Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus

Posted 8 February 2012 by Nick Matzke

Today a paper came out that should get special attention from evolutionary biologists, evolution educators, and creationism fighters. It is:

Cook, L. M.; Grant, B. S.; Saccheri, I. J.; Mallet, J. (2012). "Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus." Biology Letters, Published online before print February 8, 2012. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.1136. Abstract at Journal, Supplementary Online Material. Abstract Colour variation in the peppered moth Biston betularia was long accepted to be under strong natural selection. Melanics were believed to be fitter than pale morphs because of lower predation at daytime resting sites on dark, sooty bark. Melanics became common during the industrial revolution, but since 1970 there has been a rapid reversal, assumed to have been caused by predators selecting against melanics resting on today's less sooty bark. Recently, these classical explanations of melanism were attacked, and there has been general scepticism about birds as selective agents. Experiments and observations were accordingly carried out by Michael Majerus to address perceived weaknesses of earlier work. Unfortunately, he did not live to publish the results, which are analysed and presented here by the authors. Majerus released 4864 moths in his six-year experiment, the largest ever attempted for any similar study. There was strong differential bird predation against melanic peppered moths. Daily selection against melanics (s ≃ 0.1) was sufficient in magnitude and direction to explain the recent rapid decline of melanism in post-industrial Britain. These data provide the most direct evidence yet to implicate camouflage and bird predation as the overriding explanation for the rise and fall of melanism in moths.

As long-time readers of Panda's Thumb know, I've had an axe to grind about the peppered moth case since the beginning of my serious involvement with creationism-fighting. Back in 2002 I wrote a long review of Jonathan Wells's creationism/ID book Icons of Evolution for Talkorigins.org. Wells's strategy was very clever; rather than attacking the science of evolution head-on, he attacked high school biology textbooks. He engaged in a delicate dance of selective citation and quote-mining so as to make it appear that the criticisms of standard textbook examples used to introduce various evolutionary concepts were coming from scientists. Since everyone, including scientists and science journalists, "knows" that introductory textbooks have problems, more than a few people reacted to Wells's book with the defensive reaction "well, sure, textbooks have problems, but the science of evolution is well-supported". However, this was giving away the game, because (a) Wells's attacks, read carefully, were actually aimed at the credibility of the science of evolutionary biology and evolutionary biologists, and (b) his attacks were tendentious, question-begging, and most importantly based on an amazingly selective and misleading review of the evidence and the scientific community on each question. One Wells chapter that was particularly annoying was on peppered moths. Everyone remembers something vague from high school biology about moths sitting on tree trunks and birds eating the ones that were the wrong color. In 1998, a leading peppered moth researcher, Michael Majerus from Cambridge, published a book called Melanism which included two long chapters reviewing scientific study of the peppered moth from the initial studies by Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950s through Majerus's own work. One message of the chapters was that textbook accounts were oversimplified and that the full story was much more interesting. For example, Majerus presented field observations which indicated that peppered moths rest not just on tree trunks but also on tree branches. But the other message of the chapters was that Kettlewell's basic hypothesis -- that bird predation on moths had caused the shift in peppered moth color from light to dark and back again, through differential predation based on camouflage -- was correct and confirmed by the work that had happened since Kettlewell's initial studies, despite various criticisms of the details of some of his experiments. The story of what happened after Majerus's book came out is complex and bizarre and is briefly reviewed in Supplement 1 of Cook et al., entitled "A brief history of the peppered moth debacle." The short version is that Jerry Coyne wrote a prominent review of the book in Nature, which concluded -- somehow -- that the peppered moth research was all highly questionable. Coyne was and is a prominent and respected evolutionary biologist, and his debunkings of pop-ev psych, creationism, etc. are often of high quality -- but there is no way to avoid the conclusion that Coyne must have had an off-day, and his review of Majerus was uncareful and made many mistakes. For example, Coyne wrote:

Criticisms of this story have circulated in samizdat for several years, but Majerus summarizes them for the first time in print in an absorbing two-chapter critique (coincidentally, a similar analysis [Sargent et al., Evol. Biol. 30, 299-322; 1998] has just appeared). Majerus notes that the most serious problem is that B. betularia probably does not rest on tree trunks -- exactly two moths have been seen in such a position in more than 40 years of intensive search. The natural resting spots are, in fact, a mystery. This alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks, where they are highly visible to bird predators.

The only problems with this are that: (a) Majerus himself, right there in Melanism, presented data showing that moths rested on trunks or trunk/branch joints in 32/47 moths Majerus had personally observed undisturbed in the wild, and 136/203 moths observed resting near light traps. Furthermore, Majerus's photographs contained several unstaged photos, taken by him, of moths discovered in various natural positions, including on tree trunks. (b) Birds that hunt on tree trunks are not somehow magically blocked from hunting on tree branches, and lichens are known to grow not just on tree trunks, but also on tree branches. Air pollution and soot, which darken trees both by killing lichens and by physically blackening surfaces (many critiques of the peppered moth example ignore that both processes happen), also manage to get to both places. (An aside -- people forget what air pollution was like in 1950s England and before. Think Dickens. Black soot would fall out of the sky. That's where the term "fallout" comes from, I believe. Sometimes the audience at the back of an opera house could not see the stage at the front. The death rate would spike on bad air days. Etc. This was not a subtle environmental change.) (c) Not all of Kettlewell's experiments relied solely on placing moths only on tree trunks. In fact it was Kettlewell himself who first noted in the 1950s that the moths also like branches, some of his experiments let the moths find their own resting spots. (d) Sargent et al.'s review, which clearly influenced Coyne more than Majerus's actual book, was on the phenomenon of melanism in moths in general -- which likely does have diverse causes -- and many of its criticisms did not apply to the specific case of the peppered moth. And as it turned out, Sargent and his coauthors had some very weird Lamarkian and anti-Modern-Synthesis views that have been aired in other venues. Coyne added a few other choice quotes which rang around the world:

Depressingly, Majerus shows that this classic example is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention. [...] Majerus concludes, reasonably, that all we can deduce from this story is that it is a case of rapid evolution, probably involving pollution and bird predation. I would, however, replace "probably" with "perhaps". B. betularia shows the footprint of natural selection, but we have not yet seen the feet. Majerus finds some solace in his analysis, claiming that the true story is likely to be more complex and therefore more interesting, but one senses that he is making a virtue of necessity. My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve. [...] What can one make of all this? Majerus concludes with the usual call for more research, but several lessons are already at hand. First, for the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution.

Majerus and other peppered moth researchers were dismayed by Coyne's review, and said so in various fora, but none of this attracted anything like the attention that Coyne's review received, particularly when it was amplified by journalists and creationists. By the early 2000s, Wells and other creationists, and even some benighted journalists such as Judith Hooper, were alleging not just that the Kettlewell work was mistaken, but that it was fraud. Soon the peppered moth was disappearing from textbooks. The whole phenomenon was bizarre if one paid attention to the actual research literature by the actual people who had done fieldwork and experiments by peppered moths, e.g. Majerus himself, Cook, Bruce Grant, etc. Cook et al. write:

The attacks on the classic peppered moth story were promulgated almost entirely by people who never studied the peppered moth themselves. It is notable that no new fieldwork had ever been done that disproved the classical explanation.

There is more that could be said about the details of the criticisms leveled against Kettlewell and the peppered moth work over the years, but this would take a published article to sort out. It suffices to say that many of the criticisms contradicted other criticisms, most or all "alternative explanations", even on the rare occasions when a critic bothered to propose one, could not explain how peppered moth color changed from light to dark and then back to light again, and many of the criticisms were obviously armchair "in the bad way" of assuming things that would be obviously wrong to anyone who went out to the field and looked at the relevant forests a bit. (I realized this when I looked at the forests around Cambridge -- forests of relatively small and short British hardwoods are rather different than forests on the West Coast of the U.S. Trunk versus canopy is a huge difference in a redwood forest, but literally a matter of an arms length and a second or two of flying for a moth or bird in an English forest.) All in all, I feel that my assessment of the peppered moth work as of 2002 was right on, and has been confirmed by subsequent developments. However, a fantastic feature of science is that even overwrought and unreasonable criticisms can benefit knowledge and science in the end, because they aggravate scientists enough to spur them to gather more data. To this end, Majerus conducted experiments and observations on peppered moths for seven summers from 2001-2007, and did it while deliberately avoiding the criticisms that had been leveled at previous experiments -- Majerus's moths were at low density, in natural resting positions, etc. And the result? The selection coefficient against dark moths was statistically significant and approximately 0.1. This is a huge value (huge in that much smaller selection coefficients can easily be relevant in population genetics), of the same order of magnitude and direction estimated in previous work, and sufficient and adequate to explain the change in frequency of the dark morph of the peppered moth, which dropped from 12% to 1% over the course of the study, continuing the trend which had been observed ever since the clean-air laws went into effect in the 1950s. As an aside, we are very lucky that Majerus did this work when he did, since (as the classical explanation predicted), the dark morph is now almost extinct. Majerus's data were in by 2007 and he released the results in various talks and in an online article on his website, and reviewed the work in a 2008 article in Evolution: Education and Outreach. Jerry Coyne, to his great credit, went on the air with Majerus in a radio interview and announced that Majerus's new work had convinced him. The only step left would have been for Majerus to formally publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal, but Majerus unexpectedly and shockingly died of a rare illness in 2009. Such an event causes chaos for a researcher's family and laboratory, and I was beginning to worry that Majerus's final experiment would never be published, and thus we would be subjected to endless cycles of rehashing of the same old half-baked arguments from creationists and the like for decades to come, each time someone rediscovered the charges of scandal and fraud from the late 1990s and early 2000s. Fortunately, however, a group of Majerus's former colleagues assembled his results and methods and conducted a new statistical analysis, which resulted in the Cook et al. paper. Whether or not this means that peppered moths will go back into the textbooks is, perhaps, not the most important question. The most important question is getting the science correct and then conforming our beliefs and confidence to whatever the best evidence says. And the science is continuing -- researchers have recently identified (van't Hof et al. 2011) the region of the moth genome responsible for producing the melanism trait, and presumably it is just a matter of time before we know the mutation(s) responsible for producing the trait. Interestingly, Majerus (1998) argued that the evidence argued for a single origin of melanism in British peppered moths. In this he was disagreeing with Kettlewell, who argued that melanism was a "recurring necessity" that had come and gone with climate change and the like (e.g., cryptic moths in general tend to be darker in wetter regions, probably because water darkens surfaces and cloud cover reduces the amount of light on surfaces). Hopefully soon, molecular work will reveal whether or not Majerus was as correct about this as he was about other things. (Note: van't Hof et al. 2011 already conclude this based on the linkage disequilibrium pattern they observe in the moth chromosomes, but I believe they haven't drilled down to the specific mutation in the sequence which is responsible.) But I have to confess that I have a soft spot for the moths and for their place in the textbooks. It is true, as is often said, that we now have many good examples of natural selection in action. So we don't need the moths. However, that argument only has a point if you have some residual reason to doubt the quality of the evidence in the peppered moth case, probably because you "heard somewhere" that it was in doubt. Hopefully a careful review of the published research, and not second-hand armchair sources, would convince any reasonable observer that the science is perfectly decent in the case of the peppered moth. Once that conclusion is accepted, the peppered moth story lends itself to classroom use for many reasons: the evolutionary change is obvious and visual. The mechanism of bird predation, and the resulting adaptation of camouflage, is easy to understand and gives students a crucial link between the statistical action of natural selection, and the production of adaptations that "seem designed" to naive observers. And the change was the unintentional byproduct of human activity -- air pollution, and furthermore the change back was due to legislation which reduced air pollution. And the change in the peppered moths back to their original peppered state was an evolutionary prediction made by Kettlewell and subsequent researchers, and which was dramatically confirmed. Finally, the whole snafu over the peppered moth science, and the subsequent resolution of the controversy, first by review of already published work by moth researchers, and confirmed by the additional research by Majerus, is itself an excellent example of how science can succeed even in spite of the mistakes all humans and scientists make, and in spite of the difficulties imposed by inadequate journalism, pseudoscientific propaganda like creationism, etc. Since the oversimplification of the peppered moth story in textbooks originally led to some of the backlash, surely it would be fitting to make the practice of science, in all its complexity, accessible to students today, in the form of the peppered moth example along with the history of the rise, and fall, and rise of the peppered moth.

134 Comments

harold · 8 February 2012

Many thanks for this excellent review.

Wells’s strategy was very clever; rather than attacking the science of evolution head-on, he attacked high school biology textbooks. He engaged in a delicate dance of selective citation and quote-mining so as to make it appear that the criticisms of standard textbook examples used to introduce various evolutionary concepts were coming from scientists.

Furthermore, Wells wasn't necessarily even original in this approach. An equally misguided but much more talented writer famously used the same approach of inaccurately attacking a few well-known examples of evolution. http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp Since the current version on the Chick site states "copyright 2002", I can't really be definitive about who inspired who, but I suspect that versions of Chick's work predate "Icons of Evolution".

co · 8 February 2012

Very nice write-up, Nick, and -- as you say -- a brilliant illustration of how the truth will out.

Mike Elzinga · 8 February 2012

One of the nastiest tricks of the ID/creationists, ever since Morris and Gish started hounding scientists and teachers, is their grotesque misrepresentations of not only scientific concepts but of the process of science itself.

We in the physics community have been trying to clean up the mess they created with entropy and the second law for decades; but ID/creationist memes spread rapidly; and these memes get picked up unwittingly by the media and even by well-meaning popularizers of science.

But worse, as the science community cleans up the mess, ID/creationists are right there taking credit for “spurring on scientists to clean up their dirty act.” These ID/creationist jerks are just plain infuriating in the contorted games they play.

If the peppered moths – or any other demonstrative research suitable for introductory biology textbooks – returns to the textbooks, I hope that the textbook writers and teachers can clearly distinguish between the roles scientists played in firming up the research and the confusion generated by opportunistic charlatans attempting to hitch a ride on the backs of those scientists.

Nick Matzke · 8 February 2012

Dang journalists beat me to it...by a little bit...

Classic sooty-moth tale bolstered by new results Backyard experiment strengthens scenario for evolutionary changes due to pollution By Susan Milius Web edition : 12:33 pm Results from a large experiment support the much-debated original hypothesis that industrialization favored a dark form (left) of the peppered moth over the lighter one (right) because hungry birds found light wings easy to spot against sooty backgrounds.J. Mallet A recently criticized textbook example of evolutionary forces in action, the dark forms of peppered moths that spread with industrialization in Britain, may be on its way back. Results of an ambitious experiment on the moths (Biston betularia) support the original hypothesis that their dark-colored forms spread in soot-coated landscapes because they are more difficult for hungry birds to spot, says evolutionary biologist James Mallet of Harvard University. He and three colleagues have published the final peppered moth experiment of Michael Majerus, who spent six years monitoring the fates of a total of 4,864 moths, presented his conclusions at a conference but died before publishing them. The study appears online February 8 in Biology Letters. The moth story not only makes “a compelling example of evolution in action,” but it’s “a terrific case history of how science works,” says evolutionary biologist Scott Freeman of the University of Washington in Seattle. “Majerus raised questions; he and his colleagues did the hard work required to answer them.” The moths, which usually have salt-white wings sprinkled with pepper-black, have long played a role in evolutionary biology. In the early years of genetics, breeding experiments established that a single gene can create a black form. It showed up in Manchester, England, in 1848, and by 1895, 98 percent of the region’s moths were dark. Moths went dark in similarly industrializing areas, and when clean-air regulations began to clear the pollution, dark forms went into decline. Experiments in the mid-20th century supported the idea that industrial grime provided better camouflage for dark wings, but that work drew escalating challenges starting in the 1990s. Majerus and other scientists raised questions about those studies’ methods, such as whether the high densities of moths released had altered the results and whether the tree trunks where moths were placed were a normal resting place. Debates over those studies ignited reputation bashing, charges of fraud and a firestorm of creationist glee. Majerus, who lived in a relatively unpolluted hamlet near Cambridge, England, set out to answer some of the questions himself. On spring and summer mornings he rose before dawn to climb ladders and set out eight to 10 moths on realistic spots in the trees behind his home. He then checked to see if they survived the first four hours of daylight. After six years of moth patrol, he established that dark forms had only about 91 percent the survival rate of the light moths. That kind of predation pressure was strong enough to account for the shift in moth forms, he concluded. Majerus also established that a noticeable portion (36 percent) of moths do choose to rest on tree trunks, and he tested, and rejected, the alternative hypothesis that bats instead of birds were differentially catching light or dark moths. Birds indeed were eating the moths; Majerus witnessed many of the fatalities from his window. The storied moth may one day find its way back into textbooks, though perhaps in new forms. Freeman says he considered including it in his introductory textbook with new material on dark moth forms spreading in gritty North American districts. And author Kenneth Miller of Brown University says he’s thought about discussing peppered moths along with color forms of rock pocket mice to explain natural selection’s influence on dark-pigmented forms. “In short,” Miller says, “the peppered moth story is and always was a fine example of natural selection in action.”

DS · 8 February 2012

Whether textbook publishers put this into the textbooks or not, all biology teachers can still include it in their lesson plans. And of course we now have a new reference to cite and use for data. If anyone objects you can just have them read the paper.

It doesn't matter what crap creationists try to pull, or what pressure they put on publishers. Reality will trump spin every time. Eventually.

Thanks to Nick for the heads up.

SteveP. · 8 February 2012

Actually, the peppered moth issue is good for ID in the long-run. It cements NS as a maintenance junkie, rather than a building contractor.

So if Nick Matzke is content with not searching for any 'tantalizing hints' that the peppered moth is capable of more than a simple light/dark oscillation, then hey great, white to black and back again to white it is!

Mike Elzinga · 8 February 2012

SteveP. said: It cements NS as a maintenance junkie, rather than a building contractor.

Well, you have just demonstrated that you still don’t know anything about chemistry and physics. Hate science textbooks, do you?

DS · 8 February 2012

It's still just a moth!

apokryltaros · 8 February 2012

SteveP. said: Actually, the peppered moth issue is good for ID in the long-run. It cements NS as a maintenance junkie, rather than a building contractor.

And your continued inanity cements you as a stupid troll who continually refuses to understand science even if it laid eggs in the empty hole where your brain should have been. Why is the peppered moth issue "good for ID"? Intelligent Design proponents can't explain anything to save their lives.

