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

Michael,

I have found Art Chadwick to be a man of integrity. As you may know he was the one who showed that there were problems with the YEC data of angiosperm pollen from the PreCambrian. [1981. Chadwick, A.V. Precambrian Pollen in the Grand Canyon -- a reexamination. Origins. 8:7-12.] showing fairly clearly that they were contaminants.

May I suggest if you think there are problems or inaccuracies on what he has posted about the Peppered moths, he would be happy to talk to you. But the Christian principle would I think be to approach him directly and not tell Alexanian to do so.

I have looked briefly into the peppered moth story a long time ago and there were some problem with the way the study was done or what was not said about pictures. I would have to read the article and talk to an entomologists before I made a critique of the article. I am just suggesting it had some problems.

bcc to Art

-- 
James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu)          Phone: 712 722-6279
498 4th Ave NE
Biology Department                                     FAX :  712 722-1198
Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
>>> On 9/4/2007 at 1:05 AM, in message <20070904064029.231FD711A4A@gray.dordt.edu>,
"Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> I am pleased you don't believe in lying. Thus I can rely on you to persuade 
> Art Chadwick to remove his false accusations about the Peppered Moth. 
> Otherwise you are condoning lying.
> 
> 
> Michael
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 2:22 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
> 
> 
>> My post answered your question. No, I do not believe in lying for any 
>> reason whatsoever.  There is no path to God except through Jesus the 
>> Christ. Any other claim is contrary to Scripture, and in my opinion, 
>> false.
>>
>>
>> Moorad
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk] 
>> Sent: Mon 9/3/2007 2:08 AM
>> To: Alexanian, Moorad
>> Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>>
>>
>>
>> Moorad
>>
>> You have not considered Wells' false accusations and side-stepped the
>> question. Does this mean you think it is permissible to lie for the 
>> Kingdom
>> of God or for Mr Moon?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
>> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
>> Cc: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 12:44 AM
>> Subject: RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>>
>>
>> I have not read Icons of Evolution but my understanding is that Wells
>> documented some goofs the advocated of evolutionary theory had made.
>> However, I do agree that one cannot use, say, the Piltdown fiasco as proof
>> that evolutionary theory is wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> Moorad
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk] 
>> Sent: Sun 9/2/2007 4:39 PM
>> To: PvM; Peter Loose
>> Cc: George Murphy; Alexanian, Moorad; AmericanScientificAffiliation
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>>
>>
>>
>> Presumably everyone on this list claims to be a Christian and thus has 
>> high
>> ethical standards, including those of not lying and not falsely accuses
>> others.
>>
>> This makes it crystal clear that Wells is making false accusations and has
>> been doing so for at least 8 years. If DI ARN or any other ID set-up had 
>> any
>> moral integrity they would have forced Wells to retract this charge. As 
>> they
>> have not surely we can conclude that this is morally acceptable to them.
>>
>> Will Moorad, James (M) and Peter now condemn Wells for this type of thing 
>> or
>> do they also think it morally acceptable?
>>
>> I am still waiting patiently for some honesty to emanate from the leaders 
>> of
>> YEC and ID. (Yes, I know Wells is not YEC)
>>
>> Michael
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
>> To: "Peter Loose" <peterwloose@compuserve.com>
>> Cc: "Gregory Arago" <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>; "Janice Matchett"
>> <janmatch@earthlink.net>; "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Alexanian,
>> Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>; "AmericanScientificAffiliation"
>> <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 11:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>>
>>
>>>I am very familiar as to Wells' so called 'responses' to his critics,
>>> which most often fail to address, as is the case with so many of the
>>> ID proponents, the arguments raised.
>>>
>>> I suggest that people read the reviews, read the relevant papers, read
>>> the attempts by Wells to explain his flawed arguments and everyone can
>>> come to their own conclusion.
>>>
>>> However, Icons of Evolution, PIGDID are examples of poorly written
>>> descriptions of science. Of course, from a perspective which seeks to
>>> destroy Darwinism, I'd say that the books can be understood best.
>>>
>>> Until people stop taking the Discovery Institute seriously as a
>>> reliable source of scientific information, we will continue to see how
>>> people will inevitably be confused, and disappointed when confronted
>>> with the facts.
