Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Tuesday, April 20 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1415
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:48:12 -0700
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: RE: My last word
Don,
Thanks for your considerate reply. It was exactly the kind of
response I was hoping for. My post was not intended to be an
endorsement of Wells but rather it was kind of a knee jerk
reaction against the approach to debate that seems to be favored
by some. Wells made some specific allegations that can be dealt
with specifically. Instead, some seem to want to take the track
that Wells has no right to raise these objections since his
robes are not long enough and his hood is of the wrong color.
This I find enormously irritating and contrary to the spirit of
science. This is not directed at you. Unfortunately, do to lack
of time (as opposed to lack of interest) I was only able to
skim your posts. Perhaps the points you make below were already
made previously, in which case I apologize.
At 02:25 AM 4/18/99 -0700, Don wrote:
[...]
>
>Brian,
>
>There seems to be some confusion here. Jonathan Wells was not describing
>illustrations in scientific works (as far as I remember), which is what you
>appear to mean by "experimentalists" describing the conditions of
>experiments. The illustrations at issue are in textbooks, presumably such as
>those used in high school biology classes. These illustrations are usually
>used simply to show cryptic coloration vs contrast against two types of
>backgrounds. The authors of the textbooks cannot be assumed to be experts on
>peppered moths.
>
This occurred to me some time after I made my response. I remember
some time ago when all this first came up being interested in
knowing what all the fuss was about. I only own one textbook in
evolutionary biology (Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas Futuyma).
Looking in this book I found that the peppered moth was hardly
even mentioned. Only one full (but relatively short) paragraph
and one transition sentence in the following paragraph. There
are no photographs and Kettlewell merits only half of a sentence:
"...Kettlewell (1955) has shown that the forms differ greatly
in susceptibility to predation by birds." --Futuyma
Futuyma goes on to say:
"The black form has not become fixed in most localities, however,
and it is clear that its frequency is affected by other factors
than predation alone; for example, viability differs among the
genotypes even in the absence of predation (Lees 1981)." --Futuyma
This seems to me a very poor endorsement for what Wells
referred to as the "peppered myth":
#"I have used the term "peppered myth" to refer to the textbook story that
#cryptic coloration and selective predation are known to be the causes of
#industrial melanism because birds eat peppered moths off tree trunks. In
#light of the evidence, the peppered myth and its staged photographs should
#be abandoned, because they misrepresent the truth." --Wells
So, if Futuyma doesn't endorse the "peppered myth", who does?
Also, if this is really a critical case to evolution in general
and Darwinism in particular, then why does it merit only about
one third of a page in a 600 page text book?
My suspicion is (unconfirmed) that someone thought this was a
great example for high school texts because the mechanism is
so easily understood. Most likely, as you say, "The authors of
the textbooks cannot be assumed to be experts on peppered moths"
and so perhaps some inaccuracies appeared due to authors attempts
to present a simple example which turns out perhaps not to
be so simple.
One thing I've tried to do in the past few years is to see if
some particular controversial event or practice in evolutionary
biology or teaching of same also occurs in other fields. This is
in an attempt to ward off suspicions that certain things happen in
evolutionary biology because of metaphysical prejudices etc.
This particular incident reminded me of something I read in
Richard Feynman's biography. It seems that he had volunteered to
review physics textbooks for local schools and immediately became
enormously frustrated by the task. For one thing, it appeared to
him that he was probably the only reviewer who actually read the
books :). More to the point, he found really significant and
fundamental mistakes in these books. I would be inclined to
think, then, that if such is possible in elementary physics,
surely biology would not be immune.
>1) Unless the background of some statistically more likely part of the tree
>on which the moths rest differs significantly from the trunk (which Wells
>never claimed), what is the point in all this? Comparison with the
>background is what is being illustrated.
>
>2) Entomologist friends of mine who I have asked all agreed that they have
>always assumed most of these photos were staged. The photos are for
>illustrative purposes, not as scientific records. They are frauds if it is
>claimed that the were taken naturally and weren't.
>
>2) Michael Majerus stated in his message to me that he tells his students
>that many photos are staged. Also, that those in his book are all natural.
>
>3) Another peppered moth specialist I corresponded with (he does not wish to
>be brought into this discussion at this time) wrote to me (and cited, with
>quotes) that all his papers since the late '80's, and books he has
>contributed photos for, stated that the moths were staged (actually, he said
>"posed") to demonstrate cryptic coloration.