So if Nick Matzke is content with not searching for any 'tantalizing hints' that the peppered moth is capable of more than a simple light/dark oscillation, then hey great, white to black and back again to white it is!

So how come you don't want to explain why the Intelligent Designer can't make up His mind about what color peppered moths should be? Oh, wait, no, you can't explain because you're a stupid troll whose sole purpose here is to insult us for not being moronic bobbleheads like you are.

apokryltaros · 8 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said:
SteveP. said: It cements NS as a maintenance junkie, rather than a building contractor.
Well, you have just demonstrated that you still don’t know anything about chemistry and physics.

He doesn't know anything about biology, either.

Hate science textbooks, do you?

Yes, yes he does. He hates learning, too.

Michael R · 9 February 2012

Apart from the results of Majerus' research, the main thing which comes out of the ID/YEC criticism of peppered moths is their blatant lying over so many issues, accusing Kettlewell of fraud etc.

It is one of the best examples of ID/YEC dishonesty, which is easily documented. I have used it to get creationists running as there is never such a good lie as a detailed one.

harold · 9 February 2012

I knew a creationist would show up; they don't care about science but they become agitated and defensive when creationism/ID books are critiqued.

Actually, the peppered moth issue is good for ID in the long-run.

The main peppered moth "issue" discussed here is that Jonathon Wells, ID advocate and DI fellow, lied about peppered moth research; how can that be good for ID? Serious question.

It cements NS as a maintenance junkie, rather than a building contractor.

1. This seems pretty illogical; are you arguing because the frequency of alleles associated with color can change rapidly with natural selection, no other change in frequency of alleles in a peppered moth population is possible? Serious question. 2. If this is the ID/creationist explanation, then why did Jonathon Wells previously deny this explanation? Serious question.

Rolf · 9 February 2012

There ought to be a certificate of ignorance issued to the ignorati. Steve P. merits the AAA+ rating.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 · 9 February 2012

Only a delusional moron like Steve P. can make such a risible conclusion. Even if Steve P. was right, ID has not offered a compelling hypothesis confirmed by subsequent rigorous scientific testing unlike, for example, the work done by Majerus.

Steve P., I am willing to bet that your friends and business associates in the Taiwanese textile market know a lot more about biology and REAL SCIENCE like evolutionary biology than you. Maybe if you opted to learn from them then you wouldn't be the mendacious troll who enjoys "driving by" here at Panda's Thumb. I strongly second Rolf's most astute observation that you deserve an AAA+ rated certificate of ignorance, though with a notation that your ignorance is one replete in its mendacity.

Anyway, my thanks to Nick Matzke for yet another superb essay.

Kevin B · 9 February 2012

Rolf said: There ought to be a certificate of ignorance issued to the ignorati. Steve P. merits the AAA+ rating.

That ought to be ZZZ+ with the next lesser point on the scale being ZZZ. The question is whether going from ZZZ to ZZZ+ is an upgrade or a downgrade. I would also quibble about rating Steve P. at ZZZ+ as it doesn't leave room to grade FL, IBIG or Robert Byers appropriately. I'd rate Steve P. as "Standard and Poor".

co · 9 February 2012

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Only a delusional moron like Steve P. can make such a risible conclusion. Even if Steve P. was right, ID has not offered a compelling hypothesis confirmed by subsequent rigorous scientific testing unlike, for example, the work done by Majerus. Steve P., I am willing to bet that your friends and business associates in the Taiwanese textile market know a lot more about biology and REAL SCIENCE like evolutionary biology than you. Maybe if you opted to learn from them then you wouldn't be the mendacious troll who enjoys "driving by" here at Panda's Thumb. I strongly second Rolf's most astute observation that you deserve an AAA+ rated certificate of ignorance, though with a notation that your ignorance is one replete in its mendacity. Anyway, my thanks to Nick Matzke for yet another superb essay.

And ex ungue leonem. John, why don't you sign in?

Just Bob · 9 February 2012

I'd go with Orwell's Newspeak. Steve P. would rate ungood. FL, IBIG or Byers are at least plusungood, while the likes of Ham must be doubleplusungood.

Jim · 9 February 2012

ID and Creationist propagandists will never stop using the peppered moth bit, anymore than climate change denialists will ever stop claiming that the famous emails revealed unholy doings. Thing is, when your message is targeted at low information folks, evidence and logic are unimportant. Repetition of an attack creates an association of ideas that produces the desired effect: ringing a bell is not an argument in favor of salivating but it makes the juices flow. The recipient of the message is proud of himself for his familiarity with the notion and this suffices to reinforce the lesson. After all, at the popular level of mental functioning there is little awareness of the difference between being acquainted with something and knowing about it. Good luck getting people who think you're the enemy to invest the effort required to actually understand an issue that requires as many as three sentences to convey.

Marilyn · 9 February 2012

So you would have to take into consideration the eye sight of the bird and that the bird doesn’t feel the need to evolve to accommodate both colours also it's possible taste could come into the equation.

Dave Lovell · 9 February 2012

Marilyn said: So you would have to take into consideration the eye sight of the bird and that the bird doesn’t feel the need to evolve to accommodate both colours also it's possible taste could come into the equation.

I have no trouble understanding why people like you find it hard to accept evolution knowing that you honestly think it means every poor little sparrow wakes up every morning with thought of "what shall I evolve into today" flying around its tiny little brain!

Flint · 9 February 2012

Dave Lovell said:
Marilyn said: So you would have to take into consideration the eye sight of the bird and that the bird doesn’t feel the need to evolve to accommodate both colours also it's possible taste could come into the equation.
I have no trouble understanding why people like you find it hard to accept evolution knowing that you honestly think it means every poor little sparrow wakes up every morning with thought of "what shall I evolve into today" flying around its tiny little brain!

Out of curiosity, has anyone here ever seen a creatonist critique of the scientific understanding of evolution, rather than some absurd caricature? I admit I haven't.

harold · 9 February 2012

Flint said:
Dave Lovell said:
Marilyn said: So you would have to take into consideration the eye sight of the bird and that the bird doesn’t feel the need to evolve to accommodate both colours also it's possible taste could come into the equation.
I have no trouble understanding why people like you find it hard to accept evolution knowing that you honestly think it means every poor little sparrow wakes up every morning with thought of "what shall I evolve into today" flying around its tiny little brain!
Out of curiosity, has anyone here ever seen a creatonist critique of the scientific understanding of evolution, rather than some absurd caricature? I admit I haven't.

I have not. For many years, I specifically asked ID/creationists whether, before discussing the theory of evolution, they could briefly describe it. I never got a coherent answer. (I did get some evasive "Of course I know what evolution is, how dare you question that, how dare you imply that I can't explain evolution, why of course I could, if I wanted to..." type answers, and I did get a lot of people ignoring the question.) I've also outlined basic mechanisms of evolution, and asked creationists which they specifically deny, without getting a coherent answer. I am told that Todd Wood can correctly summarize the theory of evolution. I have not seen him do so, personally; he probably has somewhere, but I haven't seen it. I have seen quotes of him conceding that it is a strong theory, which is not quite the same thing. (Note - I'm not sure whether Marilynn's comment is intended to deny peppered moth natural selection; to address her specific points - bird vision and bird olfactory/gustatory perception did evolve, of course, but what is being discussed here is the strong evidence that, those being what they are, in the environment of rural areas near Oxford, UK, birds are able to prey more effectively on moths that visually stand out against the background environment, and that fact leads to relatively rapid shifts in allele frequencies within the moth population, when the visual features of the background environment shift.)

ksplawn · 9 February 2012

Flint said: Out of curiosity, has anyone here ever seen a creatonist critique of the scientific understanding of evolution, rather than some absurd caricature? I admit I haven't.

Nope. Same problem with those anti-evolutionists who insist that their supernatural alternative is scientific: they might be able to repeat some of the bullet-points for the scientific method but invariably they fail to apply it consistently to their own position. In another forum I've been running up against one very persistent IDist who refuses to go into the "pathetic level of detail" (as Dembski put it) about how ID actually explains a feature. He even describes several times how to arrive at the ID conclusion (eliminate all possibility of evolution first) and then can't understand why everyone calls this an impossible process, God of the Gaps, negative argumentation, etc. It's really quite amazing how resilient he is at being corrected. Another example, from him is his failure to understand how Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover showed the utter lack of scientific methodology in his approach. When the example was trotted out about all the literature on immune system evolution that Behe hadn't read, he tried to defend Behe's willful ignorance by insisting that Behe was right: he'd had no obligation to even read research that he didn't consider fruitful and could avoid dealing with evolutionary explanations of the system, even though Behe's entire position is that evolutionary mechanism are inadequate. The dude couldn't understand why this is a shameful example of anti-science and not proper scientific conduct; in order to show how evolutionary explanations are inadequate, Behe would have had to actually understand and examine those explanations in the first place, then show how ID is supposed to work better. So it's not just evolution that they chronically misunderstand, it's the process of science itself; and with their conspiracy theories and juicy pop-sci books they spread this fundamental misunderstanding to a wider audience. Just as Mike said above, it's perhaps the more insidious trick that they attack the public's understanding of science, not just the findings of science.

Mike Elzinga · 9 February 2012

Michael R said: Apart from the results of Majerus' research, the main thing which comes out of the ID/YEC criticism of peppered moths is their blatant lying over so many issues, accusing Kettlewell of fraud etc. It is one of the best examples of ID/YEC dishonesty, which is easily documented. I have used it to get creationists running as there is never such a good lie as a detailed one.

This is indeed an effective method of debunking ID/creationists. It requires that one dig into their misconceptions and misrepresentations; and that requires a lot of practice at suppressing the gag reflex. But the payoff is rather substantial when one discusses the dishonest tactics of the ID/creationists with the public or with students. As I have mentioned before, as much as I hate reading ID/creationist crap, there is some benefit in helping one to understand misconceptions and misrepresentations and finding ways to deal with these.

Mike Elzinga · 9 February 2012

Flint said: Out of curiosity, has anyone here ever seen a creatonist critique of the scientific understanding of evolution, rather than some absurd caricature? I admit I haven't.

Well, I have been watching their tactics for something like 40+ years now; and not once have I seen an ID/creationist give an accurate description of a scientific concept or process. Duane Gish’s caricatures were grotesque misrepresentations that were designed to infuriate a debating opponent. Both Morris’s and Gish’s misconceptions became standard, memorized arguing points by the creationists they trained at the Institute for Creation Research. It was amusing that, after the 1987 US Supreme Court decision on Edwards v. Aguillard the morph of creationism into the intelligent design resulted in the ID/creationist crowd actually taking their misconceptions seriously. It resulted in the pseudo-science they now promulgate; and that, in turn, lies at the heart of all the contorted screeds on “information,” “complex specified information,” “irreducible complexity,” along with their mischaracterizations of science and scientific activity.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 · 9 February 2012

co said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Only a delusional moron like Steve P. can make such a risible conclusion. Even if Steve P. was right, ID has not offered a compelling hypothesis confirmed by subsequent rigorous scientific testing unlike, for example, the work done by Majerus. Steve P., I am willing to bet that your friends and business associates in the Taiwanese textile market know a lot more about biology and REAL SCIENCE like evolutionary biology than you. Maybe if you opted to learn from them then you wouldn't be the mendacious troll who enjoys "driving by" here at Panda's Thumb. I strongly second Rolf's most astute observation that you deserve an AAA+ rated certificate of ignorance, though with a notation that your ignorance is one replete in its mendacity. Anyway, my thanks to Nick Matzke for yet another superb essay.
And ex ungue leonem. John, why don't you sign in?

If I could sign in from my Facebook account, I would, but I can't. I'll have to test that.

DavidK · 9 February 2012

harold said: Many thanks for this excellent review.
Wells’s strategy was very clever; rather than attacking the science of evolution head-on, he attacked high school biology textbooks. He engaged in a delicate dance of selective citation and quote-mining so as to make it appear that the criticisms of standard textbook examples used to introduce various evolutionary concepts were coming from scientists.
Furthermore, Wells wasn't necessarily even original in this approach. An equally misguided but much more talented writer famously used the same approach of inaccurately attacking a few well-known examples of evolution. http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp Since the current version on the Chick site states "copyright 2002", I can't really be definitive about who inspired who, but I suspect that versions of Chick's work predate "Icons of Evolution".

Wells - plagerism? Does anyone ever check? I've seen a number of attorney books on creationism/ID and have wondered how much of their arguments were lifted by Phillip Johnson.

Flint · 9 February 2012

Yeah, as I've been saying for some time now, the way things come true in religionland is to SAY they're true. If you say it twice, it becomes twice as true. If people believe you, you have a new cult. This cult will honor your claims until it expires (if it does). But expiration doesn't make your claim false, because nothing can do that. The Word is all.

I think it's important to realize that creationists cannot conceive of any other way. So they think scientific claims become true because some scientist SAID SO. If you attack Darwin's character, you are necessarily attacking evolution, because it was Darwin who spoke the Word that made evolution True. And if they don't like the scientific understanding of evolution, the solution is to SAY it's something different, and attack that. Saying so MAKES it so. That's how religion works.

I'm pretty well convinced that creationists never gtive an accurate description of a scientific concept or process because they simply cannot think it. It flat doesn't fit anywhere in their mental model. And their mental model isn't just a "fixer upper", it's an edifice that needs to be burned, bulldozed, and sterilized. Not gonna happen.

Marilyn · 9 February 2012

Dave Lovell said:
Marilyn said: So you would have to take into consideration the eye sight of the bird and that the bird doesn’t feel the need to evolve to accommodate both colours also it's possible taste could come into the equation.
I have no trouble understanding why people like you find it hard to accept evolution knowing that you honestly think it means every poor little sparrow wakes up every morning with thought of "what shall I evolve into today" flying around its tiny little brain!

So what you are saying then is that the little sparrow has to wait while God sets in motion the ability for the sparrow to adapt to its new environment or go extinct due to its lack of ability to cope with its new environment and that does happen to lots of species. Or see that there is a species that is succeeding and decide to mate with it so its kind will survive in some form.

Karen S. · 9 February 2012

It’s still just a moth!

Just? It's the revenge of the peppered behe-moth and the biocomical challenge to evolution!

Henry J · 9 February 2012

DS said: It's still just a moth!

I was about to say that!

bigdakine · 9 February 2012

Marilyn said:
Dave Lovell said:
Marilyn said: So you would have to take into consideration the eye sight of the bird and that the bird doesn’t feel the need to evolve to accommodate both colours also it's possible taste could come into the equation.
I have no trouble understanding why people like you find it hard to accept evolution knowing that you honestly think it means every poor little sparrow wakes up every morning with thought of "what shall I evolve into today" flying around its tiny little brain!
So what you are saying then is that the little sparrow has to wait while God sets in motion the ability for the sparrow ....

Individual sparrows don't evolve. Populations do. If you are uninterested in reading any books on evolution, then perhaps your spare time is better spent on other things.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 · 9 February 2012

bigdakine said:
Marilyn said:
Dave Lovell said:
Marilyn said: So you would have to take into consideration the eye sight of the bird and that the bird doesn’t feel the need to evolve to accommodate both colours also it's possible taste could come into the equation.
I have no trouble understanding why people like you find it hard to accept evolution knowing that you honestly think it means every poor little sparrow wakes up every morning with thought of "what shall I evolve into today" flying around its tiny little brain!
So what you are saying then is that the little sparrow has to wait while God sets in motion the ability for the sparrow ....
Individual sparrows don't evolve. Populations do. If you are uninterested in reading any books on evolution, then perhaps your spare time is better spent on other things.

Might be better just to ignore her, bigdakine. She "drives by" merely to get our attention, and not reciprocating in kind by listenting to our advice. Anyway, there is an excellent reason why there is an important component of genetics known as population genetics and why population thinking has influenced evolutionary biologists for more than a century and a half, starting of course with Darwin and Wallace.

MosesZD · 9 February 2012

SteveP. said: Actually, the peppered moth issue is good for ID in the long-run. It cements NS as a maintenance junkie, rather than a building contractor. So if Nick Matzke is content with not searching for any 'tantalizing hints' that the peppered moth is capable of more than a simple light/dark oscillation, then hey great, white to black and back again to white it is!

Are you kidding? How is confirmation of one of evolutions' core concepts, plus showing that evolution can act rather rapidly, 'good for ID?' It boggles the mind... It's as dumb as saying "catching yourself on fire is good for getting rid of acne..."

Dave Lovell · 9 February 2012

Marilyn said:
Dave Lovell said:
Marilyn said: So you would have to take into consideration the eye sight of the bird and that the bird doesn’t feel the need to evolve to accommodate both colours also it's possible taste could come into the equation.
I have no trouble understanding why people like you find it hard to accept evolution knowing that you honestly think it means every poor little sparrow wakes up every morning with thought of "what shall I evolve into today" flying around its tiny little brain!
So what you are saying then is that the little sparrow has to wait while God sets in motion the ability for the sparrow to adapt to its new environment or go extinct due to its lack of ability to cope with its new environment and that does happen to lots of species. Or see that there is a species that is succeeding and decide to mate with it so its kind will survive in some form.

I said absolutely nothing about what I thought, other than to point out I might be just as incredulous as you about evolution if I thought evolution meant what you think it means. An individual sparrow does not adapt to anything, it simply copes with what life throws at it long enough to raise its chicks. Its chicks may be slightly better at coping than the parent was due to a mutation in the genes it passed to its eggs, so our sparrow has more than the average number of grandchicks. If you wish to postulate this mutation was deliberately added by a god, let's assume this is the case for now. Repeat this operation thousands of times for millions of sparrows, and the species will have evolved. Once we have established the operation of evolution by divine mutation plus natural selection we have made progress, and can the move on to the random mutation part to reduce the amount of input we require fom the deity. Let's try a really simple illustrative example, one you can even adapt to try a home. Imagine you are staying in a hotel where a bowl of fruit is provided on arrival with a dozen apples, six red ones which you like, and six green ones which you hate. Every morning you eat a red apple, and every day the man from Room Service (who is red-green colourblind) notices an apple is missing and replaces it. After about a fortnight the bowl of mixed apples will have "evolved" into a bowl of detestable green apples, an inevitable consequence of an unguided process.

QED · 9 February 2012

You know, as a long-time lurker, I understand the necessity of deflating creationist incredulity and ignorance for lurkers' sake. I've suffered through endless attacks on real science by clueless religious extremists here, always in response to articles concerning legitimate science. But, for love of Dog, for all lurkers that have suffered long enough, send these knuckle-draggers to the Bathroom Wall before the threads are hopelessly derailed. This isn't a prayer group. Isn't a Christian hook-up site. I don't need a Christian soulmate or sex-worker. I'm here for the science. We all are.

