'Darwin's finches' revert to type

english.aljazeera.net ^ | May 4, 2006

[mlc9852]

Human interaction with animals could be causing evolution to go into reverse, says a report by the Royal Society, Britain's science academy.

A study of finches on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific – finches are the same birds that were said to have inspired Charles Darwin's groundbreaking work on evolution - has shown that some could be losing their distinctive beaks in response to living near humans.

Finches on the islands have developed different sizes of beak - but when people live in close proximity to the birds, their beaks revert to an intermediate size, the report says.

Andrew Hendry, a professor at McGill University in Montreal who led the study, told the Independent newspaper that the evolutionary split within the species was being reversed.

[js1138]

I can't find anything wrong with it because I haven't read it. There are lots of things I haven't read. Could you summarize their best argument?

[betty boop]

I believe it's far beyond reasonable dispute that natural selection plays an important role in how animal species develop over time to better fit environmental niches. An important role, not the decisive role. This apparent reversibility is evidence that some other agent or factor plays the decisive role in selecting the fixed changes that separate the species from one another.

Hi JCEccles! Much admired your post #91, in which you wrote the above.

Indeed, like you I'm concerned with the attitude of some Neodarwinists these days, that Darwin's theory is so "state-of-the-art" it cannot be improved upon in any respect. So one must not look for further improvements. This is such an anti-scientific attitude that I find myself shocked by it.

There is little doubt in my mind that Darwin's theory successfully accounts for certain processes in nature, but not all of them. And as you point out, information theory may hold the key to a fuller understanding.

Although ID has been so politicized that one hardly knows what it really is anymore, all it says basically is that “certain features [not all features] of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” Which seems eminently reasonable to me.

Thank you so much for your fine post!

[Last Visible Dog]

I can't find anything wrong with it because I haven't read it

Have you read the entire contents of talkorigins.org? If not, get busy.

My point is simple - you trolled into the thread with a silly baseless comment.

[Right Wing Professor]

Betty, I've asked you politely several times not to ping me to this sort of thing. This will be the last polite request.

[Last Visible Dog]

Indeed, like you I'm concerned with the attitude of some Neodarwinists these days, that Darwin's theory is so "state-of-the-art" it cannot be improved upon in any respect...Although ID has been so politicized that one hardly knows what it really is anymore, all it says basically is that “certain features [not all features] of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” Which seems eminently reasonable to me.

Be careful - you are making sense - that makes the evo's angry

[js1138]

My comment was true. You don't have any arguments against the talkorigins article, or you would at least summarize them. There is nothing wrong with the peppered moth studies.

[Last Visible Dog]

My comment was true

You comment was nonsensical trolling - get over it.

You don't have any arguments against the talkorigins article

I don't need arguments against talkorigins.org - your comment points out the trolling nature of your statement - all I said was talkorigins.org is the womb of the evolution-faithful - if you don't grasp that, there is not much I can do to help you out.

There is nothing wrong with the peppered moth studies.

Which one?

[betty boop]

Sorry RWP. I pinged you because JCEccles had pinged you, and I was responding to his correspondence with you. Thought you'd like to stay in the loop. I apologize for being mistaken about this.

[js1138]

There is nothing even debatable about the fact that the frequency of the darker moth has risen and fallen in the last century and a half, correlated with air pollution. This kind of selection isn't even denied by creationists. Reviews of the Kettlewell experiments do not support allegations of fraud.

If creationists think there was fraud, the appropriate thing to do is replicate the experiments. It wouldn't take nearly as much money as building theme parks.

This is how actual scientists examine fraud, as in the recent cloning case.

I am not God, and do not know whether there was data fudging, but such fudging can usually be detected by statistical analysis (which hasn't happened with Kettlewell), or by checking the original raw data. Newton, for example, altered his raw data in his later publications to better conform to his mathematical formulas. It's hard to cheat and not eventually be caught.

Newton's cheating, however, did not invalidate his laws, and selection is not going to be invalidated by any study, no matter how flawed it might be.

[Right Wing Professor]

Not a problem.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

If it's not a reversal, is it more like a, "nevermind, I don't need that after all" kind of change?

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Check out what's going on with our cows! placemarker

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"design flaws = bad science"

Design flaws was in scare quotes, showing that in FACT they were NOT design flaws. Yet you changed the meaning to be the opposite of what was written...

"practical expediency = faking results"

Are you illiterate? Apparently.