>>>
>>> If you are interested in discussing a particular claim or example
>>> cited by Wells, please present it and we can explore how well his
>>> claim holds up in light of the evidence?
>>>
>>> Peppered Moth, Cambrian, Haeckel, Archaeopteryx... I'll let you chose.
>>> It may be a very educational exercise to explore the depth of the
>>> scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design arguments. As Christians, we
>>> should then determine if we are willing to support a movement which
>>> seems to be by all credible accounts, lacking in scientific relevance
>>> and which seems to be theologically risky.
>>>
>>> Wells would make for an excellent example as I am quite familiar with
>>> many of musings as well as with the actual status of scientific
>>> knowledge and research in these area. Especially, the peppered moth...
>>>
>>> Does anyone remember that Wells used to claim that the peppered moth
>>> does not rest on tree trunks? Later, Wells corrected his flaw by
>>> adding do not normally rest on tree trunks, even though again, the
>>> data did not support his thesis.
>>>
>>> <quote> Wells:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> Indeed... Ironically, these were the messages Wells posted to ASA a while
>>> ago...
>>>
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html 
>>>
>>> Has Wells retracted his claims of 'fraud'? Does Wells indeed know what
>>> he is talking about? The primary literature does not seem to agree
>>> with him much, certainly most of the experts on the peppered moth have
>>> argued that Wells does not know what he is talking about (Majerus,
>>> Bruce Grant)
>>>
>>> Bruce Grant
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> To put them in context, the material quoted below is a copy of the
>>> correspondence between Grant and a professional colleague who had
>>> requested Grant's views on Wells' chapter, originally written February
>>> 7, 2001.
>>>
>>>    Subject: Wells's Chapter on Peppered Moths
>>>
>>>    Wells's Chapter 7 is pretty similar to his earlier ms. "Second
>>> thoughts about peppered moths" that he posted on the web, and
>>> published in abridged form in The Scientist. I sent you my comments
>>> about that version about two weeks ago. My general reaction to this
>>> latest version is about the same. He distorts the picture, but
>>> unfortunately he is probably pretty convincing to people who really
>>> don't know the primary literature in this field. He uses two tactics.
>>> One is the selective omission of relevant work. The other is to
>>> scramble together separate points so doubts about one carry over to
>>> the other. Basically, he is dishonest.
>>>
>>>    He immediately launches the claim "that peppered moths in the wild
>>> don't even rest on tree trunks" (p. 138). This is just plain wrong! Of
>>> course they rest on tree trunks, but it's not their exclusive resting
>>> site. He quotes Cyril Clarke's lack of success in finding the moths in
>>> natural settings, but he omits mentioning Majerus' data which reports
>>> just where on trees (exposed trunks, unexposed trunks, trunk/branch
>>> joints, branches) Majerus has found moths over his 34 years of looking
>>> for them. Of the 47 moths he located away from moth traps, 12 were on
>>> trunks (that's &gt;25%). Of the 203 he found in the vicinities of
>>> traps, 70 were on trunks (that's 34%). Based on his observations,
>>> Majerus argued that the most common resting site appears to be at the
>>> trunk/branch juncture. What is clear from his data is that they sit
>>> all over the trees, INCLUDING the trunks. So what? Kettlewell's
>>> complementary experiments in polluted and unpolluted woods compared
>>> the relative success of different colored moths on the same parts of
>>> trees in different areas, not different parts of trees in the same
>>> area. It is true that the photos showing the moths on trunks are posed
>>> (just like practically all wildlife pictures of insects are) but they
>>> are not fakes. No one who reads Kettlewell's paper in which the
>>> original photos appeared would get the impression from the text that
>>> these were anything but posed pictures. He was attempting to compare
>>> the differences in conspicuousness of the pale and dark moths on
>>> different backgrounds. Nobody thought he encountered those moths like
>>> that in the wild. At their normal densities, you'd be hard pressed
>>> ever to find two together unless they were copulating. I have always
>>> made a point of stating in photo captions that the moths are posed,
>>> and I think textbook writers have been careless about this. But they
>>> are not frauds.
>>>
>>>    On the subject of lichens, no one has questioned their importance
>>> more than I have. But what does Wells do with this? He quotes me, but
>>> he doesn't include what else I said has happened on the Wirral (p.
>>> 147) with respect to the tremendous expansion of birch stands since
>>> the enactment of the smokeless zones. Kettlewell, too, argued that
>>> peppered moths are well concealed on birch bark (even without
>>> lichens). Wells continues (p. 148) to quote my reservations about
>>> lichens in Michigan, but, again, he omits any reference to the data I