Dave Luckett · 9 February 2012

No, Marilyn. We're not saying that. But it's plain that whatever we say, you will either genuinely not get it, or else will deliberately misconstrue it. It would be difficult to come up with a more grotesque distortion than your last comment.

But I'll try to explain once more.

Any living species will adapt to a changing environment, because all living things reproduce with variation. This must mean - it can't not mean - that each of the offspring will do better or worse according to how well its variations fit the changing environment. The ones that do better are more likely to survive and succeed in reproducing themselves. This is a probability, not an absolute rule, but a probability is enough.

Living things also pass their characteristics on to their offspring. So successful variations are more likely to be preserved. More and more offspring display them. Over generations, successful variations spread throughout the breeding population.

But environments change over time, and they aren't fixed in any other way either. Any change to part of the environment, in any way, provides advantages and disadvantages to one or another set of variations. So that set is selected for, or selected against, in dealing with that change, but other sets of variations are selected for, or against, elsewhere or in other ways. So the characteristics of populations diverge from each other, over generations. If that process goes on long enough, the populations become different species.

That's evolution. It doesn't have anything to do with what God sets in motion. Changes to environment can be caused by what man sets in motion, as the peppered moth studies show, or anything that changes the environment in any way. If it changes the environment in any way, living things will evolve to fit it. They must. They can't not.

It does have something to do with mate selection - that's called "sexual selection" and it has been understood, pretty much, for well over a hundred years. There seems to be an inbuilt tendency in living things to select mates who seem to be doing the best, to be in the most robust health, to be strong, or showy, or prolific or whatever. But there is no decision to evolve.

This is a sixth-grader's understanding of evolution. It's not as detailed or as specific as what Charles Darwin wrote over a century and a half ago. This is boiled down as much as I can, and plenty of people here will tell you it's oversimplified. So it is.

Remember the Rabbi Gamaliel? Someone asked him to explain the Law while standing on one foot. The Rabbi told him: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Law. The rest is commentary. Now go and study."

Go and study, Marilyn.

DS · 9 February 2012

Marilyn said:
Dave Lovell said:
Marilyn said: So you would have to take into consideration the eye sight of the bird and that the bird doesn’t feel the need to evolve to accommodate both colours also it's possible taste could come into the equation.
I have no trouble understanding why people like you find it hard to accept evolution knowing that you honestly think it means every poor little sparrow wakes up every morning with thought of "what shall I evolve into today" flying around its tiny little brain!
So what you are saying then is that the little sparrow has to wait while God sets in motion the ability for the sparrow to adapt to its new environment or go extinct due to its lack of ability to cope with its new environment and that does happen to lots of species. Or see that there is a species that is succeeding and decide to mate with it so its kind will survive in some form.

Yes Marilyn, that's exactly what he is saying. There has to be some intelligence involved every step of the way, be it god or a sparrow. Evolution doesn't just happen you know. Someone has to imagine it and make it happen. It wouldn't do to just have organisms living and dying and no one being in charge. Man, you could get lots of extinctions that way. What do you want, chaos?

DS · 9 February 2012

QED said: You know, as a long-time lurker, I understand the necessity of deflating creationist incredulity and ignorance for lurkers' sake. I've suffered through endless attacks on real science by clueless religious extremists here, always in response to articles concerning legitimate science. But, for love of Dog, for all lurkers that have suffered long enough, send these knuckle-draggers to the Bathroom Wall before the threads are hopelessly derailed. This isn't a prayer group. Isn't a Christian hook-up site. I don't need a Christian soulmate or sex-worker. I'm here for the science. We all are.

Amen.

harold · 9 February 2012

Marilynn said -

So what you are saying then is that the little sparrow has to wait while God sets in motion the ability for the sparrow to adapt to its new environment or go extinct due to its lack of ability to cope with its new environment and that does happen to lots of species. Or see that there is a species that is succeeding and decide to mate with it so its kind will survive in some form.

I don't have a big problem with this, if I understand it correctly. There is a part of the bible that talks about empathy, one among many, in which the character Jesus talks about empathy by suggesting that a caring god would notice the fate of individual sparrows. ("Sparrow" being the English translation of a reference to some kind of small bird, a type of animal that might typically provoke empathy in humans, while also simultaneously appearing insignificant.) I'm not religious, don't know if there was a historical Jesus, certainly don't believe in miracles, and don't have any reason to believe in deities. However, I have no problem whatsoever with having empathy for one's fellow creatures. Human empathy is something that evolved (but that does not affect everyone). Sparrows evolved. Sparrows aren't terribly "nice" to each other or to other birds. They weren't very nice to the American Bluebird. I eat birds quite frequently. But I would still feel empathy if I saw a sparrow having difficulty. In my opinion, that particular biblical passage is one of many that has value, not as a supernatural or magical incantation, but as an articulate statement of an aspect of human psychology. In my opinion, you can appreciate that part of the Bible, and you never have to deny physical reality to do so. Superficially, it describes a magical god, but on a deeper level, it talks about the experience of being human, and on that level it is interesting and valuable, particularly in a good translation, such as the KJV, and no magic is necessary to make it interesting.

It boggles the mind… It’s as dumb as saying “catching yourself on fire is good for getting rid of acne…”

Catching yourself on fire actually is a good way to get rid of acne. It may not be net beneficial, but it sure as excrement will get rid of acne. Thus, crazy, negative and harmful as such a suggestion would be, it is arguably more logical than creationism, because at least it would get rid of acne, whereas creationism just doesn't work at all. (Caveat - of course, if you're only choices are to be a creationist, or to light yourself on fire, I recommend that you choose to be a creationist.)

Just Bob · 9 February 2012

Hmm, I would venture a guess that the great majority of people who manage to light themselves on fire also manage to extinguish that fire before the results are fatal; and that the majority of non-fatal personal conflagrations could be classified as "minor", causing slight or no permanent damage.

My point is that most cases of lighting oneself on fire are cured or successfully recovered from. I wonder how that high percentage of recovery compares to the recovery rate of being afflicted with (or afflicting oneself with) creationism.

A close personal encounter with fire, while terrifying, is most likely to be survived and completely recovered from. Creationism is likely to plague one for his whole life.

Joe Felsenstein · 10 February 2012

Way before this thread got derailed,

Michael R said: Apart from the results of Majerus' research, the main thing which comes out of the ID/YEC criticism of peppered moths is their blatant lying over so many issues, accusing Kettlewell of fraud etc. It is one of the best examples of ID/YEC dishonesty, which is easily documented. I have used it to get creationists running as there is never such a good lie as a detailed one.

Alas, for the peppered moth case, the accusations of fraud against Kettlewell may have started with a science journalist in her book Of Moths and Men. Her acciusations have been debunked. I think Jonathan Wells's book was slightly earlier -- did he charge Kettlewell with scientific fraud in his first edition?

harold · 10 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: Way before this thread got derailed,
Michael R said: Apart from the results of Majerus' research, the main thing which comes out of the ID/YEC criticism of peppered moths is their blatant lying over so many issues, accusing Kettlewell of fraud etc. It is one of the best examples of ID/YEC dishonesty, which is easily documented. I have used it to get creationists running as there is never such a good lie as a detailed one.
Alas, for the peppered moth case, the accusations of fraud against Kettlewell may have started with a science journalist in her book Of Moths and Men. Her acciusations have been debunked. I think Jonathan Wells's book was slightly earlier -- did he charge Kettlewell with scientific fraud in his first edition?

Thanks for bringing that up; it's extremely valuable to follow where creationist memes come from and how, if they do, they get into the "mainstream media".

DS · 10 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: Way before this thread got derailed,
Michael R said: Apart from the results of Majerus' research, the main thing which comes out of the ID/YEC criticism of peppered moths is their blatant lying over so many issues, accusing Kettlewell of fraud etc. It is one of the best examples of ID/YEC dishonesty, which is easily documented. I have used it to get creationists running as there is never such a good lie as a detailed one.
Alas, for the peppered moth case, the accusations of fraud against Kettlewell may have started with a science journalist in her book Of Moths and Men. Her acciusations have been debunked. I think Jonathan Wells's book was slightly earlier -- did he charge Kettlewell with scientific fraud in his first edition?

Does anyone know if Hooper was a creationist, or just a journalist trying to make a fast buck by denigrating scientists?

SteveP. · 10 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: Way before this thread got derailed,
Michael R said: Apart from the results of Majerus' research, the main thing which comes out of the ID/YEC criticism of peppered moths is their blatant lying over so many issues, accusing Kettlewell of fraud etc. It is one of the best examples of ID/YEC dishonesty, which is easily documented. I have used it to get creationists running as there is never such a good lie as a detailed one.
Alas, for the peppered moth case, the accusations of fraud against Kettlewell may have started with a science journalist in her book Of Moths and Men. Her acciusations have been debunked. I think Jonathan Wells's book was slightly earlier -- did he charge Kettlewell with scientific fraud in his first edition?

Professor Felsenstein, I have an electronic copy of IoE. I will post (risking a violation of IP) a full excerpt from the book so you can judge for yourself if he charged Kettlewell with scientific fraud or not. To preempt any accusation of quote-mining, I can post excerpts immediately before and immediately after this posted excerpt if necessary. From IoE, starting with the last paragraph on pg. 148, ...."In most of Kettlewell's experiments, moths were released and observed during the day. In only one experiment (June 18, 1955) did Kettlewell release moths at night, just before sunrise. He immediately abandoned this approach because of the practical difficulties it entailed, such as having to warm the cold moths beforehand on the engine of his car. But peppered moths are night-fliers, and normally find resting places on trees before dawn. The moths Kettlewell released in the daytime remained exposed, and became easy targets for predatory birds. Regarding his release methods, Kettlewell wrote: «I admit that, under their own choice, many would have taken up position higher in the trees.» He assumed, however, that he could disregard the artificiality of his technique. Before the 1980s most investigators shared Kettlewell's assumption, and many of them found it convenient to conduct predation experiments using dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks. Kettlewell himself considered this a bad idea, and even some biologists who used dead moths suspected that the technique was unsatisfactory. For example, Jim Bishop and Laurence Cook conducted predation experiments using dead moths glued to trees; but they noted discrepancies in their results which «may indicate that we are not correctly assessing the true nature of the resting sites of living moths when we are conducting experiments with dead ones.» Since 1980, however, evidence has accumulated showing that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. Finnish zoologist Kauri Mikkola reported an experiment in 1984 in which he used caged moths to assess normal resting places. Mikkola observed that «the normal resting place of the Peppered Moth is beneath small, more or less horizontal branches (but not on narrow twigs), probably high up in the canopies, and the species probably only exceptionally rests on tree trunks.» He noted that «night-active moths, released in an illumination bright enough for the human eye, may well choose their resting sites as soon as possible and most probably atypically.» Although Mikkola used caged moths, data on wild moths supported his conclusion. In twenty-five years of field work, Cyril Clarke and his colleagues found only one peppered moth naturally perched on a tree trunk; they concluded that they knew primarily «where the moths do not spend the day.» When Rory Howlett and Michael Majerus studied the natural resting sites of peppered moths in various parts of England, they found that Mikkola's observations on caged moths were valid for wild moths, as well. «It seems certain that most B. betularia rest where they are hidden,» they concluded, and that «exposed areas of tree trunks are not an important resting site for any form of B. betularia.» In a separate study reported in 1987, British biologists Tony Liebert and Paul Brakefield confirmed Mikkola's observations that «the species rests predominantly on branches.... Many moths will rest underneath, or on the side of, narrow branches in the canopy.» In a 1998 book on industrial melanism, Michael Majerus defended the classical story but criticized the «artificiality» of much of the work on peppered moths, noting that in most predation experiments they were «positioned on vertical tree trunks, despite the fact that they rarely chose such surfaces to rest upon in the wild.» But if peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks, where did all those photographs come from? Pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks must be staged. Some are made using dead specimens that are glued or pinned to the trunk, while others use live specimens that are manually placed in desired positions. Since peppered moths are quite torpid in daylight, they remain where they are put. Manually positioned moths have also been used to make television nature documentaries. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent told a Washington Times reporter in 1999 that he once glued some dead specimens on a tree trunk for a TV documentary about peppered moths. Staged photos may have been reasonable when biologists thought they were simulating the normal resting-places of peppered moths. By the late 1980s, however, the practice should have stopped. Yet according to Sargent, a lot of faked photographs have been made since then. Defenders of the classical story typically argue that, despite being staged, the photographs illustrate the true cause of melanism. The problem is that it is precisely the cause of melanism that is in dispute. When birds preyed on Kettlewell's moths, the moths were not in their natural hiding places. This one fact casts serious doubt on the validity of his experiments. In the mid-1980s, Italian biologists Giuseppe Sermonti and Paola Catastini criticized Kettlewell's daytime releases and concluded that his experiments «do not prove in any acceptable way, according to the current scientific standard, the process he maintains to have experimentally demonstrated.» Sermonti and Catastini concluded that «the evidence Darwin lacked, Kettlewell lacked as well.» With Kettlewell's evidence impeached, some biologists now argue that Heslop Harrison's hypothesis of direct induction by pollutants deserves another look. According to Japanese biologist Atuhiro Sibatani, «the story of industrial melanism must be shelved, at least for the time being, as a paradigm of neo-Darwinian evolution,» and Harrison's work should be re-examined. Sibatani maintains that an inordinate devotion to neo-Darwinian theory led to a «sheer dismissal» of the induction hypothesis and a «too optimistic acceptance of the shaky evidence for the natural selection model of industrial melanism.» "

gmartincv · 10 February 2012

This morning Jerry Coyne, over on his blog Why Evolution s True, discussed the Cook et. al. paper on Majerus's data. In the concluding section Coyne says "I am delighted to agree with this conclusion, which answers my previous criticisms about the Biston story".

George

Marilyn · 10 February 2012

Dave Luckett said: No, Marilyn. We're not saying that. But it's plain that whatever we say, you will either genuinely not get it, or else will deliberately misconstrue it. It would be difficult to come up with a more grotesque distortion than your last comment. But I'll try to explain once more. Any living species will adapt to a changing environment, because all living things reproduce with variation. This must mean - it can't not mean - that each of the offspring will do better or worse according to how well its variations fit the changing environment. The ones that do better are more likely to survive and succeed in reproducing themselves. This is a probability, not an absolute rule, but a probability is enough. Living things also pass their characteristics on to their offspring. So successful variations are more likely to be preserved. More and more offspring display them. Over generations, successful variations spread throughout the breeding population. But environments change over time, and they aren't fixed in any other way either. Any change to part of the environment, in any way, provides advantages and disadvantages to one or another set of variations. So that set is selected for, or selected against, in dealing with that change, but other sets of variations are selected for, or against, elsewhere or in other ways. So the characteristics of populations diverge from each other, over generations. If that process goes on long enough, the populations become different species. That's evolution. It doesn't have anything to do with what God sets in motion. Changes to environment can be caused by what man sets in motion, as the peppered moth studies show, or anything that changes the environment in any way. If it changes the environment in any way, living things will evolve to fit it. They must. They can't not. It does have something to do with mate selection - that's called "sexual selection" and it has been understood, pretty much, for well over a hundred years. There seems to be an inbuilt tendency in living things to select mates who seem to be doing the best, to be in the most robust health, to be strong, or showy, or prolific or whatever. But there is no decision to evolve. This is a sixth-grader's understanding of evolution. It's not as detailed or as specific as what Charles Darwin wrote over a century and a half ago. This is boiled down as much as I can, and plenty of people here will tell you it's oversimplified. So it is. Remember the Rabbi Gamaliel? Someone asked him to explain the Law while standing on one foot. The Rabbi told him: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Law. The rest is commentary. Now go and study." Go and study, Marilyn.

I’d just like to say I think Pandas Thumb is one of the best places anyone could learn about either evolution or creationism. Myself I believe in God not a god. And one day I hope to see a peppered moth. I do try to keep within a certain boundary; I don’t find it difficult to be within elementary. But have you read the first line of this post so I’m not altogether out of place. I don’t have much to do with this subject just what you see and hear in general but when you see gorillas that have been kept in captivity and have been close to human teaching or handling they show absolute intelligence they can do things even better than people, mind problems and activities, but they don’t look any different than their species, I sometimes think they look less stressed, less wild, as they know where there next meal is coming from for one reason, but they are confident in what they are doing and reason a problem out, but the general appearance hasn’t changed.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 · 10 February 2012

Marilyn said: I’d just like to say I think Pandas Thumb is one of the best places anyone could learn about either evolution or creationism. Myself I believe in God not a god. And one day I hope to see a peppered moth. I do try to keep within a certain boundary; I don’t find it difficult to be within elementary. But have you read the first line of this post so I’m not altogether out of place. I don’t have much to do with this subject just what you see and hear in general but when you see gorillas that have been kept in captivity and have been close to human teaching or handling they show absolute intelligence they can do things even better than people, mind problems and activities, but they don’t look any different than their species, I sometimes think they look less stressed, less wild, as they know where there next meal is coming from for one reason, but they are confident in what they are doing and reason a problem out, but the general appearance hasn’t changed.

Marilyn, am glad you feel this way and I hope you start by reading the works of Francis Collins and Ken Miller, two devout Christians who are also notable biologists (In Collins' case he was the director of the Human Genome Project and is the head of NIH (National Institutes of Health) now.). Once you get past their books, I would encourage you read Sean B. Carroll's, Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" and Michael Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design". There are many reasonable, religiously devout scientists who recognize that the evidence for biological evolution is irrefutable and recognize the Modern Synthesis as the only valid contemporary evolutionary theory that accounts for the observed facts of biological evolution, both past and present.

Nick Matzke · 10 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein writes,

Alas, for the peppered moth case, the accusations of fraud against Kettlewell may have started with a science journalist in her book Of Moths and Men. Her acciusations have been debunked. I think Jonathan Wells’s book was slightly earlier – did he charge Kettlewell with scientific fraud in his first edition?