>
>4) The famous photos from Kettlewell's 1956 paper, reproduced in some
>textbooks, are associated clearly in the original with text discussing the
>fact that the specimens were released onto trees for experimental purposes
>dealing with cryptic coloration. The issue of whether this was the
>statistically "normal" position (which came up in the 1980's) was already
>discussed in Kettlewell's 1955 paper, as I pointed out previously.
Thanks for the above. I really had no reason to doubt that the
scientists in question were good experimentalists. Due to the
difficulty of their subject matter I imagine that they are much
better experimentalists than I'll ever be :). Thus, I'm not
surprised at all really that these things were clearly pointed
out in their research papers. That it could be otherwise was
really unthinkable to me. What I wanted to see was a clear
presentation of these facts since that is the best answer to
Jonathan's "complaints". It occurred to me later that perhaps
you had already done this in previous posts that I may have
missed due to skimming. If so, I apologize for that.
Don:===
>How much
>of Kettlewell's description should carry over into school textbooks depends
>on just how confused you think students are going to get in understanding
>that light-colored moths are harder to see than black ones on a light
>background, and the reverse is true on dark-colored backgrounds.
>
What occurred to me originally was that a photograph of a moth
sitting on an exposed tree trunk will reinforce not only the
idea of increased visibility due to coloration but also increased
visibility due to being out in the open on an exposed tree trunk.
Perhaps I'm feeble minded, but being in an exposed position
seems to accentuate the importance of coloration and to accentuate
the hypothesis that such coloration affects bird predation. One gets
a ready minds eye picture of how easy it would be for a bird to
swoop in and nail that sitting duck :).
Don:==
>Both peppered moth specialists with whom I have corresponded have told me
>that Wells unjustified in his claims (actually, they were more explicit).
>That being the case, Wells claims of fraud, lying and scandal seem a trifle
>harsh. A more civilized approach would be to contact the American Biology
>Teachers Association, explain the situation, ask them to evaluate the
>problem with experts, and allow them to determine if future editions of
>textbooks need to change the illustrations captions or text to make the
>situation clear. I don't think any students are going to die in the mean
>time.
This is a great recommendation. If creationists want to follow
this up then I recommend deleting all rhetoric and insinuations
of fraud.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
- -- E. H. Hiebert
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 05:15:54 -0600
From: PostMaster <Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org>
Subject: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1413
The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org
Original Message Follows:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
evolution-digest Sunday, April 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1413
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 19:52:41 EDT
From: Biochmborg@aol.com
Subject: Re: My last word
Art Chadwick wrote: Jon has a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from Berkeley, and
many years of research experience and publications.
This in fact turns out not to be correct; see below.
Kevin L. O'Brien wrote: Perhaps you could provide us with some references.
I did a literature search of Entrez MedLine using "Wells J" as author name
and "Berkeley" as affiliation and found just two articles. Does he have a
middle name? At what other institutions has done research? At the very
least, what journals has he published in?
Mark Kluge responded: This past January on the CARM list, Helen Fryman
posted the following (#2356), in relevant part, from Jonathan Wells listing
two references to articles listing Wells as coauthor.
This is what Wells wrote: I am officially a post-doctoral research biologist
in the Department of Molecular & Cell Biology, U.C. Berkeley. I'm not in the
directory because I don't have my own extension (and besides I'm currently
working mostly at home, writing and doing library research).
There is a "John Wells" listed with the Department of Molecular and Cell
Biology as a Visting Scholar, and said person has a mailing address at the
Strohman lab. While said person is listed among the postdocs, he is labelled
as a Visiting Scholar. Paul Nelson has told me that Jonathon Wells is being
funded from a source outside Berkeley, rather than by the university itself.
This is not unusual, since most Visiting Scholars are funded by their home
institutions. Visiting Scholars are often given postdocs to make them ad hoc
members of the faculty, and one could argue that any postdoc is technically a
"visiting scholar" (except that they are funded by the university). So based
on Jonathon Wells' own statements, plus these facts, it seems reasonable to
conclude that Jonathon Wells and "John Wells" are one and the same (assuming
the Strohman lab doesn't have two people named J Wells).
