Re: peppered moths

From: Stephen Matheson (matheson@helix.mgh.harvard.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2000 - 19:36:27 EST

  • Next message: glenn morton: "Re: Call for Help/Information"

    Hello Wendee--

    >I am teaching intro college biology and am about to mention the peppered
    >moth classic example of natural selection. I know there has recently been
    >some criticism of the study by creation scientists, but was unable to locate
    >any specifics from a web search. Does anyone know what criticism has been
    >offered about this study, and why? I'd like to be informed before going in
    >there! ;)

    I first read these interesting criticisms in the newspaper The Scientist.
    The article was written by Jonathan Wells and was nicely done. You can
    subscribe to The Scientist online at the-scientist.com. (The magazine
    is a biweekly newsmagazine for life science professionals, an offshoot
    of ISI if I recall.) Wells' piece was in the issue of 24 May 1999.
    His references seem comprehensive and up-to-date, and include
    the review article may be what David Campbell has referred to as
    a "book review".

    There are several reasons why the peppered moth story seems not
    to be a good example of natural selection in action. As others
    have pointed out, this does not make it any kind of argument
    against descent with modification or even against Darwinism.

    The Wells article is also found on true.origins homepage
    (www.firinn.org/trueorigin). It seems to be the same text,
    but I haven't verified that.

    IMO, you would be unwise to consult Answers in Genesis, as
    referenced by another poster; this site lacks scientific
    credibility, by including (for example) an article using the
    old salt-in-the-sea argument for a young earth. Not a place to
    learn about biology.

    Steve Matheson



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 20 2000 - 19:39:13 EST