I can't remember if he used the word "fraud" w.r.t. peppered moths in Icons of Evolution -- he did toss the word around liberally in the book, and with peppered moths part of his claim was that *all* photos of peppered moths on tree trunks were staged and therefore evil and misleading -- when the reality is that many/most textbook photos of insects are probably staged to some degree, maybe most high-quality professional photos of insects in general for all I know, and it turns out that regardless there are unstaged photos of moths on trunks in Majerus's book, taken by Majerus, anyway. See my Icons review at talk.origins for much, much more. But, regarding Wells, he definitely was using the "fraud" allegation even before Icons came out:

BUT EVERYONE, INCLUDING MAJERUS, HAS KNOWN SINCE THE 1980'S THAT PEPPERED MOTHS DO NOT REST ON TREE TRUNKS IN THE WILD. This means that every time those staged photographs have been re-published since the 1980's constitutes a case of deliberate scientific fraud. Michael Majerus is being dishonest, and textbook-writers are lying to biology students. The behavior of these people is downright scandalous. I know what I'm talking about. I spent much of last summer reading the primary literature (email me if you want the references). Frankly, I was shocked by what I found -- not only that the evidence for the moths' true resting-places has been known since the 1980's, but also that people like Majerus and Miller continue to deceive the public. Fraud is fraud. It's time to tell it like it is. (Wells's message posted to Calvin listserv, March 31, 1999. Capitalization original. Available at: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199903/0348.html )

Nick Matzke · 10 February 2012

Thanks to those who noted Coyne's blogpost. Interestingly, Dawkins comments several times -- I think Dawkins may have had a soft spot for the peppered moth example as well. One bit of Coyne's post still worries me:

Majerus’s experiment was one-sided: that is, he released both types of moths at their naturally-occurring frequencies (a good design) in only unpolluted woods, for polluted woods aren’t around in Britain any longer. Nevertheless, it’s still a decent test of the bird-predation hypothesis, which under Majerus’s conditions predicted that relatively more of the dark moths than of the light moths would be eaten. And that is what he found, along with observing that a significant fraction of moths found in their natural daytime resting position (35%, to be exact) were sitting on tree trunks, as the predation hypothesis requires (birds have to see the moths to eat them).

This particular point is some kind of residual misunderstanding carrying over from Coyne's 1998 book review. The "moths on tree trunks" meme seems to have become so fixed in some folks brains, because of what they learned in 9th grade biology, that they instinctively, but not rationally, have made it into some kind of essential feature of the bird predation hypothesis. But a moment of reflection shows that it is not. In what holy book is it stated that moths on tree branches are invisible to birds? In what holy book is it stated that birds don't hunt for bugs on (and under) tree branches? Wells did this too -- he seemed to assume that if the moths weren't on tree trunks, they were in some alternate dimension completely free of birds. The reality is that we know birds hunt both places, we know they can hunt both above and below branches, and we know moths rest in all of these places. If anything, Majerus's resting data indicates that the peppered moths aren't terribly specific in their resting positions, but that if they have preferences, it is for sheltered and shadowed positions on trees, such as trunk-branch joints and the underside of branches -- which, if you think about it, actually supports rather than contradicts the bird predation hypothesis, since if you are hiding from birds, you might as well pick spots where you are slightly less visible. Here's an example of a bird under a branch: http://www.eriposte.com/environment/wildlife/Lake_Tahoe/Early_Sep_2004/BrownCreeper_1.jpg ...not to mention that birds are flying all around everywhere, and can look up under a branch as easily as look down from above. But if I had a nickel for every time back in the early 2000s when a read someone freaking out about whether or not the peppered moth resting position was on the tree trunk, I'd be rich. This may be an example where textbook-debunking, rather than textbook oversimplification, is what causes sloppy thinking. [/end rant]

dalehusband · 10 February 2012

Flint said: Yeah, as I've been saying for some time now, the way things come true in religionland is to SAY they're true. If you say it twice, it becomes twice as true. If people believe you, you have a new cult. This cult will honor your claims until it expires (if it does). But expiration doesn't make your claim false, because nothing can do that. The Word is all. I think it's important to realize that creationists cannot conceive of any other way. So they think scientific claims become true because some scientist SAID SO. If you attack Darwin's character, you are necessarily attacking evolution, because it was Darwin who spoke the Word that made evolution True. And if they don't like the scientific understanding of evolution, the solution is to SAY it's something different, and attack that. Saying so MAKES it so. That's how religion works. I'm pretty well convinced that creationists never gtive an accurate description of a scientific concept or process because they simply cannot think it. It flat doesn't fit anywhere in their mental model. And their mental model isn't just a "fixer upper", it's an edifice that needs to be burned, bulldozed, and sterilized. Not gonna happen.

Not to mention their stupid habit of referring to "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" instead of simply dealing with "modern biology" and "biologists". Those bigots are not merely delusional about religion, but about EVERYTHING in their lives. Look at the leading Republican Presidental candidates over the past several months for proof of that! Another stunt those hypocrites pull is to argue that we need to present both sides to kids in the name of academic freedom and let the kids decide what is right. The problem with that approach is that one side is full of FRAUD. How can anyone justify teaching fraud to children? And most children are too immature and inexperienced to objectively judge critical matters. The approach described by Flint makes it impossible for someone to determine truth from falsehood. People, even religious leaders and the writers of scripture, MAKE THINGS UP! That's exactly why there are so many religions and divisions within religions; there is no peer review to sort out the falsehoods. By contrast, science tends to be unified around a definite set of facts because scientists, regardless of cultural or religious background, are all looking at the same reality and using the same proven methods to investigate that reality. A police detective, a judge, and a jury in a criminal trial does not rely on faith and authority to determine the guilt of a defendant. Religion is useless there. Only forensic science works. All we do is use forensic techniques on a wider scale and show everyone the results. If that debunks a few creation myths, we are better off without them.

Just Bob · 10 February 2012

Marilyn said: Myself I believe in God not a god.

God isn't his name--it's his job title. You believe in a god, whom you just refer to as "God", much as one might refer to the president as "Mr. President". Actually the name of your god is somewhat of a mystery, if I remember my KJV. It's not "God" any more than "King" is the king's name. And it's not "Jehovah", which AFAIK is a mispronunciation of a misspelling of a guess at missing letters. I'm not sure that "Yahweh" is meant as an actual name, either. The only place I can recall where that god is directly queried about his name is in Exodus, where his answer to Moses is essentially, "Just tell 'em that I am." Sounds almost like a "None of your business" to me. Actually, there's a lot of tradition in various mythologies that one's true name must be kept secret, especially from potential enemies, since use of the true name gives one magical power over the one named.

JimNorth · 10 February 2012

So, bottom line...if we want to prevent the extinction of the melanistic mutation of peppered moths, we need to relax air pollution controls...

phhht · 10 February 2012

Marilyn said: Myself I believe in God...

Are you able to say why you believe that?

prongs · 10 February 2012

Just Bob said:
Marilyn said: Myself I believe in God not a god.
God isn't his name--it's his job title. You believe in a god, whom you just refer to as "God", much as one might refer to the president as "Mr. President". Actually the name of your god is somewhat of a mystery, if I remember my KJV. It's not "God" any more than "King" is the king's name. And it's not "Jehovah", which AFAIK is a mispronunciation of a misspelling of a guess at missing letters. I'm not sure that "Yahweh" is meant as an actual name, either. The only place I can recall where that god is directly queried about his name is in Exodus, where his answer to Moses is essentially, "Just tell 'em that I am." Sounds almost like a "None of your business" to me. Actually, there's a lot of tradition in various mythologies that one's true name must be kept secret, especially from potential enemies, since use of the true name gives one magical power over the one named.

FL (and probably IBIG too) gets all jelly-legged and begins to swoon when you start talkin' the secret names of, you know, G-d (whispered). He fancies himself a 'keeper of the faith', which is to say his faith in his image of his deity, which he shares with mostly non-rational human beings. And by knowing the secret name of god, FL gets jumbo mojo, and can use it as ju ju to frighten others into following him. The ultimate superstition. How pathetic. How sick. FL is a witchdotor.

Joe Felsenstein · 10 February 2012

After reading SteveP.'s lengthy quote from the first edition of Icons of Evolution and Nick Matzke's quotes from Wells's other earlier writings, I conclude that in that edition

* Wells charges all sorts of people with fraud, usually without justification, but

* He didn't happen to actually charge Kettlewell with fraud.

So I suppose it was Hooper who first charged Kettlewell with fraud.

Majerus and many other workers seem to have established good evidence for differential predation as the mechanism for change of frequencies of melanic peppered moths. The issue of whether the moths spend little, a moderate amount, or all their time resting on tree trunks (as opposed to under smaller branches) is a side issue. It is inflated into a Big Deal by Wells and Co.

This is much like the issue of whether Dawkins's Weasel program has the property of "latching". By asserting that it does, his critics make the reader think that this must be the reason why it searches so much more effectively than blind random search (monkeys-with-typewriters). And it encourages them think that without that property it would not search effectively. But in fact (a) latching makes little difference, and (b) anyway Dawkin's program actually does not "latch" at all. Tree trunks are the equivalent of "latching" -- an irrelevant diversion that sounds important but isn't.

Mike Elzinga · 10 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: The issue of whether the moths spend little, a moderate amount, or all their time resting on tree trunks (as opposed to under smaller branches) is a side issue. It is inflated into a Big Deal by Wells and Co.

But it is a side issue that exposes the tactics of the gang at the “Discovery” Institute. Anyone who has watched a titmouse, a nuthatch, or any of the creepers scurrying around on trees – up and down the trunks as well as along the tops, bottoms, and sides of branches – knows very well that bird predation on trees takes place everywhere. These behaviors are so easily observable by anyone watching birds for a few days that one has to wonder how Wells and Company thinks they can get away with such obfuscation. This is but one of hundreds of examples of ID/creationist chicanery that needs to be catalogued and highlighted. One doesn’t have to engage in character assassinations of ID/creationists; one simply needs to accurately describe their behaviors.

SteveP. · 10 February 2012

The problem is Nick, if birds are able to 'hunt' for moths, it really doesn't matter either way if they are black OR white. You have given the game away so effortlessly. From your reasoning, birds obviously could care less what color moths are, if they are relying on their ability to 'hunt' for moths. Really, do you think that if birds are capable of looking underneath tree leaves that they could not tell if there was a moth there regardless of the color? The color of moths would only matter if birds were poor hunters with bad eyesight, in need of a break, a selective advantage in evo-speak. Truth is, birds have keen eyesight. It is this keen eyesight in addition to their intellignece that speaks to a selective advantage, not moth color. Wells' point still stands that the cause of the change in the ratio of black and white moths has not been established beyond doubt to be from birds picking off white moths more easily. Wells made clear that there were other possibilities which have not been eliminated. You haven't nailed it by a long shot. Just like with the flagellum. For some reason, you still have this soft spot for tantalizing hints. ...

Nick Matzke said: Thanks to those who noted Coyne's blogpost. Interestingly, Dawkins comments several times -- I think Dawkins may have had a soft spot for the peppered moth example as well. One bit of Coyne's post still worries me:
Majerus’s experiment was one-sided: that is, he released both types of moths at their naturally-occurring frequencies (a good design) in only unpolluted woods, for polluted woods aren’t around in Britain any longer. Nevertheless, it’s still a decent test of the bird-predation hypothesis, which under Majerus’s conditions predicted that relatively more of the dark moths than of the light moths would be eaten. And that is what he found, along with observing that a significant fraction of moths found in their natural daytime resting position (35%, to be exact) were sitting on tree trunks, as the predation hypothesis requires (birds have to see the moths to eat them).
This particular point is some kind of residual misunderstanding carrying over from Coyne's 1998 book review. The "moths on tree trunks" meme seems to have become so fixed in some folks brains, because of what they learned in 9th grade biology, that they instinctively, but not rationally, have made it into some kind of essential feature of the bird predation hypothesis. But a moment of reflection shows that it is not. In what holy book is it stated that moths on tree branches are invisible to birds? In what holy book is it stated that birds don't hunt for bugs on (and under) tree branches? Wells did this too -- he seemed to assume that if the moths weren't on tree trunks, they were in some alternate dimension completely free of birds. The reality is that we know birds hunt both places, we know they can hunt both above and below branches, and we know moths rest in all of these places. If anything, Majerus's resting data indicates that the peppered moths aren't terribly specific in their resting positions, but that if they have preferences, it is for sheltered and shadowed positions on trees, such as trunk-branch joints and the underside of branches -- which, if you think about it, actually supports rather than contradicts the bird predation hypothesis, since if you are hiding from birds, you might as well pick spots where you are slightly less visible. Here's an example of a bird under a branch: http://www.eriposte.com/environment/wildlife/Lake_Tahoe/Early_Sep_2004/BrownCreeper_1.jpg ...not to mention that birds are flying all around everywhere, and can look up under a branch as easily as look down from above. But if I had a nickel for every time back in the early 2000s when a read someone freaking out about whether or not the peppered moth resting position was on the tree trunk, I'd be rich. This may be an example where textbook-debunking, rather than textbook oversimplification, is what causes sloppy thinking. [/end rant]

Mike Elzinga · 10 February 2012

SteveP. said: Really, do you think that if birds are capable of looking underneath tree leaves that they could not tell if there was a moth there regardless of the color? The color of moths would only matter if birds were poor hunters with bad eyesight, in need of a break, a selective advantage in evo-speak. Truth is, birds have keen eyesight. It is this keen eyesight in addition to their intellignece that speaks to a selective advantage, not moth color.

Here is a hint SteveP. Instead of swimming in the molasses inside your head and restricting your “education” to reading ID/creationist sectarian dogma, try going outside in the real world and actually observing things. Scientists do that; ID/creationists don’t. Scientific understanding comes from studying the real world. ID/creationist pseudo-science is sectarian crap that flows from the pencils of ID/creationists sitting in plush offices and never looking out the window.

apokryltaros · 10 February 2012

SteveP. said: The problem is Nick, if birds are able to 'hunt' for moths, it really doesn't matter either way if they are black OR white. You have given the game away so effortlessly. From your reasoning, birds obviously could care less what color moths are, if they are relying on their ability to 'hunt' for moths.

Then why do you think insects have camouflage and anti-predator behaviors? Better yet, explain to us why the Intelligent Designer saw fit to give insects such qualities to confound birds?

Really, do you think that if birds are capable of looking underneath tree leaves that they could not tell if there was a moth there regardless of the color? The color of moths would only matter if birds were poor hunters with bad eyesight, in need of a break, a selective advantage in evo-speak. Truth is, birds have keen eyesight. It is this keen eyesight in addition to their intellignece that speaks to a selective advantage, not moth color.

If birds are such keen-sighted, super efficient predators of moths that were intelligently designed by an Intelligent Designer, using magic beyond the comprehension of puny, stupid scientists, how come there are still so many moths?

Wells' point still stands that the cause of the change in the ratio of black and white moths has not been established beyond doubt to be from birds picking off white moths more easily.

Wells deliberately missed the point entirely just so he could make a strawman.

Wells made clear that there were other possibilities which have not been eliminated.

No, he didn't: the only points he made was that "Darwinism (sic) is wrong and evil because I was told to hate it," and that "GODDIDIT"

You haven't nailed it by a long shot. Just like with the flagellum. For some reason, you still have this soft spot for tantalizing hints.

Just because you say so does not make it so. Then again, you're an Idiot for Jesus who gets mad when we don't believe your inane lies. I mean, honestly, you honestly still think that Intelligent Design proved that the flagellum was intelligently designed? And you also want us to believe you're a successful fabric merchant in Taiwan, rather than some moron in his parent's basement?

apokryltaros · 10 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said:
SteveP. said: Really, do you think that if birds are capable of looking underneath tree leaves that they could not tell if there was a moth there regardless of the color? The color of moths would only matter if birds were poor hunters with bad eyesight, in need of a break, a selective advantage in evo-speak. Truth is, birds have keen eyesight. It is this keen eyesight in addition to their intellignece that speaks to a selective advantage, not moth color.
Here is a hint SteveP. Instead of swimming in the molasses inside your head and restricting your “education” to reading ID/creationist sectarian dogma, try going outside in the real world and actually observing things. Scientists do that; ID/creationists don’t. Scientific understanding comes from studying the real world. ID/creationist pseudo-science is sectarian crap that flows from the pencils of ID/creationists sitting in plush offices and never looking out the window.

It's quite telling that no one gives a damn that the Discovery Institute has no laboratory, and no one gives a damn that none of its members deign to do any research whatsoever. That is, other than scientists and some educators.

Dave Luckett · 10 February 2012

SteveP's argument is that birds hunt and have keen eyes, so therefore camouflage is useless against them.

Idiotic.

SteveP. · 10 February 2012

Right back at you Mike.

Why don't you leave off the cultural warrior crap for a change and speak to the issues.

The experiments did not establish beyond doubt that the color of the moths allowed for bird's easy pickings, which in turn increased the number of black moths.

Nick's comment just makes the problem worse by pointing out bird's hunting capabilities (with my added comment that it is well known birds have keen eyesight), which suggests moth color would not cause a spike in moth kills. Because that is what you would need, a spike; not a 'significant' increase.

Mike Elzinga · 10 February 2012

SteveP. said: Right back at you Mike. Why don't you leave off the cultural warrior crap for a change and speak to the issues.

Do you NEVER get it? Do you have any idea who and what Wells and Company are?

Mike Elzinga · 10 February 2012

SteveP. said: Nick's comment just makes the problem worse by pointing out bird's hunting capabilities (with my added comment that it is well known birds have keen eyesight), which suggests moth color would not cause a spike in moth kills. Because that is what you would need, a spike; not a 'significant' increase.

Just out of curiosity. Do you really believe that a comment like that convinces anyone who has spent a lifetime in research that you have any idea of how to conduct research and what to expect?

DS · 10 February 2012

Steve just doesn't get it. It doesn't matter if the birds are solely responsible for the changes in allele frequency or not, by definition, this is evolution in action. All he can muster is insinuation and innuendo. He would rather quote dishonest charlatans than actually learn any real science. How typical of creationists.

apokryltaros · 10 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said:
SteveP. said: Nick's comment just makes the problem worse by pointing out bird's hunting capabilities (with my added comment that it is well known birds have keen eyesight), which suggests moth color would not cause a spike in moth kills. Because that is what you would need, a spike; not a 'significant' increase.
Just out of curiosity. Do you really believe that a comment like that convinces anyone who has spent a lifetime in research that you have any idea of how to conduct research and what to expect?