Wells continues: If they want references to verify my affiliation, try these
(both articles were published while I was in my present position): Larabell,
Rowning, Wells, Wu & Gerhart, "Confocal microscopy analysis of living Xenopus
eggs and the mechanism of cortical rotation," DEVELOPMENT 122 (1996),
1281-1289. Rowning, Wells, Wu, Gerhart, Moon & Larabell,
"Microtubule-mediated transport of organelles and localization of B-catenin
to the future dorsal side of Xenopus eggs," PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES USA 94 (1997), 1224-1229.
Apparently then Wells went straight from graduate work in the Gerhart lab to
his post-doctoral position in the Strohman lab, where he has been for three
years at least. Assuming three years as a graduate student we are talking
about six years. That is hardly "many years of research experience" as Art
Chadwick describes it. I have fifteen years experience myself, twelve of
which have been after graduate school. And all of it is lab work; Wells
apparently has done no lab work since graduation. As for publications, I
have four, with another one pending (research associates tend not to get
included as authors in most labs); Wells appears to have just the two, nor
has he published any papers with Strohman (which is to be expected if he us
simply working on a book, as Paul Nelson informs me).
Mark Kluge continues: I have not verified either reference.
They are real, but it's hard to tell from the abstracts how much Wells
contributed to the research. Both projects involve some cellular
manipulation, but mostly observation. For all we know he simply took
pictures and entered data into a computer, though I tend to doubt it. In any
event, it is very different work from that done by field biologists such as
Kettlewell, Majerus or even Sargent, all of whom have far more years of
experience and publications. Wells' credentials hardly qualify him as the
critic he pretends to be; even I am better qualified experience- and
publication-wise than Wells to evaluate the validity of the peppered moth,
and I would still defer to Don Frack.
Kevin L. O'Brien
- ------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 21:29:07 -0700
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: My last word
At 03:10 PM 4/17/99 EDT, Huxter wrote:
>In a message dated 4/17/99 7:00:02 PM !!!First Boot!!!, jbode77@calvin.edu
>writes:
>***in regards to:
> > << > >I wonder if Jon Wells has ever heard of the phrase 'experiment'? >>
>
><< Better word, unsupported insinuation. You didn't say it straight out, but
> implied he has not by the tone of the phrase. Unsupported in that you did
> not explain what you did (not) know about his experience in the area.
> Without the explanation of that, it's left unsupported.
>
>***** The support was supplied by his own words. Anyone should have been
>able to recognize the point I was making. EVERYONE has heard the word
>'experiment,' no?
>
Yes, everyone has heard the word "experiment" but I suspect not
everyone appreciates the difficulty in performing good experiments.
The primary thrust of my own research has been designing and
implementing experiments, though I also do a little theory.
I would hope that any experimentalist realizes the inherant
danger of not measuring what you intend to measure. Its kind
of like "garbage in garbage out" wrt to computer models. Assuming
you're not totally inept :), you're always going to measure something.
Are you measuring what you think you're measuring? More to the
point of the present discussion, are you measuring what you
claim to measuring.
Jonathan has raised some important points. Judging by his own
words, as you suggest above, I come to the conclusion that
Jonathan understands more than you think about empirical science.
In any event, it seems to me rather easy to actually deal with
what he wrote rather than measure how long his priestly robes
are.
Now, I'm sure there is a lot that I don't appreciate about the
difficulties of field tests in biology :). I imagine that there
are some compromises that must be made etc. etc. But just
because something is the best that can be done doesn't mean
its good enough. It doesn't mean that your really measuring
what you think or claim to be measuring.
But, in the very least, an experimentalist should go to great
pains in explaining his experiment. What compromises were needed?
How is the experiment different from the actual case being
studied? As an experimentalist myself I would say failure to
do this is simply inexcusable. Maybe its not fraud, but it
certainly is poor procedure.
If what Wells says is true (I can't judge this myself), that
"...peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks in the wild."
And if they are portrayed as doing so, then this should be
clearly stated. Further, if, as Jonathan claims
#"Textbook photographs which show peppered moths on tree trunks have been
#staged. The photographs were made by people who either manually positioned
#live, torpid moths on tree trunks, or glued or pinned dead moths to them."
then this should be clearly indicated. I simply cannot imagine anyone
who calls himself an experimentalist failing to describe the conditions
under which his or her reported results were obtained.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
- - -- E. H. Hiebert
- ------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 20:33:48 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: My last word
> I thought that Wells' PhD had been established as real.
Bodester:
It sure sounded like you were criticizing Art for showing that the first
statement was wrong. The fact that Wells has a PhD sure seems to imply to
me that he knows a fair bit about experimentation.
