Here is Jonathan Well's response to Don Frack's notification of Prof.
Bruce Grant's article (see at end of this message). I have cleared
this with Jonathan to post to the Calvin Reflector, subject to some
excision of non-essential personal information from other people
(not on this List) who notified Jonathan of Frack and Grant's posts.
I have been on a week's holiday, so apologies for the delay in replying
to this, or if others have already replied to it.
Steve
=======================================================
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:59:29 -0400, Jonathan Wells wrote:
[...]
..... posted a message from another list mentioning Bruce Grant's
review of the peppered moth story in EVOLUTION 53 (1999): 980-984. Another
recent review on this topic is by Laurence Cook in GENETICAL RESEARCH 72
(1998): 73-75.
Neither review adds any substantially new information to the debate.
Although both Grant and Cook believe that bird predation has been the major
factor in industrial melanism in peppered moths, their belief seems to be
based primarily on the assumption that natural selection MUST be the
driving force, and that in the absence of evidence for other selective
agents bird predation is the most likely.
I discovered when I submitted an article on this to BIOSCIENCE last year
that there are major disagreements among entomologists over the peppered
moth story. One of the anonymous reviewers of my article blasted me for
even mentioning the view of some researchers that melanism might be induced
by the environment; another reviewer blasted me for not emphasizing
induction enough. One reviewer thought I was too kind to Bernard
Kettlewell (whose experiments in the 1950s supposedly provided empirical
support for the bird predation theory); another reviewer thought I was too
hard on him. In other words, I had stepped into the middle of a crossfire.
(Bruce Grant, who had been Jerry Coyne's dissertation advisor, blasted
Coyne when the latter criticized the standard story in NATURE in 1998
[396:35].)
The current state of the peppered moth story is the following: (1)
Kettlewell's experiments in the 1950s showed that birds prey on peppered
moths, and preferentially eat the more conspicuous ones; (2) it became
clear in the 1960s that the geographical distribution of melanic moths was
not what one would expect from cryptic coloration and bird predation alone,
indicating that migration and non-visual selective factors must be involved
as well; (3) the story that light-colored lichens on tree trunks played a
major role in industrial melanism (concealing light-colored moths before
the advent of industrial pollution, and returning to tree trunks after the
introduction of pollution-control measures in the 1950s) is flawed, because
industrial melanism in some areas was unrelated to changes in lichen cover
or in the appearance of tree trunks (Bruce Grant was instrumental in
showing this, and he concluded in several articles that the role of lichens
had been exaggerated by other investigators); (4) by the 1980s it had
become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks,
casting serious doubt on Kettlewell's experiments (in which moths were
released in daylight, when they do not normally fly, and settled on nearby
tree trunks), and exposing the fact that ALL pictures of peppered moths on
tree trunks have been staged; (5) some evolutionists (such as Theodore
Sargent and Jerry Coyne) now consider the classical story seriously flawed,
while others (such as Bruce Grant and Michael Majerus) insist that remains
plausible.
[...]
When I started looking into the peppered moth story over a year ago, I was
prepared to give the Darwinists just about everything they wanted (i.e.,
that this is a good demonstration of Darwinian evolution in the wild,
though not of evolution above the species level). But the more I dug, the
more dirt I found. I have since had similar experiences looking into other
topics, as well. I have learned not to believe anything Darwinists tell me
without checking the primary literature for myself.
Jonathan Wells
Department of Molecular & Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley
and
Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture
Discovery Institute, Seattle
=======================================================
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:42:39 -0700, Don Frack wrote:
>A few months ago, I posted observations on the peppered moth issue started
>by Jerry Coyne's review of Michael Majerus's book on melanism. This lead to
>an unexpected confrontation with Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute.
>During those proceedings, I was in contact with Michael Majerus, the author
>of the book reviewed by Coyne. I reported that Coyne's review did not
>represent Majerus's views. Unknown to all of you (well, almost all), I was
>also in communication with Jerry Coyne. Coincidentally, I contacted the U.
>S. expert on peppered moths, Bruce Grant, initially to get the e-mail
>address of another researcher in England. This lead to a lengthy
>correspondence on peppered moths and Wells. One of the definite pluses of
>the Wells exchange is that I now hear periodically from Grant on his
>research. Grant is connected to both Coyne and Wells in surprising ways
>(which I am obliged to keep mostly private). Grant was VERY clear that he
>didn't like Coyne's report on the status of peppered moth research (and told
>Coyne so in no uncertain terms), which lead to Coyne offering to let Grant
>write another review in the journal _Evolution_ (Coyne is book review
>editor). I've had the manuscript of this review for some time, and it has
>finally appeared in _Evolution_. I encouraged Grant to post a web version,
>offering to get it put on a well-recognized site. He has just sent me the
>attached message, announcing that it is on his site. If you want a succinct
>summary of the status of peppered moth research by an actual researcher in
>the field (Coyne is not), download the PDF file noted below.
>
>Don Frack
>dcfrack@sowest.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce Grant
>Subject: Web Posting of Peppered Moth Review Paper
>
>Dear Don,
> At long last I have posted my review article on the web. It didn't
>take long to get copyright clearance from Evolution, but it took a
>long time for me to get a revision attached to my W&M web page.
>I am assuming that my newly revised web page has now gone
>"public." If you'd like to see it, you can click on my web address at
>the bottom of this message. The title of the review article under
>"recent publications" is linked to the text. You can also go directly
>to the article using this address:
>
> http://www.wm.edu/biology/melanism.pdf
>
> I certainly would appreciate your help in calling it to the attention
>of interested parties. If you notice any glitches with how we've
>posted this and its accessibility, please let me know. Many
>thanks, and best wishes,
>_________________________________
>Bruce Grant
>Professor of Biology
>College of William and Mary
>P.O. Box 8795
>Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795 USA
>http://www.wm.edu/biology/Grant.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------