It is strange that SteveP thinks his inane statements trumps those of scientists, and gets angry whenever we do not believe him. After all, SteveP has stated that we are fools for heeding what scientists, and not the Discovery Institute luminaries, say about scientists, claimed that competition in nature does not exist because not all women in 1st world countries are capable of marrying star athletes, and that he's just too damned lazy to educate himself. So, why does he think he is supposed to be some sort of authority of science? Because he thinks Jesus said he could?

apokryltaros · 10 February 2012

Dave Luckett said: SteveP's argument is that birds hunt and have keen eyes, so therefore camouflage is useless against them. Idiotic.

Just as idiotic as all of his other proclamations.

SteveP. · 10 February 2012

Dave Luckett said: SteveP's argument is that birds hunt and have keen eyes, so therefore camouflage is useless against them. Idiotic.

The point is Luckett, moths already had camouflage, and birds still found them, albeit by having to work harder, which incidently keeps the birds vision keen. The experiment is trying to establish that it was birds easy predation of white moths since they now lost their camouflage advantage, that increased the black moth population. But that can't be. For one, moths already developed camouflage to deter (not prevent) bird predation in the form of a dirty white with speck of black/brown. They already have camouflage capability. Second, the transition from mottled bark to dark bark was not instantaneous. It happened over time. So obviously there was a period where bark was getting darker but not so much so that birds were confounded in their hunting habits. The key question is what would trigger a change in bird feeding habits if moth color change was gradual? You might say bird feeding habit changed gradually as well. If so, then it would not be a trigger for change in moth color. So the question remains, what was the 'trigger'; bird feeding habit change, or moths 'unilaterally' changing their color? That is what is at issue. From an ID perspective, it was moths' 'understanding' that their original white with speckles camouflage would no longer do. So the genome started the process of change to a darker shade instead of the dirty white color(spots still there I believe since they were aleady dark). You guys underestimate the 'intelligence' of simpler life to your detriment. It blinds you to the wonder of life. You (pl) try to reduce it to 'just physics and chemistry' so you don't have to deal with the implications of 'there is something out there' and it is 'speaking to you'. You can turn a deaf ear. But I prefer to turn on the amplifier.

Dave Luckett · 10 February 2012

Oh. So cause and effect have to be completely separate, in the SteveP Universe. Emergent effects never arise, and it isn't possible for these effects to be subject to feedback.

There was no "trigger". Your inability to think except in terms of faulty analogy is painfully obvious. Turn the amplifier up as much as you like. If it's loud enough, you won't have to think at all.

Scott F · 10 February 2012

SteveP. said: So the question remains, what was the 'trigger'; bird feeding habit change, or moths 'unilaterally' changing their color? That is what is at issue. From an ID perspective, it was moths' 'understanding' that their original white with speckles camouflage would no longer do. So the genome started the process of change to a darker shade instead of the dirty white color(spots still there I believe since they were aleady dark). You guys underestimate the 'intelligence' of simpler life to your detriment. It blinds you to the wonder of life. You (pl) try to reduce it to 'just physics and chemistry' so you don't have to deal with the implications of 'there is something out there' and it is 'speaking to you'.

Really? Seriously? Do you really believe that the moths intentionally changed their color? First, have you ever heard the story of moths and candle flames? Is that the level of intelligence we're talking about? And yet these same moths are able to reason about their predators, to put themselves in the birds' place, understand how the bird is able to see them, and to know that a change in color could fool the birds? Seriously? My dog is as smart as a whip, and *he* couldn't figure that out. I know some humans who aren't that bright. A human baby playing peek-a-boo believes that, by hiding his own eyes, he can make himself invisible to an adult. Yet you claim these moths (which live only a couple of months) are smarter than a human child? Seriously? Second, by what physical mechanism were the moths able to purposefully change their color? Science has shown us exactly how octopuses and chameleons and zebra fish intentionally change colors. We know how it works. Let's reduce your "wonder of life" down to some "physics and chemistry". The moths aren't clothed in your ~~ignorance~~ "wonder of life". Instead they get their colors from "physics and chemistry". Surely your "Intelligent Design" should be able to identify the mechanism. Right? Right?? Or perhaps, like your ID hero Dembski, you don't sink to that "pathetic level of detail"?

unkle.hank · 10 February 2012

The experiment is trying to establish that it was birds' easy predation of white moths since they now lost their camouflage advantage, that increased the black moth population. But that can’t be...

So you'd have us believe that birds eating more white moths than black moths CAN NOT RESULT in a population with a higher proportion of black moths? To make this exceedingly simple, let's take a population of 100, with 50 each of black and white. If birds ate 30 white ones and 5 black ones, there would be 20 white ones and 45 black ones left. Leaving environment out of it, why couldn't - why wouldn't - the 45 black ones reproduce at a greater rate than the 5 white ones? Let us continue ...

For one, moths already developed camouflage to deter (not prevent) bird predation in the form of a dirty white with speck of black/brown. They already have camouflage capability.

They certainly did, but once the environment changed, one form of camouflage was clearly more effective than the other at deterring (not preventing) predation. Camouflage, as this example points out very clearly, is relative. A soldier wearing snow camouflage in the jungle is going to get sniped in a second.

Second, the transition from mottled bark to dark bark was not instantaneous. It happened over time. So obviously there was a period where bark was getting darker but not so much so that birds were confounded in their hunting habits.

There's little point I can find in that paragraph. Noone claimed instantaneous bark colour change, nor did anyone imply that only very rapid colour change would be necessary to affect predation of the moths. However, acid rain and soot from industry would have changed the moths' environment relatively rapidly, compared to a no-pollution scenario, conferring an advantage on whoever was lucky enough to be more difficult to see. It doesn't matter, though. The environment did in fact change, which did in fact affect which colour moths were eaten in the greater number. (As an aside, I find it interesting that anti-evolutionists are quite happy to require things "happening over time" when it suits them - such as this example - but almost never accept the need for appropriate time to elapse when talking about evolution in general.)

From an ID perspective, it was moths’ ‘understanding’ that their original white with speckles camouflage would no longer do. So the genome started the process of change to a darker shade instead of the dirty white color(spots still there I believe since they were aleady dark).

No. As the lighter moths were picked off by predators, the darker survivors and their subsequent offspring simply became a higher proportion of the population. It's very simple maths: subtraction of X in favour of Y, leading to greater multiplication of Y. The genome did not "start a process of change"; the darker colour just conferred a survival advantage, which meant darker moths lived to reproduce in greater number than lighter ones. Any genomal change in the population would have been an EFFECT of predatory selection, not a CAUSE! There's no intelligence at work here - and certainly no moths' "understanding" and no genomic "activation" of different colouring. Moths that were more visible were eaten more often and the less-visible moths were thus able to reproduce more effectively; this led to a population of *mostly* less-visible moths. This is a classic example of natural selection at work. It is such a clear example of NS and so mindbogglingly simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10, yet here you are, claiming magical intervention by your Designer where none is either indicated or, in fact, required. The fact that life may well be "just" physics and chemistry (certainly, nothing currently understood disabuses that notion) doesn't strip it of any of its wonder and awesomeness (some would say that life's great variety being a mere product of physics and chemistry makes it even more awesome than some magical creation - I'd agree). You're trying to insert sectarian magic into a natural process which, going by your comments, you don't even understand. You're sneering at the very concept of nature happening, erm, naturally and you're sneering at anyone who understands it better than you. It's shameful.

Flint · 10 February 2012

As has been agreed several times here, no creationist has ever found fault with an accurate representation of the scientific theory. It's always with some silly misrepresentation. The question is whether they willingly and deliberately distort the theory for their purposes, or whether they are mentally no longer capable of grasping (or never were capable of grasping) a notion even "so mindbogglingly simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10".

I'm more and more leaning toward the latter. Piaget spoke of assimilation (making new information fit existing models) and accommodation (altering existing models to fit new information). Creationists' understanding of evolution is so wildly incorrect that the scope of change required for accommodation is simply no longer possible. It not only requires a blank-slate, ground-up reformulation of the model, it requires suspension of the religious delusions that distorted the model in the first place. Not likely to happen.

And this means that they simply cannot see even something that simple, even if they tried - and an important part of their model says that making the effort is forbidden anyway.

Mike Elzinga · 11 February 2012

SteveP. said: You guys underestimate the 'intelligence' of simpler life to your detriment. It blinds you to the wonder of life. You (pl) try to reduce it to 'just physics and chemistry' so you don't have to deal with the implications of 'there is something out there' and it is 'speaking to you'.

This is a favorite demonizing trick of jealous sectarians. You have no idea what drives scientists to spend a lifetime attempting to understand the natural world; and neither do the ID/creationists. That hackneyed accusation has its roots in the typical jealous rage that has permeated sectarian wars since the beginnings of religion. ID/creationists want to be the darlings of the intellectual and sectarian world. So they make up a pseudo-science to gussy up their sectarian dogma thinking that this will give them a superior dogma. The “fear” of “something out there” is a projection of their own fears and dogmatic teachings that anyone who is “afraid of their deity” must be down and dirty evil.

You can turn a deaf ear. But I prefer to turn on the amplifier.

Try turning on your brain.

unkle.hank · 11 February 2012

Flint said: As has been agreed several times here, no creationist has ever found fault with an accurate representation of the scientific theory. It's always with some silly misrepresentation. The question is whether they willingly and deliberately distort the theory for their purposes, or whether they are mentally no longer capable of grasping (or never were capable of grasping) a notion even "so mindbogglingly simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10". I'm more and more leaning toward the latter. Piaget spoke of assimilation (making new information fit existing models) and accommodation (altering existing models to fit new information). Creationists' understanding of evolution is so wildly incorrect that the scope of change required for accommodation is simply no longer possible. It not only requires a blank-slate, ground-up reformulation of the model, it requires suspension of the religious delusions that distorted the model in the first place. Not likely to happen. And this means that they simply cannot see even something that simple, even if they tried - and an important part of their model says that making the effort is forbidden anyway.

Part of the problem is that while natural selection is simple enough to be taught to a 9 year-old, "God did everything - accept it and become an eternal superhero or BURN FOREVER IN HELL" is even simpler.

apokryltaros · 11 February 2012

unkle.hank said:
Flint said: As has been agreed several times here, no creationist has ever found fault with an accurate representation of the scientific theory. It's always with some silly misrepresentation. The question is whether they willingly and deliberately distort the theory for their purposes, or whether they are mentally no longer capable of grasping (or never were capable of grasping) a notion even "so mindbogglingly simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10". I'm more and more leaning toward the latter. Piaget spoke of assimilation (making new information fit existing models) and accommodation (altering existing models to fit new information). Creationists' understanding of evolution is so wildly incorrect that the scope of change required for accommodation is simply no longer possible. It not only requires a blank-slate, ground-up reformulation of the model, it requires suspension of the religious delusions that distorted the model in the first place. Not likely to happen. And this means that they simply cannot see even something that simple, even if they tried - and an important part of their model says that making the effort is forbidden anyway.
Part of the problem is that while natural selection is simple enough to be taught to a 9 year-old, "God did everything - accept it and become an eternal superhero or BURN FOREVER IN HELL" is even simpler.

Technically speaking, demanding that a child believe "GODDIDIT, or burn hell for doubting/thinking," isn't simpler per se, it simply enables the child to stop thinking (critically, or otherwise).

apokryltaros · 11 February 2012

unkle.hank said:
The experiment is trying to establish that it was birds' easy predation of white moths since they now lost their camouflage advantage, that increased the black moth population. But that can’t be...
So you'd have us believe that birds eating more white moths than black moths CAN NOT RESULT in a population with a higher proportion of black moths?

Actually, no, SteveP is just angrily whining at us to believe that evolution is wrong and evil because he's far too lazy to ever bother understanding any science at all.

unkle.hank · 11 February 2012

apokryltaros said:
unkle.hank said:
Flint said: As has been agreed several times here, no creationist has ever found fault with an accurate representation of the scientific theory. It's always with some silly misrepresentation. The question is whether they willingly and deliberately distort the theory for their purposes, or whether they are mentally no longer capable of grasping (or never were capable of grasping) a notion even "so mindbogglingly simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10". I'm more and more leaning toward the latter. Piaget spoke of assimilation (making new information fit existing models) and accommodation (altering existing models to fit new information). Creationists' understanding of evolution is so wildly incorrect that the scope of change required for accommodation is simply no longer possible. It not only requires a blank-slate, ground-up reformulation of the model, it requires suspension of the religious delusions that distorted the model in the first place. Not likely to happen. And this means that they simply cannot see even something that simple, even if they tried - and an important part of their model says that making the effort is forbidden anyway.
Part of the problem is that while natural selection is simple enough to be taught to a 9 year-old, "God did everything - accept it and become an eternal superhero or BURN FOREVER IN HELL" is even simpler.
Technically speaking, demanding that a child believe "GODDIDIT, or burn hell for doubting/thinking," isn't simpler per se, it simply enables the child to stop thinking (critically, or otherwise).

That's true. Additionally I think the fact that the "GODDIDIT OR ELSE" almost always starts in infancy, long before anyone with a functioning mind can say "Think," has a lot to do with ignorance/denial/fear of reality as well.

apokryltaros · 11 February 2012

unkle.hank said:
apokryltaros said:
unkle.hank said:
Flint said: As has been agreed several times here, no creationist has ever found fault with an accurate representation of the scientific theory. It's always with some silly misrepresentation. The question is whether they willingly and deliberately distort the theory for their purposes, or whether they are mentally no longer capable of grasping (or never were capable of grasping) a notion even "so mindbogglingly simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10". I'm more and more leaning toward the latter. Piaget spoke of assimilation (making new information fit existing models) and accommodation (altering existing models to fit new information). Creationists' understanding of evolution is so wildly incorrect that the scope of change required for accommodation is simply no longer possible. It not only requires a blank-slate, ground-up reformulation of the model, it requires suspension of the religious delusions that distorted the model in the first place. Not likely to happen. And this means that they simply cannot see even something that simple, even if they tried - and an important part of their model says that making the effort is forbidden anyway.
Part of the problem is that while natural selection is simple enough to be taught to a 9 year-old, "God did everything - accept it and become an eternal superhero or BURN FOREVER IN HELL" is even simpler.
Technically speaking, demanding that a child believe "GODDIDIT, or burn hell for doubting/thinking," isn't simpler per se, it simply enables the child to stop thinking (critically, or otherwise).
That's true. Additionally I think the fact that the "GODDIDIT OR ELSE" almost always starts in infancy, long before anyone with a functioning mind can say "Think," has a lot to do with ignorance/denial/fear of reality as well.

It either starts in infancy, or if the person has the greater misfortune of falling victim to prosletyzing after having a personal, point of view changing/destroying catastrophe (i.e., they fall victim to a cult).

dalehusband · 11 February 2012

SteveP. said: The point is Luckett, moths already had camouflage, and birds still found them, albeit by having to work harder, which incidently keeps the birds vision keen.

Indeed, an arms race between predator and prey drives much of what we call "co-evolution". It explains why some species of frog are so extremely poisonous; snakes eating them gradually developed a tolerance to the weaker poisons, forcing the frogs' poisons to become even more powerful.

The experiment is trying to establish that it was birds easy predation of white moths since they now lost their camouflage advantage, that increased the black moth population.

Right!

But that can't be. For one, moths already developed camouflage to deter (not prevent) bird predation in the form of a dirty white with speck of black/brown. They already have camouflage capability.

Huh? Do you realize how pointless that was? Really???

Second, the transition from mottled bark to dark bark was not instantaneous. It happened over time. So obviously there was a period where bark was getting darker but not so much so that birds were confounded in their hunting habits.

Yeah, most changes in nature are themselves gradual, idiot.

The key question is what would trigger a change in bird feeding habits if moth color change was gradual? You might say bird feeding habit changed gradually as well. If so, then it would not be a trigger for change in moth color.

Nothing changed about birds' habits. Only the trees changed, along with the moths. God, you are damned STUPID!!!!

So the question remains, what was the 'trigger'; bird feeding habit change, or moths 'unilaterally' changing their color? That is what is at issue. From an ID perspective, it was moths' 'understanding' that their original white with speckles camouflage would no longer do. So the genome started the process of change to a darker shade instead of the dirty white color(spots still there I believe since they were aleady dark). You guys underestimate the 'intelligence' of simpler life to your detriment. It blinds you to the wonder of life. You (pl) try to reduce it to 'just physics and chemistry' so you don't have to deal with the implications of 'there is something out there' and it is 'speaking to you'. You can turn a deaf ear. But I prefer to turn on the amplifier.

You are a complete waste of brain. None of your points above have any bearing on the credibility of the moth experiments. NONE!

Marilyn · 11 February 2012

Just Bob said:
Marilyn said: Myself I believe in God not a god.
God isn't his name--it's his job title.

Yes well His job is forever even when we've gone.

Marilyn · 11 February 2012

phhht said:
Marilyn said: Myself I believe in God...
Are you able to say why you believe that?

I think about you Phhht, I read what you say; I realize how short I have fallen. For a long time I didn’t believe there were any other gods but I believe in God the one that said let there be light, ever since I was a small child in fact I can’t remember not believing in God and I’ve had my fights with Him. God is someone you find when all of a sudden you see right between the eyes, a sudden knowing, if you’re lucky. It’s personal. As well as shared. My mum at the age of 92 years has just died on the 7th January in fact. Someone in her grief sent me a card with the well known verse on it called Footsteps, its true Phhht. 70 ad someone wrote an account of what happened, those words exist today at the very least it was about someone who cared and said believe the words if only for the very sake of the words themselves, they were not recollections about someone who didn’t care. I don’t dispute that there is a so called scientific explanation as to how things materialised, equations and definitions and so forth, doesn’t mean to say it just poofed as you call it. For me it’s as easy as saying pass me that Bunsen burner. The very equations make it not magic.

DS · 11 February 2012

Steve can turn up his amplifier all he wants to, he's just trying to turn off reality. We on the other hand can choose to tune him out completely.

As for Marilyn, she seems to be as hopelessly lost in magical thinking as Steve. PErhaps she will attempt to learn some science some day. Maybe not.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 · 11 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said:
SteveP. said: Right back at you Mike. Why don't you leave off the cultural warrior crap for a change and speak to the issues.
Do you NEVER get it? Do you have any idea who and what Wells and Company are?

