In a message dated 9/16/2000 5:28:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<< When you think about this it must be so. Darwinism has no problem
providing an explanation for simple things like colour changes in moths
(even if the explanation turned out to be false!). >>
Could you provide some evidence to support this? What explanation about the
colour change in moths was false? This has been discussed I believe in the
past on this reflector as well as on talk.origins. Are you refering to the
Wells article? You must be aware of the responses by Majerus and others to
Wells?
http://x70.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=668063114
Gyudon provides a good overview of the peppered moth.
" In summary, despite the flaws in experimentally confirming that selective
predation by birds was source of the natural selection that led to the
dramatic microevolution in the peppered moth, it is clear that conspicuous
moths have a tendency to die, and that bird predation is very strongly
implicated as the reason for that tendency."
1: Wells' article: http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm
2: Donald Frack, on Wells' article:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199904/0100.html
3: A letter from Majerus:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199904/0103.html
4: Bruce S. Grant "Fine Tuning the Peppered Moth Paradigm" From _Evolution_
53 (3) 1999 980-984"
http://www.wm.edu/biology/melanism.pdf"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 21:01:45 EDT