I knew anti-evos could be dishonest, but usually not this blatantly; it's usually done with a little more subtlety. Here's the entire email, which shows how much you had to lie in order to get anything close to the meaning you claim:

"
Peppered Moths - in black and white (part 2 of 2)

I like to cover all bases when I make a point. Before submitting my own
evaluation of how Michael Majerus's book has been used (or abused), I
decided to contact him. I explained how his book is being used by
creationists, and asked a series of questions. These questions were either
rather rhetorical - already answered in his book - or points I was
suspicious of because the representation of Majerus's views didn't square
with his book. The latter case specifically refers to the interview Majerus
gave for the Telegraph article cited in the first half of this post.

This is, as they say, from the horse's mouth. ;-)

Don Frack
dcfrack@sowest.net

****** Response from Majerus regarding use of his book

---

Dear Don, thank you for your e-mail. I am afraid that I do not have much
time this week, but your interest and points do demand some brief reply.
Below, following each point I give a response. You may use these as you
see fit, but please do not put my e-mail address on any discussion group
listing.

>
>Could you tell me:
>
>Do you think Coyne's review accurately represents your book and the status
>of pepper moth studies?

No. The review in Nature does not reflect the factual content of the book,
nor my own views. Indeed, Coyne tries to put words in my mouth by saying I
should have used "perhaps" rather than probably, in relation to the
evolution of melanism in Biston involving pollution and bird predation. I
do not even say probably. Indeed, on page 155, I say that my view is that
bird predation is of primary import, possibly to the exclusion of
averything else.
>
>What do you think of Coyne's claims in the _Telegraph_ that "Dr
>Kettlewell's widely-quoted experiments are essentially useless." and that
>"There is a lot of wishful thinking and design flaws in them, and they
>wouldn't get published today."?

My response to this can be gleaned from reading Chapters 5 and 6. Bernard
was a first rate entomologist and scientist. His experiments were
meticulous and generally well designed. In my opinion, many of his
experiments were among the best that have been conducted on melanism and
bird predation. The 'design flaws' in some of the experiments, if you want
to call them that were primarily a result of practical expediency because
Kettlewell wanted to be able to see birds taking moths, and to film them.
The only real flaw may have been his resting site selection experiments,
where he MIGHT (we do not actually know) have used moths from different
populations (see pages 142-143).

>
>Since you make no mention of it in your book, did you say (in the
>_Telegraph_): Dr Majerus said: "He stuck them on low branches because he
>wanted to sit in his hide and watch them being eaten. They actually seem to
>rest in the shadows under branches, which makes even the black ones
>difficult to spot by birds."? This has been translated by
anti-evolutionists
>to mean either pinned or glued (neither of which are necessarily "faked" if
>true).

The Sunday Telegraph article was a terrible bit of journalism. Indeed, one
might say that it is a series of journalistic blunders. I spoke to Robert
for over half an hour. He had not read my book, so I had to explain many
details of the story to him. Even then, he got nearly everything wrong.
For example, the decline in carbonaria frequencies did not start in the
1950s. The two quotes attributed to me were both not quotes from me, and
both are factually wrong. Bernard released live moths onto tree trunks
where they were visible from his hide where he worked with Niko Tinbergen.
This is purely a case of experimental necessity.

The suggestion that Kettlewell ever 'faked' a result is offensive to his
memory. He was an honourable, good scientist who reported his findings
with honesty and integrity. I would suggest that before writing this type
of misleading and error strewn report, journalists should read the book
that has drawn attention to the matter.

>
>Coyne makes complaints to the _Telegraph_ about Kettlewell's rearings and
>"warming" specimens. I don't see what his problem is here, particularly
>since you indicate Kettlewell's moths behaved nicely by remaining in
place -
>as I expect resting moths would. Am I missing some important point Coyne is
>making, or is he nit-picking as I perceive him to be?

This is a spurious argument. All investigative interaction between man and
other organisms has the possibility that the observer influences the
organism to some extent. However, this does not negate the result as long
as one is aware of the possible influences when interpreting the results.
I see nothing wrong with the procedure.

>
>Lastly, I just received a creationist newsletter that claims associates of
>Kettlewell "admitted" that his famous photographs of the typica and
>carbonaria pepper moths on a tree were "faked" by gluing the specimens in
>place. Again, the complaint does not necessarily follow even if the
>description is true, but do you know if Kettlewell glued these specimens
>down?

The photographs are not part of science, they are educational aids to
illustrate the diffence in crypsis of the forms on different backgrounds.
I see nothing wrong in this. Most of the natural history films that appear
on our televisions, including those of our beloved Sir David Attenborough
involve considerable manipulation of organisms to enable footage to be
shot. As long as the behaviour film is what actually happens in true life,
and the organisms are in no way mistreated, there is nothing wrong with
this.

