> Perhaps it is necessary to keep opening this can of worms until there
> is a concession that the textbooks need revision.
I remember mentioning in one of my previous posts:
" ...If there are problems with Kettlewell's experiments, I agree that
they shoudn't be included in such a book."
Peppered moths are *NOT* the only example of natural selection observed in
nature. Some recent studies are showing that melanic forms may be more
resistant to atmospheric sulphur dioxide concentration. Does that prove
that predation is not important? Not necessarily. All it shows is that the
story may be a little more complicated than what people though back in the
50s. Does is show that natural selection is not acting? No. Every
evolutionist would agree that several different selective forces may act
simultaneously on a given trait. This has been shown in the lab and in the
field. I gave a good reference that contains lots of studies of natural
selection. Since the beginning of this discussion several studies of
natural selection have been described. I haven't seen Art or David
discussing them. Maybe they hope that, if they can prove that scientists
were wrong about the peppered moths, they are proving that neodarwinism is
wrong. I am affraid they'll have to come up with something a little bit
better. As I said before, as christians we should seek the truth, not our
own preconceptions of what truth should look like.
Marcio