I honestly doubt it Mike, though I wonder how he makes a living as a Taiwanese textile merchant.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 · 11 February 2012

apokryltaros said:
SteveP. said: The problem is Nick, if birds are able to 'hunt' for moths, it really doesn't matter either way if they are black OR white. You have given the game away so effortlessly. From your reasoning, birds obviously could care less what color moths are, if they are relying on their ability to 'hunt' for moths.
Then why do you think insects have camouflage and anti-predator behaviors? Better yet, explain to us why the Intelligent Designer saw fit to give insects such qualities to confound birds?
Really, do you think that if birds are capable of looking underneath tree leaves that they could not tell if there was a moth there regardless of the color? The color of moths would only matter if birds were poor hunters with bad eyesight, in need of a break, a selective advantage in evo-speak. Truth is, birds have keen eyesight. It is this keen eyesight in addition to their intellignece that speaks to a selective advantage, not moth color.
If birds are such keen-sighted, super efficient predators of moths that were intelligently designed by an Intelligent Designer, using magic beyond the comprehension of puny, stupid scientists, how come there are still so many moths?
Wells' point still stands that the cause of the change in the ratio of black and white moths has not been established beyond doubt to be from birds picking off white moths more easily.
Wells deliberately missed the point entirely just so he could make a strawman.
Wells made clear that there were other possibilities which have not been eliminated.
No, he didn't: the only points he made was that "Darwinism (sic) is wrong and evil because I was told to hate it," and that "GODDIDIT"
You haven't nailed it by a long shot. Just like with the flagellum. For some reason, you still have this soft spot for tantalizing hints.
Just because you say so does not make it so. Then again, you're an Idiot for Jesus who gets mad when we don't believe your inane lies. I mean, honestly, you honestly still think that Intelligent Design proved that the flagellum was intelligently designed? And you also want us to believe you're a successful fabric merchant in Taiwan, rather than some moron in his parent's basement?

Hey apokryltaros, thanks for a fine takedown of him. I was too tired to look at this and yes, am too tired of dealing with an intellectually challenged Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone like Steve.

Paul Burnett · 11 February 2012

SteveP. said: ...moths already had camouflage, and birds still found them, albeit by having to work harder, which incidently keeps the birds vision keen.

What exactly is the mechanism that "keeps the birds vision keen"? Over generations, birds with keener vision prosper and increase their numbers because they are better fed? Or is it just a miracle of the intelligent designer? Which is it, Steve?

Helena Constantine · 11 February 2012

SteveP. said: ...So the question remains, what was the 'trigger'; bird feeding habit change, or moths 'unilaterally' changing their color? That is what is at issue. From an ID perspective, it was moths' 'understanding' that their original white with speckles camouflage would no longer do. So the genome started the process of change to a darker shade instead of the dirty white color(spots still there I believe since they were aleady dark)...

The sad part is, Steve doesn't even understand what intelligent design is. According to ID the moths' DNA was originally designed by some outside entity: the designer. But minor changes in allele frequency such as the alternation between the dark and light forms goes on by what they term 'micro-evolution' exactly the way scientists envision (makes you wonder why Wells attacks the moths so hard), but something (probably the designer) intervenes to stop the evolutionary process crossing the species or genus barrier (evidently Behe would let it go further than that). But Steve P. is claiming that natural selection has no power to change allele frequency whatsoever, and the moths instead will their bodies (or possibly their offspring's bodies) to change in a way that is adapatationally advantageous, using their reason to figure out what that is. No designer required; the moths design themselves. This isn't ID. There isn't even a name for this. This is some nonsense that SteveP. made up and which no one else in the world thinks is true. Its a delusion. By the way Steve, why can't humans do this? Don't you think some black people in Alabama in the 1840s would have figured out it would be better for them to turn white?

harold · 11 February 2012

The sad part is, Steve doesn’t even understand what intelligent design is.

And in fact, he contradicted himself in this thread, originally posting "It cements NS as a maintenance junkie, rather than a building contractor" (from page one of this thread), and then switching to deny any role of natural selection "The color of moths would only matter if birds were poor hunters with bad eyesight, in need of a break, a selective advantage in evo-speak" (from page 3). His latest argument, taken to its logical conclusion, also argues that camouflage and orange safety gear don't work, of course. However, in fairness to Steve P., it's not uniquely his fault that ID is poorly defined and expressed in weaselly language by its proponents. On any given thread that describes an example of natural selection, there will tend to be a creationist arguing that the example was "only microevolution", but another denying that natural selection had anything to do with it. The only variation here is that Steve P. is making both claims at the same time, even though they contradict each other.

ksplawn · 11 February 2012

apokryltaros said: It's quite telling that no one gives a damn that the Discovery Institute has no laboratory, and no one gives a damn that none of its members deign to do any research whatsoever. That is, other than scientists and some educators.

Don't they have the Biologic Institute? Wasn't that lab supposed to be cranking out revolutionary findings that would change the whole biological paradigm in favor of ID by rigorously demonstrating its predictive power and unique insights? Hmmm, what ever happened to them...

apokryltaros · 11 February 2012

ksplawn said:
apokryltaros said: It's quite telling that no one gives a damn that the Discovery Institute has no laboratory, and no one gives a damn that none of its members deign to do any research whatsoever. That is, other than scientists and some educators.
Don't they have the Biologic Institute? Wasn't that lab supposed to be cranking out revolutionary findings that would change the whole biological paradigm in favor of ID by rigorously demonstrating its predictive power and unique insights? Hmmm, what ever happened to them...

In the scientific community, making a half-assed attempt at pretending to be a productive research facility will earn you scorn and derision, much in the same way bringing a two-man horse costume, while it's still in its unopened package, to a horse show in order to demand first place in all the competitions there will earn you a kick in the face from the judges, the competitors and the competitors' owners. In other words, no, the Biologic Institute doesn't count.

Richard B. Hoppe · 11 February 2012

I pretty much wholly agree with Flint. I've remarked on a number of occasions that creationism represents the triumph of assimilation over accommodation. See, for example, here.

Flint said: As has been agreed several times here, no creationist has ever found fault with an accurate representation of the scientific theory. It's always with some silly misrepresentation. The question is whether they willingly and deliberately distort the theory for their purposes, or whether they are mentally no longer capable of grasping (or never were capable of grasping) a notion even "so mindbogglingly simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10". I'm more and more leaning toward the latter. Piaget spoke of assimilation (making new information fit existing models) and accommodation (altering existing models to fit new information). Creationists' understanding of evolution is so wildly incorrect that the scope of change required for accommodation is simply no longer possible. It not only requires a blank-slate, ground-up reformulation of the model, it requires suspension of the religious delusions that distorted the model in the first place. Not likely to happen. And this means that they simply cannot see even something that simple, even if they tried - and an important part of their model says that making the effort is forbidden anyway.

Mike Elzinga · 11 February 2012

Richard B. Hoppe said: I pretty much wholly agree with Flint. I've remarked on a number of occasions that creationism represents the triumph of assimilation over accommodation. See, for example, here.

Yup; sectarian dogma first, all else bent and broken to fit. (As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be.)

Nick Matzke · 11 February 2012

As has been agreed several times here, no creationist has ever found fault with an accurate representation of the scientific theory. It’s always with some silly misrepresentation. The question is whether they willingly and deliberately distort the theory for their purposes, or whether they are mentally no longer capable of grasping (or never were capable of grasping) a notion even “so mindbogglingly simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10”. I’m more and more leaning toward the latter. Piaget spoke of assimilation (making new information fit existing models) and accommodation (altering existing models to fit new information). Creationists’ understanding of evolution is so wildly incorrect that the scope of change required for accommodation is simply no longer possible. It not only requires a blank-slate, ground-up reformulation of the model, it requires suspension of the religious delusions that distorted the model in the first place. Not likely to happen.

Some interesting points here. My thoughts are basically: 1. Evolutionary theory actually isn't all that simple. Some of the basic ideas are simple, and because of that, a lot of people, including antievolutionists but also a fair number of scientists, *think* they understand it when really they don't. To really understand evolution, your understanding has to be built upon a quite broad and fairly deep background understanding of (at least) organismal biology, geology/paleontology, and ecology. When you see creationists and others making armchair objections to evolutionary theory -- like the tautology objection, or the we'll-act-like-animals objection, this is always based on a completely naive and bizarre and cartoonish understanding of biology. Actual animals don't "behave like animals". Differential survival based on features of the organism is just real and is going on every day. Etc. We could continue this line of thought in various directions -- e.g. getting an intuitive sense of all the different time, spatial, and biological scales at which evolution is operating is just difficult, and even many evolutionary biologists can be seen getting this wrong on occasion. 2. All of the above applies to creationists, but it's not so much that they are lying, or that they couldn't get a correct understanding of evolution into their heads, it's that they just *don't care*. They think they understand it, and when you think you understand something when you don't, this is a huge barrier to further education. Creationists/ID advocates essentially universally don't care about getting a thorough understanding of a scientific topic before blabbing about it. They operate in a weird land which confuses popsci for real science, and real science isn't the main point of the discussion anyway, since the main worries and goals are about morality, culture, and religion (and not just any religion, but their specific Biblicist version of religion). The essay/book "On Bullshit" is one of the fastest ways to understand this mindset, and so much of the rest of modern popular culture.

Sylvilagus · 12 February 2012

SteveP. said: You guys underestimate the 'intelligence' of simpler life to your detriment. It blinds you to the wonder of life. You (pl) try to reduce it to 'just physics and chemistry' so you don't have to deal with the implications of 'there is something out there' and it is 'speaking to you'. You can turn a deaf ear. But I prefer to turn on the amplifier.

Steve - How would this apply to the many religious scientists, even many specifically Christian scientists, who both listen to God and find the evidence of evolution completely convincing on its own, without need of intelligent design? Seems to me that you are the one playing deaf, pretending that hearing your God precludes hearing the actual operations of the world he created, deaf to how he must be speaking through the evidence of evolution. In part, I don't blame you, because you so clearly don't understand the science or the evidence (as your comments here demonstrate) on even a basic level, but I do blame you for not trying to get beyond your own blinders and actually trying to learn the science before you pronounce upon it. Panda's Thumb is such a great resource for those who want to learn. But, you have to be willing to listen, not just pronounce.

John · 12 February 2012

Sylvilagus said:
SteveP. said: You guys underestimate the 'intelligence' of simpler life to your detriment. It blinds you to the wonder of life. You (pl) try to reduce it to 'just physics and chemistry' so you don't have to deal with the implications of 'there is something out there' and it is 'speaking to you'. You can turn a deaf ear. But I prefer to turn on the amplifier.
Steve - How would this apply to the many religious scientists, even many specifically Christian scientists, who both listen to God and find the evidence of evolution completely convincing on its own, without need of intelligent design? Seems to me that you are the one playing deaf, pretending that hearing your God precludes hearing the actual operations of the world he created, deaf to how he must be speaking through the evidence of evolution. In part, I don't blame you, because you so clearly don't understand the science or the evidence (as your comments here demonstrate) on even a basic level, but I do blame you for not trying to get beyond your own blinders and actually trying to learn the science before you pronounce upon it. Panda's Thumb is such a great resource for those who want to learn. But, you have to be willing to listen, not just pronounce.

A most astute assessment of Steve P. and his modus operandi. But I don't think he would understand what you've written. IMHO he's been "assimilated" already by the Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective.

ksplawn · 12 February 2012

Really and truly understanding evolution takes effort and study, but even the brainier IDists flub the basic concepts that are simple. How many times must it be pointed out that evolution is not "random," that the whole point of Darwin's theory is that selection is a powerful, non-random determining factor? It lowers the barrier for "unlikely" beneficial changes to get a foothold because once they do, they're advantaged over the more likely harmful or neutral changes. Not only that, but the harmful changes are disadvantaged compared to both neutral and beneficial changes. Yet IDists and their audience constantly talk about "random chance" being the evolutionary model. There's no room for selection in their gut understanding of it, because to them the only alternatives are God pulling the strings or else chaos.

Mike Elzinga · 12 February 2012

Nick Matzke said: ... 2. All of the above applies to creationists, but it's not so much that they are lying, or that they couldn't get a correct understanding of evolution into their heads, it's that they just *don't care*. They think they understand it, and when you think you understand something when you don't, this is a huge barrier to further education. Creationists/ID advocates essentially universally don't care about getting a thorough understanding of a scientific topic before blabbing about it. They operate in a weird land which confuses popsci for real science, and real science isn't the main point of the discussion anyway, since the main worries and goals are about morality, culture, and religion (and not just any religion, but their specific Biblicist version of religion). The essay/book "On Bullshit" is one of the fastest ways to understand this mindset, and so much of the rest of modern popular culture.

This is something that has been discussed before; and I am not sure there is a single answer to it. Ken Miller, in one of his books, tells of a discussion with Henry Morris during a motel breakfast after one of their debates the previous evening. He had asked Morris if he really believed the stuff he was saying. Morris replied that Ken was young and didn’t understand what was at stake. I have watched live debates with creationists and videos of debates with Duane Gish. The creationist tactic is always the same; a mechanical plowing ahead with assertion after assertion, mischaracterization after mischaracterization. It essentially amounts to an entire truckload of garbage dumped so fast that few people could answer it the time and in the detail required. You see the same kinds of garbage dumps in the videos at AiG; so the leaders in the ID/creationist community are obviously aware of a format for their presentations, and they put a great deal of practice into their delivery. Ken Ham has actually mentioned this kind of practice when talking to his audiences. The garbage dumps come so fast that nobody in the audience has a chance to do a follow-up thought on anything that doesn’t make sense before they are hit with ten more things. In fact, all of ID/creationist material is in the form of a catechism which followers are to memorize. I think that is why we see so much mechanical repetition on the part of the trolls and other followers of ID/creationism. This type of “learning” follows fairly closely the format of the Sunday school indoctrination in fundamentalist, evangelical churches. They draw from a verse in their bible that instructs them to always have an answer. Hence they memorize and memorize. As to understanding what they say, most followers clearly have never grasped any scientific concepts from even their earliest courses in middle school and high school. If the fundamentalist parents are fearful of what their kids will encounter, these parents will often try to have their kids exempted from lessons they don’t like, or they find prepared instructions on how to convince oneself that what one reads and hears in science class is wrong. So the entire mindset of incredulity toward science, and evolution in particular, is sustained by a tightly-nit culture of formal instruction in misconceptions and misrepresentations of science along with formal instruction in how to “keep one’s mind from being captured by Satan.” I suspect that many in this tight community actually do know that there is a conflict between what they are told by their religious handlers about science and what is actually the case. I think that is where the fear comes in. To them, the difference is Satan talking, so one dare not listen carefully lest one be deceived. And this is that state of arrested cognitive development that we see so often in these fundamentalist evangelicals. They remain dependent children emotionally and intellectually; and they can look only to their trusted authority figures for guidance on what to think and believe. The more one attempts to use logic and evidence to convince them of what science really is about, the more their fear kicks in and the more they resist; because they know that their Satan uses just such persuasive temptations to lure them into Hell. I suspect that, to a fundamentalist, anything that is as intricate and complex as a set of scientific concepts is a clear indicator of satanic scheming to lead them astray. Their bible is a simple set of rules to memorize and follow safely to their heaven. This may be what Henry Morris meant by the stakes involved.

Just Bob · 12 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said: ... a tightly-nit culture ...

For tiny flea brains? (I do so love freudian slips.)

Their bible is a simple set of rules ...

Only after they (actually their handlers) have carefully expurgated the Bible of all the rules they're NOT supposed to follow. All those inconvenient rules are still in the Bible, but with "fundamentalist glasses", carefully developed through Sunday school and "bible study", the typical fundy can no longer "see" them. With this kind of mental training, failing to see inconvenient parts of science, or reality in general, comes naturally.

Mike Elzinga · 12 February 2012

Just Bob said:
Mike Elzinga said: ... a tightly-nit culture ...
For tiny flea brains? (I do so love freudian slips.)

:-) Oh man; I am just knot ridden of sardonic humor.

apokryltaros · 12 February 2012

Just Bob said:
Mike Elzinga said: ... a tightly-nit culture ...
For tiny flea brains? (I do so love freudian slips.)
Their bible is a simple set of rules ...
Only after they (actually their handlers) have carefully expurgated the Bible of all the rules they're NOT supposed to follow. All those inconvenient rules are still in the Bible, but with "fundamentalist glasses", carefully developed through Sunday school and "bible study", the typical fundy can no longer "see" them. With this kind of mental training, failing to see inconvenient parts of science, or reality in general, comes naturally.

Like all those annoying holy rules about forbidding the consumption of pork, shellfish or meat & dairy, or wearing of polyester, or growing mixed crops, or killing children in publich, or committing adultery?

Tenncrain · 12 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said: This is something that has been discussed before; and I am not sure there is a single answer to it. Ken Miller, in one of his books, tells of a discussion with Henry Morris during a motel breakfast after one of their debates the previous evening. He had asked Morris if he really believed the stuff he was saying. Morris replied that Ken was young and didn’t understand what was at stake.

Yes, I was struck by this when I read Miller's book Finding Darwin's God a few years ago. During the breakfast, Morris also stated that he fully believed his views, that whatever problems there may be with young-earth creationism will absolutely be resolved in the end, that the Scriptures are the deciding factor, and so on. It struck me because at the time I read Finding Darwin's God, I was shedding the young-earth creationist views I grew up on. I was perhaps a bit more of a presuppositionalist, more like John Whitcomb than Henry Morris (Whitcomb would say using reason on the natural world is not really sufficient in finding truth, Bible is only way to do that). These and other peaks into creationist thinking are well expressed in the book The Creationists (Ronald Numbers).