To end, may I put on record to you, that my view is that the rise and fall
of the carbonaria form of the peppered moth has resulted from changes in
the environments in which this moth lives. These changes have come about
as a result on changes in pollution levels which have altered the relative
crysis of the forms of this moth. The main, if not the only selective
factor that has lead to changes in the frequencies of the forms over time
is differential bird predation. The case of melanism in the peppered moth
IS ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES OF EVOLUTION IN ACTION< BY DARWIN"S PROCESS OF
NATURAL SELECTION that we have. In general it is based on good science and
it is sound.

To any objective person who wants to consider the evidence themselves, I
would suggest that they read the book, and if in doubt on any points, then
tract them back through the reference section to the original papers.

With my best wishes, and hoping that you can help at least some people
understand the true situation, rather than the distorted, subjective and
unscientific one that has been put forward in the last couple of weeks."

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199903/0312.html

How sad you think that by lying you are doing God's work.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Check out what's going on with our cows! placemarker"

You didn't do anything to get them angry, did ya? lol

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Indeed, like you I'm concerned with the attitude of some Neodarwinists these days, that Darwin's theory is so "state-of-the-art" it cannot be improved upon in any respect."

I know of NO evolutionary biologists who have ever said anything close to that. Can you name one who has?

"There is little doubt in my mind that Darwin's theory successfully accounts for certain processes in nature, but not all of them."

Darwin's theory has been adjusted and improved since the old man wrote, and it continues to be adjusted and improved.

"Although ID has been so politicized that one hardly knows what it really is anymore, all it says basically is that “certain features [not all features] of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” Which seems eminently reasonable to me."

It says that an unknowable, unobservable designer did unknowable, unobservable things to matter in untestable ways at an undetermined time. It only does this where science has not yet answered a question. When scientists do answer those questions, ID will have to retreat, eventually to the point where the *designer* gets to do about nothing. ID has no heuristic value. It's only value so far has been as a means to promote books to the ignorant and to push religion into science classes. In that sense, and that sense only, it has had some success.

[blowfish]

It says that an unknowable, unobservable designer did unknowable, unobservable things to matter in untestable ways at an undetermined time. It only does this where science has not yet answered a question. When scientists do answer those questions, ID will have to retreat, eventually to the point where the *designer* gets to do about nothing. ID has no heuristic value. It's only value so far has been as a means to promote books to the ignorant and to push religion into science classes. In that sense, and that sense only, it has had some success.

This summary is about the best I've read on these threads.

[andysandmikesmom]

I like your cows...scarey eyes tho...

Hows things on the ranch?...how are the mini horses?

[andysandmikesmom]

Regarding post #196...a most excellent observation...

[andysandmikesmom]

Oops...my post #198 was meant for you...tho I agree with Blowfish and his observation as well..

[betty boop]

It says that an unknowable, unobservable designer did unknowable, unobservable things to matter in untestable ways at an undetermined time. It only does this where science has not yet answered a question. When scientists do answer those questions, ID will have to retreat....

Some IDers may say this, CG -- by that's not what the ID hypothesis says. As already mentioned, all ID says is that “certain features [not all features] of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” Alamo-Girl's excellent summary of ID bears repeating here:

Intelligent design is not a religion, as certain interested parties have claimed, in that it does not posit articles of faith, morals, doctrine, or Holy writ. Nor does it substitute for evolution theory because it addresses only “certain features” of the universe, not all features. Nor is it an origin of life hypothesis.

Most significantly, it does not specify the “intelligent cause,” which could be a phenomenon such as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity or fractal intelligence. Neither does it specify a particular agent, such as God, or collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc. The Intelligent Design hypothesis does not specify either phenomenon or agent — much less any specific phenomenon or specific agent.

You seem to be very impressed with an idea of "progress" (including scientific progress) which basically suggests that people living today are smarter than people who lived in earlier times. (Must be some kind of in-built bias you have, conditioned as you seem to be by Neodarwinist theory.) And thus any new discovery trumps (and demolishes) the older understandings of mankind.

My understanding, however, is scientific breakthroughs rest on past human achievements. Past achievements don't get "trashed" for the simple reason that they are the basis of all "new and improved" additions to scientific understanding.

But I find you are inconsistent in the application of this principle: For it seems you think there is no more "progress" to be made in evolution theory, because Neodarwinism already has all the answers. Certainly you give the impression that you think there is little more "progress" to be made in evolution theory. Which must mean that presently-living Neodarwinists are the smartest people the Universe ever produced, or ever will produce.