That is the question that needs to be addressed. Merely pointing to a PhD degree
is more appeal to authority.
- ------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 22:51:43 -0500
From: "Glenn R. Morton" <grmorton@waymark.net>
Subject: Neanderthal/Human Hybrid?
John Rylander was kind enough to point this article out to me. I wish I
could be online during the week to discuss this. The article discusses
the discovery last November in Portugal of a possible Neanderthal/Human
hybrid. While this will most certainly be a controversial find, and
many anthropologists will not agree, others will agree. If this hybrid
really turns out to be a hybrid, it will have tremendous implications
for the Christians. It will impact the place of Neanderthals in
theology, it will raise the possibility that they are truly human as I
have argued for many years. It will move the time of Adam back in
time. No longer would apologists be able to get away with flipply
saying that Adam was the first anatomically modern man and Neanderthals
were merely bipedal mammals unrelated to us. It would also raise the
possibility that Europeans do have some Neanderthal genes and
Neanderthal blood in their veins. Some anthropologists have argued that
position for the past decade based upon morphological data. In any event
this should be an interesting debate and before drawing conclusions we
need to see the studies pro and con on this issue. But my hope is that
it will turn out my way.
I would say that Christians who have dismissed my views as being too
weird to be true, should consider the confirmations over the past few
weeks and this apparent confirmation of those views. The views I am
advocating have a robustness that other apologetical schemes lack--my
views make hard predictions which can and have been supported by these
discoveries.
Here is the article which can be accessed at
http://startribune.com/stOnLine/cgi-bin/article?thisSlug=3D0416AP-PORTUGAL-SKEL&
da
te=3D16-Apr-99&word=3Dneanderthals&word=3Dneanderthal
I had to put poth parts of the above line in my Netscape URL window to
access the article.
APRIL 16, 13:08 EDT
Ancient Skeleton Found in Portugal
By BARRY HATTON
Associated Press Writer
LISBON, Portugal (AP) =97 Experts examining a 25,000-year-old child's
skeleton
in Portugal believe it represents compelling evidence that humans as we
know
them today evolved from mating between Neanderthals and anatomically
modern
man.
It is believed they coexisted on the Iberian Peninsula. Their hybrid
offspring eventually evolved into what is recognized as modern man, the
director of the Portuguese Archaeological Institute theorized Friday.
``Anatomically modern man arrived on what is now the Iberian peninsula
28,000 to 30,000 years ago and they found Neanderthal man here,'' Joao
Zilhao said in a telephone interview.
``There are two theories about what happened. Some say the Neanderthal
population was wiped out somehow, while anatomically modern man went on
to
evolve.
``But another view says there was an intermingling of the two, and the
interpretation of this skeleton is that in fact there was significant
hybridization,'' Zilhao said.
The hybrid thrived and is the genesis of modern man, according to
Zilhao's
theory. He said further research and finds will be required to back up
his
hypothesis.
Chris Stringer, an expert on Neanderthal man at the Museum of Natural
History in London said he had few details of the find but expected it to
make a ``major contribution'' to the debate on how the Neanderthals died
out.
The hybridization theory has been difficult to prove because previously
only
fragments of skeletons have been found, Stringer said in a telephone
interview.
He said current evidence was not enough to make him subscribe to the
hybridization theory, but added he was ready to consider the Portuguese
findings with an open mind.
``The Iberian peninsula is an area where there was a significant overlap
in
time and space between Neanderthal and modern man. They could have
coexisted
for as long as 10,000 years,'' he said.
The skeleton, believed to be of a four-year-old child, was discovered by
chance in November in the Lapedo Valley near Leiria, 90 miles north of
the
Lisbon, the capital.
Known as the Child of Lapedo, the skeleton shows traits of modern man,
including the jaw, teeth and spleen, and Neanderthal features like the
size
of the femur and tibia, according to Zilhao.
Carbon dating shows the skeleton is about 25,000 years old, Zilhao said.
Other evidence has shown that the Neanderthals and modern man coexisted
in
the area about 28,000 to 30,000 years ago.
Because the skeleton dates from 3,000 years later and displays strong
anatomical features of both origins, Zilhao concludes that hybridization
was
very deep.
The skeleton is being studied at the National Archeological Museum in
Lisbon.