Nick Matzke · 13 February 2012

Jonathan Wells weighs in... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/revenge_of_the056291.html

Revenge of the Peppered Moths? Jonathan Wells February 12, 2012 7:49 PM | Permalink peppered moth.jpg The peppered moth story is familiar -- even overly familiar -- to most readers of ENV, so I will summarize it only briefly here. Before the industrial revolution, most peppered moths in England were light-colored; but after tree trunks around cities were darkened by pollution, a dark-colored ("melanic") variety became much more common (a phenomenon known as "industrial melanism"). In the 1950s, British physician Bernard Kettlewell performed some experiments that seemed to show that the proportion of melanic moths had increased because they were better camouflaged on darkened tree trunks and thus less likely to be eaten by predatory birds. Kettlewell's evidence soon became the classic textbook demonstration of natural selection in action -- commonly illustrated with photos of peppered moths resting on light- and dark-colored tree trunks. By the 1990s, however, biologists had discovered several discrepancies in the classic story -- not the least of which was that peppered moths in the wild do not usually rest on tree trunks. Most of the textbook photos had been staged. In the 2000s the story began disappearing from the textbooks. British biologist Michael Majerus then did some studies that he felt supported the camouflage-predation explanation. But before he died of cancer in 2009, he only managed to publish a report of his study in the Darwin lobby's in-house magazine Evolution: Education and Outreach. Now four other British biologists have presented his results posthumously in the Royal Society's peer-reviewed Biology Letters. In an accompanying supplement, the authors presented their version of what they call "the peppered moth debacle." And a debacle it certainly is, but not in the way they think. According to Charles Darwin, natural selection has been "the most important" factor in the descent with modification of all living things from one or a few common ancestors, yet he had no actual evidence for it. All he could offer in The Origin of Species were "one or two imaginary illustrations." It wasn't until almost a century later that Kettlewell seemed to provide "Darwin's missing evidence" by marking and releasing light- and dark-colored moths in polluted and unpolluted woodlands and recovering some of them the next day. Consistent with the camouflage-predation explanation, the proportion of better-camouflaged moths increased between their release and recapture. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, however, researchers reported various problems with the camouflage-predation explanation, and in 1998 University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent and two colleagues published an article in volume 30 of Evolutionary Biology concluding "there is little persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observations and experiments, to support this explanation at the present time." (p. 318) The same year, Michael Majerus published a book in which he concluded that evidence gathered in the forty years since Kettlewell's work showed that "the basic peppered moth story is wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete, with respect to most of the story's component parts." (p. 116) In a review of Majerus's book published in Nature, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote: "From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong." According to Coyne, the fact that peppered moths in the wild rarely rest on tree trunks "alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-and-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks." In 1999, I published an article in The Scientist summarizing these and other criticisms of the peppered moth story, and in 2000 I included a chapter on peppered moths in my book Icons of Evolution. Then, in 2002, journalist Judith Hooper published a book about the controversy titled Of Moths and Men. Hooper accused Kettlewell of fraud, though I never did; my criticism was directed primarily at textbook writers who ignored problems with the story and continued to use staged photos even after they were known to misrepresent natural conditions. By then, what had previously been a fairly limited scientific dispute over the cause(s) of industrial melanism had become a debacle. Sargent and I were demonized, and Majerus and Coyne were persuaded to reaffirm the peppered moth story as the prime example of Darwinian evolution in action. Majerus also embarked on the study that was just recently reported in Biology Letters. In that study, conducted over a seven-year period from 2001 to 2007, Majerus performed release-and-recapture experiments in an unpolluted woodland near his home with 4,522 light-colored and 342 dark-colored moths, using methods he considered superior to Kettlewell's. He found that dark-colored moths (which were less camouflaged in this situation) had only a 91% survival rate compared with light-colored moths. He also observed 135 moths in resting positions, of which 35.6% were on tree trunks. Yet during the seven years of Majerus's study, thousands of peppered moths must have passed through the woodland near his house, so 135 moths were a tiny fraction of the total. Furthermore, as he himself acknowledged in a 2007 lecture in Sweden, his results might have been "somewhat biased towards the lower parts of the tree, due to sampling technique." Indeed. If peppered moths normally rest high in the upper branches, as several researchers concluded in the 1980s, then doing statistics on those visible to an observer on the ground (even one who climbs part-way up some trees, as Majerus did), is bound to suffer from sampling bias. Imagine someone looking over the side of a boat and concluding that most fish in the sea live within ten feet of the surface. The correct question to ask is not whether peppered moths ever rest on tree trunks, but whether peppered moths normally rest on tree trunks. It's possible they do, but finding 48 moths resting on tree trunks over the course of seven years does not answer that question -- especially when tree trunks are the primary location where you are looking for moths. Majerus titled his 2007 lecture "The Peppered Moth: The Proof of Darwinian Evolution." He summarized the results of his seven-year study, but he explained that the real proof of Darwinian evolution is the following: Darwinian evolution is a logical fact, and had to be even in 1859. Consider Darwin's four observations and three deductions, upon which selection theory is based. Organisms produce far more offspring than give rise to mature individuals. Yet, population sizes remain more or less constant. Therefore, there must be a high rate of mortality. The individuals in a species show variation. Therefore, some variants will succeed better than others, and those with beneficial characteristics will be naturally selected to produce the next generation. There is a hereditary resemblance between parents and offspring. Therefore, beneficial traits will be passed to future generations. Given these four observed facts and three simple, logical deductions, selection cannot NOT happen. So the evidence Majerus presented was ultimately irrelevant. Though consistent with the camouflage-predation hypothesis, Majerus's results could not "prove" the latter, much less Darwinian evolution. His "proof" was logical, not empirical. In any case, Darwinian evolution requires much more than the selection of beneficial traits, and much more than a shift in the proportions of light- and dark-colored moths. It requires the descent with modification of all living things from one or a few common ancestors. Darwin did not write a book titled How the Proportions of Two Pre-existing Moth Varieties Can Change Through Natural Selection; he wrote a book titled The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Majerus went on to say that "there are a tremendous number of examples of Darwinian selection in action." And indeed there are: beak changes in Galápagos finches, for one. Natural selection happens; I've never met anyone who doubts it. The question is whether natural selection can produce new species, organs and body plans. This question is not answered by shifts in the proportions of pre-existing varieties of the same species. Even if the camouflage-predation explanation for industrial melanism were undisputed, it would not get us any closer to "proving" Darwinian evolution. Since there are other, better examples of natural selection, why do Darwinists go to such lengths to defend the peppered moth story? And why do they practically bite themselves in two vilifying its critics? The answer, I think, can be found in the conclusion of Majerus's 2007 lecture. "The rise and fall of the peppered moth," he said, "is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, [so] it should be taught. It provides after all: The Proof of Evolution." It doesn't matter that the camouflage-predation story is scientifically disputed. It doesn't matter that the story doesn't come close to demonstrating the origin of a news species, much less the descent of all species from a common ancestor. What matters is that the peppered myth is a useful tool for indoctrinating students in Darwinian evolution. In 1999 Canadian textbook-writer Bob Ritter, who knew that peppered moth pictures were staged but used them anyway, defended his practice on the same grounds. "You have to look at the audience," he was quoted as saying in an April 5, 1999, Alberta Report article. "How convoluted do you want to make it for a first time learner?" High school students "are still very concrete in the way they learn," said Ritter. "The advantage of this example of natural selection is that it is extremely visual." It's no wonder that science education is in trouble.

Ya see that? It's still in scientific dispute, evidence be dammed! Majerus was one of the skeptics that had to be convinced of the bird predation theory, never mind that Majerus wrote in 1998 that the bird predation theory was correct! And we have the moths-in-branches-are-in-a-parallel-universe-where-there-are-no-birds thing going on again! IIRC the quote of Sargent et al. is a quote mine, they are talking about whether or not the bird predation hypothesis is the explanation of all industrial melanism in all moths, not necessarily about the peppered moth case specifically.

Mike Elzinga · 13 February 2012

Tenncrain said: These and other peaks into creationist thinking are well expressed in the book The Creationists (Ronald Numbers).

I don’t think I have read that particular book by Ronald Numbers; but I have known people who have escaped from the clutches of those kinds of churches. It was a painful process for them, much like having to be deprogrammed. There was a lot of fear and guilt to overcome as well as the rejection and scorn they experience from people they had grown up with. Most joined more moderate churches; but I think ultimately they left the churches altogether. They also left the towns they grew up in.

Mike Elzinga · 13 February 2012

Nick Matzke said: Jonathan Wells weighs in... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/revenge_of_the056291.html

If IDiots evolved from creationists, why are there still creationists?

DS · 13 February 2012

Yea, one example of one species in one locality doesn't prove every single part of modern evolutionary theory, so it must not be true, so don't teach it. And if you do teach it, you should just ignore the fact that it actually does constitute irrefutable evidence of a major mechanism proposed by Darwin. This must be denied at all costs, even if we say that we accept "microevolution", even if we admit that the evidence for natural selection is readily observable and overwhelming, even if we admit that even theoretically it must be true. We can't let it appear as if any scientist really understands anything, even if we actually agree with it.

Wells could not refute the logic, so he just started spewing nonsense about irrelevant issues. He must on some level know that he is just being dishonest. Why would anyone choose to be fooled by such blatant crapola?

DS · 13 February 2012

"Since there are other, better examples of natural selection, why do Darwinists go to such lengths to defend the peppered moth story? And why do they practically bite themselves in two vilifying its critics?"

Since there are other, better examples of natural selection, why do creationists go to such lengths to denigrate the peppered moth story? And why do they practically bite themselves in two vilifying the real scientists who study it? Why don't they just admit that natural selection is real? Why don't they just admit that there is just as much evidence for speciation and "macroevolution"?

Henry J · 13 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said:
Nick Matzke said: Jonathan Wells weighs in... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/revenge_of_the056291.html
If IDiots evolved from creationists, why are there still creationists?

De Designer done did it that way!!!111!!!eleven!!!

John · 13 February 2012

Henry J said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Nick Matzke said: Jonathan Wells weighs in... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/revenge_of_the056291.html
If IDiots evolved from creationists, why are there still creationists?
De Designer done did it that way!!!111!!!eleven!!!

Because it is a "speciation" event in progress and the IDiots don't realize that they are still a subspecies of the monophyletic taxon, Homo creationensis.

Tenncrain · 13 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said: I don’t think I have read that particular book by Ronald Numbers;

The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism is regarded as objective, even Henry Morris gave a back cover endorsement. The more recent update is The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. One telling mention was a pattern of YEC geology students either discarding YECreationism/flood geology or leaving geology altogether. Prospective YEC geology students would get the excited attention of leading YECs like Henry Morris and Walter Lammerts, but in the end leading YECs were usually dismayed when the students turns their back on Flood geology/YECreationism. BTW, Numbers himself is a former YEC. To be fair, Numbers also includes ex-evolutionists like Gary Parker. This said, Numbers covers the late Walter Lang who was founder of the Bible Science Association, now Creation Moments; Lang openly admitted he thought "...only about five percent of evolutionists-turned-creationists did so on the basis of the overwhelming evidence for creation in the world of nature..." Yes, just 5%.

...but I have known people who have escaped from the clutches of those kinds of churches. It was a painful process for them, much like having to be deprogrammed. There was a lot of fear and guilt to overcome as well as the rejection and scorn they experience from people they had grown up with.

Yes, many (if not all) ex-YECs had a rather painful experience. I even met an individual that grew up in a moderate church, converted to a YEC as a teenager, then later recanted. His conversion was quick and spiritually joyful, but his 'reconversion' was somewhat lengthy and theologically quite uncomfortable. Among my biggest influences in becoming an ex-YEC were my college geology class, the 2005 Dover/Kitzmiller decision, and theists like Ken Miller. Nevertheless, I still experienced theological hurt. Further salt in the wounds was when other YECs - even relatives - then looked down their noses at me.

Most joined more moderate churches; but I think ultimately they left the churches altogether. They also left the towns they grew up in.

FWIW, I remain a theist, even if no longer with close relations with the church I grew up in. After graduating college, I ended up in a city almost a five hour drive from my hometown, although largely because of a good job. Thankfully, in general I still have good relations with relatives, regardless that many of them remain YECs.

Scott F · 13 February 2012

Nick Matzke said:
Darwin did not write a book titled How the Proportions of Two Pre-existing Moth Varieties Can Change Through Natural Selection; he wrote a book titled The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
Ya see that? It's still in scientific dispute, evidence be dammed! ... And we have the moths-in-branches-are-in-a-parallel-universe-where-there-are-no-birds thing going on again!

He's also still using the, "They're still just moths" schtick.

SteveP. · 14 February 2012

Scott F said:
SteveP. said: So the question remains, what was the 'trigger'; bird feeding habit change, or moths 'unilaterally' changing their color? That is what is at issue. From an ID perspective, it was moths' 'understanding' that their original white with speckles camouflage would no longer do. So the genome started the process of change to a darker shade instead of the dirty white color(spots still there I believe since they were aleady dark). You guys underestimate the 'intelligence' of simpler life to your detriment. It blinds you to the wonder of life. You (pl) try to reduce it to 'just physics and chemistry' so you don't have to deal with the implications of 'there is something out there' and it is 'speaking to you'.
Really? Seriously? Do you really believe that the moths intentionally changed their color? First, have you ever heard the story of moths and candle flames? Is that the level of intelligence we're talking about? And yet these same moths are able to reason about their predators, to put themselves in the birds' place, understand how the bird is able to see them, and to know that a change in color could fool the birds? Seriously? My dog is as smart as a whip, and *he* couldn't figure that out. I know some humans who aren't that bright. A human baby playing peek-a-boo believes that, by hiding his own eyes, he can make himself invisible to an adult. Yet you claim these moths (which live only a couple of months) are smarter than a human child? Seriously? Second, by what physical mechanism were the moths able to purposefully change their color? Science has shown us exactly how octopuses and chameleons and zebra fish intentionally change colors. We know how it works. Let's reduce your "wonder of life" down to some "physics and chemistry". The moths aren't clothed in your ~~ignorance~~ "wonder of life". Instead they get their colors from "physics and chemistry". Surely your "Intelligent Design" should be able to identify the mechanism. Right? Right?? Or perhaps, like your ID hero Dembski, you don't sink to that "pathetic level of detail"?

Scott's head is still in the 20th century so yeah, he wouldn't be thinking about epigenetics. Nah. Genomes couldn't possible have the ability to change based on envirornmental conditions. They couldn't possibly have mechanisms to change the color of their wings to let them blend in to their surroundings so that they can stay ahead of the game. Nah. Moths aren't proactive. They are reactive. They just barely escape the reaper. Each and every time. But such luck! What a life!

SteveP. · 14 February 2012

Actually no, Flint. There real issue here is did the experiment establish that is was in fact NS at work? It is obvious that the experiment was conducted in such a way as to leave open questions. And taking shortcuts didn't help the situation at all. If you have to 'persuade' Coyne that all was on the up-and-up then you have a problem unless of course you wish to say that Coyne is rusty on this knowledge of the scientific method, how to do an experiment, and how to judge results. Is this what you (pl) are saying? The conclusions, if valid should speak for themselves. Yet, they don't. Put simply, its a case of experimental muddle.

Flint said: As has been agreed several times here, no creationist has ever found fault with an accurate representation of the scientific theory. It's always with some silly misrepresentation. The question is whether they willingly and deliberately distort the theory for their purposes, or whether they are mentally no longer capable of grasping (or never were capable of grasping) a notion even "so mindbogglingly simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10". I'm more and more leaning toward the latter. Piaget spoke of assimilation (making new information fit existing models) and accommodation (altering existing models to fit new information). Creationists' understanding of evolution is so wildly incorrect that the scope of change required for accommodation is simply no longer possible. It not only requires a blank-slate, ground-up reformulation of the model, it requires suspension of the religious delusions that distorted the model in the first place. Not likely to happen. And this means that they simply cannot see even something that simple, even if they tried - and an important part of their model says that making the effort is forbidden anyway.

SteveP. · 14 February 2012

Nick Matzke: "1. Evolutionary theory actually isn’t all that simple. Some of the basic ideas are simple, and because of that, a lot of people, including antievolutionists but also a fair number of scientists, *think* they understand it when really they don’t. To really understand evolution, your understanding has to be built upon a quite broad and fairly deep background understanding of (at least) organismal biology, geology/paleontology, and ecology. When you see creationists and others making armchair objections to evolutionary theory – like the tautology objection, or the we’ll-act-like-animals objection, this is always based on a completely naive and bizarre and cartoonish understanding of biology. Actual animals don’t “behave like animals”. Differential survival based on features of the organism is just real and is going on every day. Etc."

That's the marketing problem evolution has. If the general public needs a university degree to understand evolution, then evolution's shit outta luck. I bow to the powers of anyone that can jump that pedagogical hurdle! Its kinda like Elzinga's schtick that the ability to do entropy calculations is a prerequisite to understanding entropy. This line of reasoning is how the priestly class held on to power. But it suffers from the fatal (f)law of diminishing returns.

Mike Elzinga · 14 February 2012

What we are seeing here with SteveP is the snooty anti-intellectualism of an individual that has given up on learning to the point that he would actually interfere with other people's educations.

There are thug teenagers that hang out near schools and beat up kids heading home from school carrying books under their arms. SteveP belongs to that mindset.

Dave Luckett · 14 February 2012

Is he seriously attempting to say that the difficulties of "marketing" evolution to those who will not undertake the effort of understanding it, is some sort of argument against its factual reality?

Seriously?

And is he attempting to say that his being unable to calculate entropy is some kind of demonstration that he understands it better than someone who can?

Seriously?

He's barmy.

Michael R · 14 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said:
Nick Matzke said: Jonathan Wells weighs in... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/revenge_of_the056291.html
If IDiots evolved from creationists, why are there still creationists?

IDiots are still creationists!!

Sylvilagus · 14 February 2012

SteveP. said:
Nick Matzke: "1. Evolutionary theory actually isn’t all that simple. Some of the basic ideas are simple, and because of that, a lot of people, including antievolutionists but also a fair number of scientists, *think* they understand it when really they don’t. To really understand evolution, your understanding has to be built upon a quite broad and fairly deep background understanding of (at least) organismal biology, geology/paleontology, and ecology. When you see creationists and others making armchair objections to evolutionary theory – like the tautology objection, or the we’ll-act-like-animals objection, this is always based on a completely naive and bizarre and cartoonish understanding of biology. Actual animals don’t “behave like animals”. Differential survival based on features of the organism is just real and is going on every day. Etc."
That's the marketing problem evolution has. If the general public needs a university degree to understand evolution, then evolution's shit outta luck. I bow to the powers of anyone that can jump that pedagogical hurdle! Its kinda like Elzinga's schtick that the ability to do entropy calculations is a prerequisite to understanding entropy. This line of reasoning is how the priestly class held on to power. But it suffers from the fatal (f)law of diminishing returns.

Of course every field of science has the same "problem"... you need advanced degres to understand quantum chromodynamics or string theory or for that matter even advanced literary theory. That's how far knowledge has advanced. Its tough stuff to learn and understand well. Can someone have a general, layman's understanding of entropy without the math? Sure. But only on a simplistic level, and its risky. There are many aspects of science that can only be understood mathematically. certainly to make th kinds of claims about entropy and ID you like to make, one would HAVE to be able to make entropy calculations. Its like trying to make claims about whether a computer program could work without knowing how to write and run the program to test it. With such knowledge you could anticipate or even test it; without the knowledge ... pure idle speculation. I notice you didn't address my question to you above. I'm sincerely curious about your answer, if you have the time.