>>> presented in that paper showing the decline, not only in SO2, but in
>>> atmospheric particles (soot) which has been established as a factor
>>> altering reflectance from the surface of tree bark. So, while I have
>>> questioned the importance of lichens, I have not taken this as
>>> evidence that crypsis is unimportant. Wells omits this entirely.
>>>
>>>    Wells continues to bring up the same old arguments about
>>> mysterious other factors (yet to be identified) that account for the
>>> persistence of typicals in polluted regions, and the presence of
>>> melanics in unpolluted locales. He cites papers written back in the
>>> 70s about these puzzles. He omits discussing in any sophisticated way
>>> the role of migration other than to say "Theoretical models could
>>> account for the discrepancies only by invoking migration...." (p.146),
>>> as if in desperation we are forced to grasp at straws. Of course
>>> migration is important. Majerus actually reviews this point fairly
>>> well by comparing the smoothness of clines in melanism between species
>>> that are highly mobile (as is Biston), and species that are relatively
>>> sedentary. Instead of showing his meaningless map of the UK (Fig. 7-2)
>>> to illustrate what he regards as anomalies in the distribution of
>>> melanism and lichens, why doesn't he show the before and after
>>> comparison from the national surveys by Kettlewell in 1956, and the
>>> survey by Grant et al. in 1996. (If you'd like, I can send you a jpg
>>> file of the maps I mean.)
>>>
>>>    Wells also inappropriately uses thermal melanism in ladybirds to
>>> suggest, that while no one has shown this in peppered moths (p. 152),
>>> industrial melanism can have other causes besides predation. It's not
>>> just that there is no evidence for thermal melanism in peppered moths,
>>> there is evidence AGAINST thermal melanism based on the geographic
>>> incidence of melanism in the UK, the USA, and Europe. There are no
>>> latitudinal clines, and no altitudinal clines as one might expect with
>>> thermal melanism. Wells knows this, if he actually read my papers. (He
>>> cites them, so I should assume he read them.) He also raises the
>>> question of larval tolerance to pollutants. There is no evidence for
>>> this, either. I have a paper out on this point, but in fairness to
>>> Wells, it came out just this past year.
>>>
>>>    Wells clouds discussions with irrelevancies. For examples he
>>> brings up Heslop Harrison (p. 141 and again on p. 151) and the
>>> question of phenotypic induction. Wells makes it sound as if most
>>> biologists discount induction based on their belief in natural
>>> selection (as if it were a popular religious question). The evidence
>>> for the Mendelian inheritance of melanism in peppered moths has
>>> nothing to do with evolutionary theory; it is based on old fashioned
>>> crosses involving over 12 thousand progeny from 83 broods. The
>>> Mendelian basis for this character in this species is as well
>>> established as is any character in any species. Wells doesn't mention
>>> this, yet he cites my review paper where I do bring this up in my
>>> criticism of Sargent et al. Induction has nothing to do with
>>> industrial melanism, and Wells knows it. Again, selective omissions on
>>> the part of Wells.
>>>
>>>    On page 151 Wells claims Kettlewell's evidence has been impeached.
>>> This is nonsense. It has not. But I have argued, that even if it were
>>> entirely thrown out, the evidence for natural selection comes from the
>>> changes in the percentages of pale and melanic moths. It is this
>>> record of change in allele frequency over time that is unimpeachable.
>>> It is a massive record by any standard. (I can send a jpg file with
>>> graphs, if you'd like.) I have pointed out, and he quotes me, that no
>>> force known to science can account for these changes except for
>>> natural selection. Yet, he scrambles the ingredients here. He claims
>>> (top of p. 153) "...it is clear that the compelling evidence for
>>> natural selection that biologists once thought they had in peppered
>>> moths no longer exists." Of course the evidence for natural selection
>>> exists! That evidence is overwhelming. Wells, by attempting to
>>> discredit Ketttlewell's experiments about predation (and clearly there
>>> are things wrong with Kettlewell's experiments) doesn't stop at saying
>>> we can't be altogether sure about bird predation because of problems
>>> with Kettlewell's experiments. No. He says, instead, that the evidence
>>> for natural selection no longer exists. This is just plain wrong. He
>>> cannot support this sweeping statement, but he spins it into his
>>> conclusion by building a case against Kettlewell. This is what I mean
>>> about his tactic of scrambling arguments. He wields non sequiturs
>>> relentlessly.
>>>
>>>    I hope this is helpful to you in your review.
>>>
>>>    Bruce Grant, Professor of Biology, College of William & Mary. February
>>> 2001
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Note to Alexanian, I am very careful with my posts, thank you for caring.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.