******
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology
Foundation Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
- ------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 02:25:19 -0700
From: "Donald Frack" <dcfrack@sowest.net>
Subject: RE: My last word
On Saturday, April 17, 1999 9:29 PM Brian D Harper wrote:
> But, in the very least, an experimentalist should go to great
> pains in explaining his experiment. What compromises were needed?
> How is the experiment different from the actual case being
> studied? As an experimentalist myself I would say failure to
> do this is simply inexcusable. Maybe its not fraud, but it
> certainly is poor procedure.
>
> If what Wells says is true (I can't judge this myself), that
> "...peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks in the wild."
> And if they are portrayed as doing so, then this should be
> clearly stated. Further, if, as Jonathan claims
>
> #"Textbook photographs which show peppered moths on tree trunks have been
> #staged. The photographs were made by people who either manually
> positioned
> #live, torpid moths on tree trunks, or glued or pinned dead moths
> to them."
>
> then this should be clearly indicated. I simply cannot imagine anyone
> who calls himself an experimentalist failing to describe the conditions
> under which his or her reported results were obtained.
Brian,
There seems to be some confusion here. Jonathan Wells was not describing
illustrations in scientific works (as far as I remember), which is what you
appear to mean by "experimentalists" describing the conditions of
experiments. The illustrations at issue are in textbooks, presumably such as
those used in high school biology classes. These illustrations are usually
used simply to show cryptic coloration vs contrast against two types of
backgrounds. The authors of the textbooks cannot be assumed to be experts on
peppered moths.
1) Unless the background of some statistically more likely part of the tree
on which the moths rest differs significantly from the trunk (which Wells
never claimed), what is the point in all this? Comparison with the
background is what is being illustrated.
2) Entomologist friends of mine who I have asked all agreed that they have
always assumed most of these photos were staged. The photos are for
illustrative purposes, not as scientific records. They are frauds if it is
claimed that the were taken naturally and weren't.
2) Michael Majerus stated in his message to me that he tells his students
that many photos are staged. Also, that those in his book are all natural.
3) Another peppered moth specialist I corresponded with (he does not wish to
be brought into this discussion at this time) wrote to me (and cited, with
quotes) that all his papers since the late '80's, and books he has
contributed photos for, stated that the moths were staged (actually, he said
"posed") to demonstrate cryptic coloration.
4) The famous photos from Kettlewell's 1956 paper, reproduced in some
textbooks, are associated clearly in the original with text discussing the
fact that the specimens were released onto trees for experimental purposes
dealing with cryptic coloration. The issue of whether this was the
statistically "normal" position (which came up in the 1980's) was already
discussed in Kettlewell's 1955 paper, as I pointed out previously. How much
of Kettlewell's description should carry over into school textbooks depends
on just how confused you think students are going to get in understanding
that light-colored moths are harder to see than black ones on a light
background, and the reverse is true on dark-colored backgrounds.
Both peppered moth specialists with whom I have corresponded have told me
that Wells unjustified in his claims (actually, they were more explicit).
That being the case, Wells claims of fraud, lying and scandal seem a trifle
harsh. A more civilized approach would be to contact the American Biology
Teachers Association, explain the situation, ask them to evaluate the
problem with experts, and allow them to determine if future editions of
textbooks need to change the illustrations captions or text to make the
situation clear. I don't think any students are going to die in the mean
time.
Don Frack
dcfrack@sowest.net
- ------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1413
********************************
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 05:18:45 -0600
From: PostMaster <Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org>
Subject: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1414
The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org
Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Monday, April 19 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1414
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 18:08:53 EDT
From: Biochmborg@aol.com
Subject: Life in the Lab -- Preface
Greetings to One and All:
Before I signed off for my move, I had stated that while I intended to
provide Brian Harper with references to help him understand from where the
concensus that life has been made in the lab comes from, that I would not
waste my time providing references to people who are too stubborn to look
them up for themselves, and who do not want to believe that what I am saying
is correct in any event. Since then, I have been reminded through private
correspondence that my reason for joining this list was not to try to convert
the half dozen or less people who simply refuse to accept the scientific
facts when they are presented to them, but to "witness" to the dozen or more
(normally silent) people who are sitting on the fence or have genuinely open
minds. While none of the "half dozen" have ever acknowledged the citations I
have provided, members of the "dozen" often have, in private. So I have
decided to take up Art Chadwick's challenge and provide citations to the
entire group, for the benefit of the "dozen".