DS · 14 February 2012

Steve wrote:

"There real issue here is did the experiment establish that is was in fact NS at work?"

Well, do you have an alternative hypothesis?

See the thing is Steve that the predation was actually observed. We know the selective agent, we know it is a visual predator, we know it spots moths against a background and eats them. And of course this doesn't have to be the only bird species or even the only predator. Any differential survival based on phenotype would be selection. The point is that the shifts in allele frequency cannot be attributed to mutation or drift, so selection is really the only viable option. The real issue is that no one has any reason to doubt the role of selection and no alternative is likely. Of course doubting Steves demand that every moth be watched for every minute and every predation event be recorded, otherwise they simply refuse to believe it. But even if that were the case, doubting Steves would still find some reason to deny reality.

What's the real problem here Steve? Don't you think that selection is real? Don't you believe in natural selection? Remember, even Wells admitted that there are a thou=sand better examples? So why try to tie yourself in knots denying the obvious? Is ya just plain ignorant?

apokryltaros · 14 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said: What we are seeing here with SteveP is the snooty anti-intellectualism of an individual that has given up on learning to the point that he would actually interfere with other people's educations. There are thug teenagers that hang out near schools and beat up kids heading home from school carrying books under their arms. SteveP belongs to that mindset.

Given SteveP's lack of physical access, given his alleged claim that he's in Taiwan, he deludes himself into thinking that he can beat us intellectually. But, intellectually, his taking us intellectually on is the intellectual equivalent of a bratty Kindergartner thinking he can take on a den full of nuclear-powered grizzly bears with sharks with lasers strapped to their heads strapped to their heads.

Dave Luckett said: Is he seriously attempting to say that the difficulties of "marketing" evolution to those who will not undertake the effort of understanding it, is some sort of argument against its factual reality? Seriously?

Yes, yes he is. SteveP's only ability to counter logic and reality is to spew some nonsensical soundbite, then tell us how stupid we are for not falling to our feet in awe over it.

And is he attempting to say that his being unable to calculate entropy is some kind of demonstration that he understands it better than someone who can?

Remember we're dealing with a grown man who chided us for being fools for not taking what the Discovery Institute says about science seriously, and who claimed that there is no competition in Nature because it's a zero sum, and that women in first world countries can't all marry basketball stars.

Seriously? He's barmy.

Thank you for that astounding newsflash.

apokryltaros · 14 February 2012

DS said: What's the real problem here Steve? Don't you think that selection is real?

No, he doesn't. That's what he keeps blathering on about.

Don't you believe in natural selection?

He blathers on about how that's not real, either, or anything else he doesn't like. Except for education: he just prattles about how he thinks it's useless.

Remember, even Wells admitted that there are a thousand better examples? So why try to tie yourself in knots denying the obvious? Is ya just plain ignorant?

It's more than just plain ignorance with SteveP: it's more a combination of deliberate and arrogant stupidity, coupled with pathologically poor social skills.

DS · 14 February 2012

SteveP. said:
Nick Matzke: "1. Evolutionary theory actually isn’t all that simple. Some of the basic ideas are simple, and because of that, a lot of people, including antievolutionists but also a fair number of scientists, *think* they understand it when really they don’t. To really understand evolution, your understanding has to be built upon a quite broad and fairly deep background understanding of (at least) organismal biology, geology/paleontology, and ecology. When you see creationists and others making armchair objections to evolutionary theory – like the tautology objection, or the we’ll-act-like-animals objection, this is always based on a completely naive and bizarre and cartoonish understanding of biology. Actual animals don’t “behave like animals”. Differential survival based on features of the organism is just real and is going on every day. Etc."
That's the marketing problem evolution has. If the general public needs a university degree to understand evolution, then evolution's shit outta luck. I bow to the powers of anyone that can jump that pedagogical hurdle! Its kinda like Elzinga's schtick that the ability to do entropy calculations is a prerequisite to understanding entropy. This line of reasoning is how the priestly class held on to power. But it suffers from the fatal (f)law of diminishing returns.

So do you get vaccinations Steve? Do you ever use any modern medicine? Ever you ever had an operation? See you don't have to understand something completely yourself to benefit from it, you just have to trust the experts. Now why are you not willing to do that with evolution Steve? You do that with engineering, with communications technology, with medicine, with transportation, why not with evolution? Oh that;s right, ya don't wanna believes in that no how. Got it Steve. Even if evolution has a"marketing problem" that doesn't mean it isn;t true. You can cry any holler all you want to, but the fact is that evolution is real. You ignore reality at your own risk. Now that's more than a marketing problem Steve.

DS · 14 February 2012

And as far as entropy calculations go, why are you more willing to trust the people who can't do that calculations than the people who can? Who should you take the word of biased people who don't have the faintest clue what they are talking about? Is it just that you will do anything necessary to confirm your own prejudices and misconceptions? Why do you feel that this is somehow a virtue?

ksplawn · 14 February 2012

Dave Luckett said: Is he seriously attempting to say that the difficulties of "marketing" evolution to those who will not undertake the effort of understanding it, is some sort of argument against its factual reality? Seriously?

No, he's gloating about how uneducated people are immune to being convinced about evolution's reality. And unintentionally trying to prove his point by continuing to post.

harold · 14 February 2012

Everyone - I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed that Steve P. just keeps contradicting himself. This is my paraphrase of his train of argument, with the caveat that this may make it seem more coherent than it actually was. He started with "it's natural selection but it's only microevolution", on page 1. Then he began denying natural selection, around page 3. I pointed out these contradictions on page 3. Then he had an embarrassing moment of unintended honesty, in which he stated that science had a "marketing problem" because it requires some education to learn about science. I don't think this is true, but it does reveal his authoritarian mental processes - he cares about which idea people can be forced or deceived into saying they accept, not which is actually supported by evidence. And now, finally, he's advocating extreme Lamarckism. (This statement not intended to deny that some examples of direct environmental influence on germ line DNA may exist.)

Scott’s head is still in the 20th century so yeah, he wouldn’t be thinking about epigenetics. Nah. Genomes couldn’t possible have the ability to change based on envirornmental conditions. They couldn’t possibly have mechanisms to change the color of their wings to let them blend in to their surroundings so that they can stay ahead of the game. Nah. Moths aren’t proactive. They are reactive. They just barely escape the reaper. Each and every time. But such luck! What a life!

All that this guy cares about is relieving the agony in his own brain by talking back. He'll just say anything to "contradict evolution", even if it's a direct contradiction of what he himself said five minutes ago. For example, here are two responses that were provoked by two different Steve P. comments -

Really? Seriously? Do you really believe that the moths intentionally changed their color? So you’d have us believe that birds eating more white moths than black moths CAN NOT RESULT in a population with a higher proportion of black moths?

Yes, he made both of those claims. They contradict each other. He has argued, first that it was natural selection but that this supports ID because it was only "maintenance", second that bird predation can't be affected by moths colors, and third, that the moths magically choose to turn themselves black (even though this has no effect on predation, apparently), while also simultaneously arguing that the real problem with science is that it has a "marketing problem" because it is too hard for some people to understand.

DS · 14 February 2012

Why don't we just let him argue with himself until he loses.

co · 15 February 2012

SteveP. said: Its kinda like Elzinga's schtick that the ability to do entropy calculations is a prerequisite to understanding entropy. This line of reasoning is how the priestly class held on to power. But it suffers from the fatal (f)law of diminishing returns.

Steve, Elzinga's point is that you and the other creationists posting here have shown no understanding of entropy, and in fact have shown that you consistently *mis*understand it, and yet you've used it as an argument for your position. Either you understand it and consistently fail to demonstrate that you understand it, or you *think* you understand it and you don't, or you are lying. Which is it? The ability to understand entropy is the ability to *count* things. That's IT. It's actually very easy. Now, the trick lies in basically two issues: what things to count, and how to extend that counting to large numbers. Elzinga's examples don't bother with a "tricky" system, nor with a "large" system, and so the continued failings of the creationists to show that they know how to simply _count_ is pretty telling.

DS · 15 February 2012

SteveP. said: Its kinda like Elzinga's schtick that the ability to do entropy calculations is a prerequisite to understanding entropy. This line of reasoning is how the priestly class held on to power. But it suffers from the fatal (f)law of diminishing returns.

Right, this is how the "priestly class" held on to power. They invited the lay people to do the calculations for themselves. They invited the lay people to take classes and encouraged them to become educated. When they refused to become educated, but pretended they were anyway, then they were ridiculed for their ignorance. Right Steve. And what about people like Behe who claim to have disproven evolution but refuse to do their own calculations? Now there is a priestly class for you. Look dude, you are the one using an argument you don't understand. You are the one who refuses to learn. No one is stopping you from learning, indeed many here have offered to educate you, you as simply unwilling. Don't blame others for your own shortcomings. Pointing out that you are ignorant is not repression or elitism. Or do you lack logical reasoning skills as well? Can you blame that on those priestly scientists also?

bigdakine · 15 February 2012

DS said:
SteveP. said: Its kinda like Elzinga's schtick that the ability to do entropy calculations is a prerequisite to understanding entropy. This line of reasoning is how the priestly class held on to power. But it suffers from the fatal (f)law of diminishing returns.
Right, this is how the "priestly class" held on to power. They invited the lay people to do the calculations for themselves. They invited the lay people to take classes and encouraged them to become educated. When they refused to become educated, but pretended they were anyway, then they were ridiculed for their ignorance. Right Steve. And what about people like Behe who claim to have disproven evolution but refuse to do their own calculations? Now there is a priestly class for you. Look dude, you are the one using an argument you don't understand. You are the one who refuses to learn. No one is stopping you from learning, indeed many here have offered to educate you, you as simply unwilling. Don't blame others for your own shortcomings. Pointing out that you are ignorant is not repression or elitism. Or do you lack logical reasoning skills as well? Can you blame that on those priestly scientists also?

Learning scares the crap out of creationists. That is the last thing they want. What they covet is *plausible deniability* in their own minds.

SteveP. · 19 February 2012

bigdakine said:
DS said:
SteveP. said: Its kinda like Elzinga's schtick that the ability to do entropy calculations is a prerequisite to understanding entropy. This line of reasoning is how the priestly class held on to power. But it suffers from the fatal (f)law of diminishing returns.
Right, this is how the "priestly class" held on to power. They invited the lay people to do the calculations for themselves. They invited the lay people to take classes and encouraged them to become educated. When they refused to become educated, but pretended they were anyway, then they were ridiculed for their ignorance. Right Steve. And what about people like Behe who claim to have disproven evolution but refuse to do their own calculations? Now there is a priestly class for you. Look dude, you are the one using an argument you don't understand. You are the one who refuses to learn. No one is stopping you from learning, indeed many here have offered to educate you, you as simply unwilling. Don't blame others for your own shortcomings. Pointing out that you are ignorant is not repression or elitism. Or do you lack logical reasoning skills as well? Can you blame that on those priestly scientists also?
Learning scares the crap out of creationists. That is the last thing they want. What they covet is *plausible deniability* in their own minds.

Actually, it is you (pl) who refuse to learn. You(pl) have spend a billion dollars on the LHC, because you KNOW there is a higg's boson. You KNOW reality is made up of particles. You KNOW there is no god. You KNOW it all. You really don't need the LHC. The logic and reason is impeccable. Ah, but Higgs is a nice insurance policy to have in the bag. Good if you can put paid to religious absurdities; sort of a 'holy grail' of secular/skeptical/humanist/atheist dreams. Sweet part is they (the creationists) will help foot the bill!

prongs · 19 February 2012

co said to SteveP.: Steve, Elzinga's point is that you and the other creationists posting here have shown no understanding of entropy, and in fact have shown that you consistently *mis*understand it, and yet you've used it as an argument for your position. Either you understand it and consistently fail to demonstrate that you understand it, or you *think* you understand it and you don't, or you are lying. Which is it? The ability to understand entropy is the ability to *count* things. That's IT. It's actually very easy. Now, the trick lies in basically two issues: what things to count, and how to extend that counting to large numbers. Elzinga's examples don't bother with a "tricky" system, nor with a "large" system, and so the continued failings of the creationists to show that they know how to simply _count_ is pretty telling.

co, don't forget that creationists do "science" backwards. In the case of the 2nd Law, they start with "the Law". They like the sound of it. It comports with their indoctrinations. Then they go "look" for evidence to support it. Witness IBIG's endless posts on "death" and "decay". Only then will creationists, if they are capable, provide some mathematics to "support" their position. This is backwards, of course. The 2nd Law grew out of the observation that heat flows from hot things to cold things when things are left to themselves. Then Clausius, looking for a conservation law (which he did not find), gave the first equation for the change in entropy, the integral of the differential of the heat absorbed divided by the absolute temperature. Later the 2nd Law was formulated. It's a "Law" only because we've never seen violations (in truly closed systems). But does it hold in a collapsing universe? Maybe not. Does it hold inside the event horizon of a black hole? Maybe, maybe not. But creationists don't care. They have "The Law". They are certain. Damn the mathematics! They know "death and decay" when the see it.

DS · 19 February 2012

SteveP. said:
bigdakine said:
DS said:
SteveP. said: Its kinda like Elzinga's schtick that the ability to do entropy calculations is a prerequisite to understanding entropy. This line of reasoning is how the priestly class held on to power. But it suffers from the fatal (f)law of diminishing returns.
Right, this is how the "priestly class" held on to power. They invited the lay people to do the calculations for themselves. They invited the lay people to take classes and encouraged them to become educated. When they refused to become educated, but pretended they were anyway, then they were ridiculed for their ignorance. Right Steve. And what about people like Behe who claim to have disproven evolution but refuse to do their own calculations? Now there is a priestly class for you. Look dude, you are the one using an argument you don't understand. You are the one who refuses to learn. No one is stopping you from learning, indeed many here have offered to educate you, you as simply unwilling. Don't blame others for your own shortcomings. Pointing out that you are ignorant is not repression or elitism. Or do you lack logical reasoning skills as well? Can you blame that on those priestly scientists also?
Learning scares the crap out of creationists. That is the last thing they want. What they covet is *plausible deniability* in their own minds.
Actually, it is you (pl) who refuse to learn. You(pl) have spend a billion dollars on the LHC, because you KNOW there is a higg's boson. You KNOW reality is made up of particles. You KNOW there is no god. You KNOW it all. You really don't need the LHC. The logic and reason is impeccable. Ah, but Higgs is a nice insurance policy to have in the bag. Good if you can put paid to religious absurdities; sort of a 'holy grail' of secular/skeptical/humanist/atheist dreams. Sweet part is they (the creationists) will help foot the bill!

Seriously due? Scientists are the ones who refuse to learn? How rich is that! Look dude, you had hundreds of years to try your religious mumbo jumbo approach to reality. You know, the one where you just decided you know all of the answers already and never have to learn anything. You failed miserably. Science, on the other hand, is all about research and experiments and finding out what reality really is, regardless of what you want it to be. If you had learned anything at all from the last five hundred years, you would have learned that science works. There is only one way to find out if the Higgs boson is real or not and it sin;t by logic, or meditation or reading the bible. Grow up, learns some science and some history, then go away. Once again, yoiu have worn out your welcome here.

ksplawn · 19 February 2012

SteveP. said: Actually, it is you (pl) who refuse to learn. You(pl) have spend a billion dollars on the LHC, because you KNOW there is a higg's boson. You KNOW reality is made up of particles. You KNOW there is no god. You KNOW it all. You really don't need the LHC.

Your last sentence would be correct and it would reflect reality (there'd be no LHC) if your first couple of sentences were right. But reality says otherwise; we do have the LHC precisely because we want to learn how the world works and DON'T think we already know it all. Now, where's the Discovery Institute's Specified Complexity Detector? Where's their Irreducible Complexity Comparator? Where is their ANYTHING for studying the workings of the world with real experiments and data-gathering? Nowhere. Where are all the data gathering field studies and lab equipment being used by the ICR, AiG, CARM, etc.? Nowhere. Hmmm, comparing anti-evolutionists to real scientists, guess which ones have decided that they don't need to actually investigate the world because they already KNOW how it works. You're more insightful than you realize, just backwards.

Helena Constantine · 19 February 2012

SteveP. said: Actually, it is you (pl) who refuse to learn. You(pl) have spend a billion dollars on the LHC, because you KNOW there is a higg's boson. You KNOW reality is made up of particles. You KNOW there is no god. You KNOW it all. You really don't need the LHC. The logic and reason is impeccable. Ah, but Higgs is a nice insurance policy to have in the bag. Good if you can put paid to religious absurdities; sort of a 'holy grail' of secular/skeptical/humanist/atheist dreams. Sweet part is they (the creationists) will help foot the bill!

Actually, one purpose of the LHC is to discover whether the Higgs Boson exists. Whether it does or does not has nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence supporting the existence of gods and the supernatural. Further advances in physics are unlikely to change that. But really interests me is that you seem to imply in this post that matter is not made out of particles, and that if it were, that would be contrary evidence for the existence of god. If that is case, would you mind explaining how your computer works? Also, one of the charges against Galileo was atomism (which he happily recanted since there was no real proof it at the time, as you seem to think there still isn't). Some theologians in the 17th century thought that transubstantiation wouldn't work in a universe made of discrete particles (could they actually have been right, for a change?). Is there any possible chance that you were familiar with this fact, and are applying a detailed knowledge of theological history to you arguments? or you mere a stopped clock that is right twice a day? But you don't believe in transubstantiation, either do you? that's all part of Catholics' weird Mystery Babylon magic worship of Semiramis, huh?

Tenncrain · 19 February 2012

prongs said: In the case of the 2nd Law, they start with "the Law". They like the sound of it. It comports with their indoctrinations.

Somewhat ironic that even some leading YECs balked at using the 2L chestnut. This includes Walter Lammerts who was co-founder of the Creation Research Society, and A.E. Wilder-Smith who was a well known British YEC. As historian Ronald Numbers notes in his book The Creationists, the CreResSociety Quarterly published numerous articles during the 1970s and 80s from individuals (whom were otherwise faithful YECs) rejecting the use of the 2L against evolution. Numbers has an account of AE Wilder-Smith stating that Henry Morris and other like creationists "...don't know a thing about thermodynamics". Lammerts described 2L arguments as "worthless prattle" and "thermodynamics junk"