Re: [asa] Wells Math was Behe's Math... was Arrogance

Okay let's look at some of Wells' attempts to rebut the facts. In the
following we will notice that while Wells does cite some quotes from
scientists who argue that "probably the species rest only
exceptionally on tree trunks", he ignores actual data in favor of
speculation. Now the data are based on 40-50 observed instances of the
moth in the wild, and yet Wells seems to attempt to rebut them by
stating that thousands of moths have been found in traps, thus the
40-50 form a small percentage...

Yes my dear friends, that is indeed Wells' argument. Since moths were
mostly found in traps, the few observations of the moth in the wild
should be 'ignored'.
While the new data from Majerus once again shows that Wells was wrong,
it seems to me that most anyone would appreciate the vacuity in Wells'
arguments.

Wells then tries to argue that Majerus agrees with him because Majerus
stated that moths do not rest on 'exposed tree trunks', note how this
already different from 'tree trunks' in a very relevant way

<quote>Several reviewers of Icons of Evolution (not including Coyne,
of course) fault me for getting the moths' resting-places wrong.
According to Scott, "Wells argues that moths don't rest on tree
trunks," but "he ignores research showing that moths rest on all parts
of trees (including the trunks)." (Scott, p. 2258) And Padian and
Gishlick write: "Wells erroneously claims that moths do not rest on
tree trunks, although research has shown that moths rest on trunks 26%
of the time, and on trunk/branch junctions 43% of the time (Majerus
1998, p 123)." (Padian & Gishlick, p. 36)

But Scott doesn't cite any research, and the research she says I
ignore shows clearly that exposed tree trunks are not the natural
resting-places of peppered moths. For example, in 1984 Kauri Mikkola
reported that "the species probably only exceptionally rests on tree
trunks;" and in 1987 Rory Howlett and Michael Majerus wrote that they
were "convinced that exposed areas of tree trunks are not an important
resting site" for peppered moths. [13]

What about the statistics Padian and Gishlick attribute to Majerus?
Majerus's 1998 book lists a total of 47 moths found in the wild from
1964 to 1996. Of these, 6 were found on exposed tree trunks, 6 on
unexposed trunks, 20 in trunk/branch joints, and 15 on branches.
Padian and Gishlick obtain their percentages from the first two
categories (13% plus 13%) and the third category (43%). But Majerus's
47 moths are not--and are not claimed to be--an unbiased sample
representing peppered moths in general. In the decades since
Kettlewell's experiments, scientists have counted tens of thousands of
peppered moths; one 1977 paper alone listed data for 8,426 moths in
southern Britain between 1952 and 1974. [14] These thousands, however,
were found in artificial traps, not in normal resting positions.
Researchers suspect that the moths normally spend the day hidden under
horizontal branches high in the trees, where they cannot be seen.

So even if all 47 of Majerus's moths had been found on tree trunks,
they would still represent less than 1% of all peppered moths studied
during the same period. Trying to determine the normal resting-places
of peppered moths by doing statistics on Majerus's sample is a bit
like trying to determine the normal habitats of ocean fish by doing
statistics only on those spotted from a boat. But of course Majerus
knows this, which is why he (unlike Padian and Gishlick) concludes
that "peppered moths do not naturally rest in exposed positions on
tree trunks." [15]
</quote>

Majerus responded to similar claims by Wells on the ASA list.

<quote>4) This is just wrong. Dr Wells' who gives the impression in
his response that he has read my book, obviously has not. If he had,
he would have seen that in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 I myself have recorded
168 peppered moths on tree trunks or at trunk/branch joins. If Dr
Wells' wishes his views to be taken seriously, he should ensure that
his research is thorough.</quote>

Let's look at the data

Resting positions of moths found in the wild in studies between 1964 and 1996
Exposed trunk: 6
Unexposed trunk: 6
Trunk/branch joint: 20
Branches: 15
Summary: 32 of 47 moths (68%) were found on tree trunks

Resting positions of moths found in the vicinity of traps between 1965 and 1996
Exposed trunk: 48
Unexposed trunk :22
Trunk/branch joint: 66
Branches 20
Foliage 22
Man-made surfaces: 25
Summary: 136 of 203 moths (67%) were found on tree trunks

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/wells-april-2002.html

Note how exposed tree trunks is a subset of tree trunks...

Anything else you would be interested in discussing? The list goes on and on.

May I ask you a question, where you familiar with the critiques of
Wells as well as the primary literature on for instance the peppered
moth?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 2 14:06:33 2007