I am in the process of assembling my notes and it may be a week before I can
post my essay. Until then, if anyone would like to request that I discuss
any specific information, I would be open to suggestions.
Kevin L. O'Brien
- ------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1414
********************************
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 15:25:02 -0400
From: "Mark D. Kluge" <mkluge@wizard.net>
Subject: Re: My last word
Brian D Harper wrote:
> My post was not intended to be an
> endorsement of Wells but rather it was kind of a knee jerk
> reaction against the approach to debate that seems to be favored
> by some. Wells made some specific allegations that can be dealt
> with specifically. Instead, some seem to want to take the track
> that Wells has no right to raise these objections since his
> robes are not long enough and his hood is of the wrong color.
> This I find enormously irritating and contrary to the spirit of
> science.
Had Wells confined himself to scientific issues I would agree with you. However,
his "specific allegations" of fraud place Wells' own remarks outside of normal
scientific intercourse. It is true that within scientific disputes what is
important is the arguments themselves, and the qualifications of protagonists to
raise their arguments does not need to be considered, since a protagonist who
brings forth quality arguments is perforce qualified to do so, while one who
fails to bring forth quality arguments is ignorable whatever his qualifications.
When, however, discussion shifts to allegations against someone's morals or
character, as is the case with Wells' allegations, the questions of standing and
qualification must be raised. This is so because such allegations are inherently
inflammatory, and by their very nature tend to obscure debate rather than
illuminate it. Hence, prior to entering into debate on the merits of such
allegations, the qualifications of whoever makes them must be established.
Failing to resolve those necessary preliminary determinations of qualification,
there is no choice but to continue those inquiries in parallel with the debate
about the facts of the case. I recognize that that is not a desirable situation
for any plaintiff to find himself; but this is the bed chosen by Wells himself,
so he ought to lie upon it without complaint.
> One thing I've tried to do in the past few years is to see if
> some particular controversial event or practice in evolutionary
> biology or teaching of same also occurs in other fields. This is
> in an attempt to ward off suspicions that certain things happen in
> evolutionary biology because of metaphysical prejudices etc.
> This particular incident reminded me of something I read in
> Richard Feynman's biography. It seems that he had volunteered to
> review physics textbooks for local schools and immediately became
> enormously frustrated by the task. For one thing, it appeared to
> him that he was probably the only reviewer who actually read the
> books :). More to the point, he found really significant and
> fundamental mistakes in these books. I would be inclined to
> think, then, that if such is possible in elementary physics,
> surely biology would not be immune.
I think your point that one should not expect elementary biology texts to be
better than elementary physics (or mathematics) texts is well taken. It is
another reason not to get involved in arguments over fraud.
Finally, it's a little bit off point, but there might be a recent example from
physics where the way a fundamental principle has been presented in text books
is
examined and found wanting. See
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990306/anendtounc.html. An experimentum crucis,
at least conceptually, is redone in modified form; but the canonical text book
explanation, in this case in terms of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
fails
for the modified experiment. This is too recent to know how text book authors
will respond.
What's interesting to me is that the double-slit experiment is cited
ubiquitously
in text books as an example where quantum effects are essential for its
understanding. If you had asked almost any physicist to explain the (traditional
version of) the two slit experiment he would have probably explained it in terms
of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. However, if you had asked that same
physicist to predict the outcome of the modified two-slit experiment (for which
the Uncertainty Principle) does not suffice), that same physicist would have
predicted correctly that the interference fringes would disappear when the beam
of microwaves detects which slit each photon goes through. Why? Because
physicists actually think in terms of the correct quantum analysis (whether
explicitly stated in terms of quantum entanglement or not). We didn't really
think in terms of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in analyzing the double
slit experiment. We used it because it was a convenient (and
pedagogically-useful) simplification for the real analysis. When push came to
shove we might even have thought that that pedagogically-useful simplification
was applicable to a wider class of situations than was warranted. However, that
was in retrospect, after we knew that the simplified Uncertainty Principle
advice
gives the same result as the real analysis.
Anyway, despite our not actually using the Uncertainty Principle for the
double-slit experiment, until last year we (most of us) did not know that there
were simple variations on the experiment to which it would not apply. It will be
interesting to see how text book writers and physics educators treat analysis of
the two slit experiment, even in those cases where the Uncertainty Principle
analysis works.
Mkluge
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1415
********************************