lino D'Ischia: Why is everyone so quick to accept Majerus' results in an uncritical fashion? Look at his powerpoint presentation slides #34-37. In #37, the second column is entitled: "Expected selection against carb. based on form frequency differences between years". What does that mean exactly? How does he calculate it? What numbers does he use? The third column can be derived from #35's numbers on predation. Well, the correlation coefficient between column two and column three is 75%. Wonderful. But does that mean anything? Compare the columns per year and they're not very impressively the same. Also, #34 shows a continous decline in the carbonaria form, never rising from one year to the next (based on trapping), yet the "observed selection" for 2006 shows that, in fact, the percentage predation was less for the carbonaria than typica. Not knowing what in the world Majerus means by his 'column two', nonetheless one gets the impression that the number of carbonaria to be found in the trappings should have gone up; but it didn't; it continued to go down. Have we another "just-so" story on our hands? If we're capable of critical thinking, then I think some more investigating into just what Majerus' methods were is needed before jumping to the conclusion that anything at all has been demonstrated here.

Lino D'Ischia: Why is everyone so quick to accept Majerus' results in an uncritical fashion? Look at his powerpoint presentation slides #34-37. In #37, the second column is entitled: "Expected selection against carb. based on form frequency differences between years". What does that mean exactly? How does he calculate it? What numbers does he use? The third column can be derived from #35's numbers on predation. Well, the correlation coefficient between column two and column three is 75%. Wonderful. But does that mean anything? Compare the columns per year and they're not very impressively the same. Also, #34 shows a continous decline in the carbonaria form, never rising from one year to the next (based on trapping), yet the "observed selection" for 2006 shows that, in fact, the percentage predation was less for the carbonaria than typica. Not knowing what in the world Majerus means by his 'column two', nonetheless one gets the impression that the number of carbonaria to be found in the trappings should have gone up; but it didn't; it continued to go down. Have we another "just-so" story on our hands? If we're capable of critical thinking, then I think some more investigating into just what Majerus' methods were is needed before jumping to the conclusion that anything at all has been demonstrated here.

Hey, that's interesting - when a syntax error hoses the post, the first few words of do show up okay in the "recent comments" box on the main page.

Henry

I think it may be that the preview box doesn't read the html