[RFC_Gal]

About the moths. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html

I will include a brief sample below, the entire article is much to0 long to post, at least that in my understanding of the rules. If I am incorrect someone please let me know.

But this is only part of the story, if you will bear with me for a moment. Kettlewell did several different experiments:

1. Direct observation and filming. Kettlewell and others observed birds eating moths directly off trunks of trees. This was done both in experiments in an aviary, as well as outdoor experiments in the polluted and unpolluted sites.

2. Camouflage rating. Kettlewell visually ranked the effectiveness of camouflage of moths on different backgrounds and compared the effectiveness of camouflage with predation rates both in an aviary and in the field.

3. Release-recapture experiments. Kettlewell marked and released both light-colored and dark moths early in the morning, and recaptured some the next night in both pheromone and light traps (using mercury-vapor lamps). In polluted woods, he and his assistants recaptured more dark moths than light-colored, whereas in unpolluted woods they recaptured more light-colored than dark coloured.

4. Geographical distribution. This is not an experiment per-se, But Kettlewell noted that the distribution of the dark moths in the country closely matched the areas of industrialization.

The release-recapture experiments are the ones that capture the most attention, but the direct observation experiments and aviary experiments also supported the results from the release-recapture experiments.

When the experiments were completed, Ford didn’t triumphantly announce the results. Instead, they were published by Kettlewell in peer-reviewed research journals, and then Kettlewell brought further attention to them via publications in Scientific American, and lecture tours. However, at no time did either Kettlewell or Ford claim that the observations “proved” evolution all by themselves, or that natural selection by visual bird predation was the only factor in the rise of the dark peppered moths (although it was considered the major factor). They did, however, note that they had experimental documentation of natural selection producing an adaptation in a wild population, and although such results are commonplace today, at the time it was one of the first instances of this kind of experimental work.

Indeed, when Kettlewell published his first, massive paper showing selective predation on poorly camouflaged moth forms in polluted woods the response was a bit ho-hum. It was his second paper, where famed ethnologist Nico Tinbergen actually filmed birds eating resting moths (and where the complementary data set, that dark moths were selectively predated in unpolluted woods was performed, along with a second replication of the study in polluted woods that addressed some criticism of the first study) that people sat up and took notice. Still, this didn’t stop people trying to replicate the data, in different localities and with experimental set-ups to address some limitations of the original studies. There have been at least 30 independent experimental replications of Kettelwell’s original experiments, and they all confirm his work.

Unfortunately for Coulter, Peppered moths do rest on tree trunks as well as branches (see also Howlett and Majerus, 1987). In fact, they rest all over the trees, although most prefer trunk postions underneath branches. Bernard Kettlewell, a keen naturalist, noted this explicitly himself in one of his papers, which is why in his release-recapture experiments he released the moths on trunks and branches. It’s in the original papers, which for some reason none of the creationists bother to read. (Coulter herself uses only newspaper accounts and flawed popular books such as Icons of Evolution for her sources, and did not go to the original work herself). No fakery was involved.

[netmilsmom]

RFC_Gal
Since Jul 16, 2006

Filled out the about page in the last hour when called on an Ann Coulter thread.

One website used as reference.

Hmmmmmmm.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Right. So it wasn't evolution.

[garbanzo]

(Coulter herself uses only newspaper accounts and flawed popular books such as Icons of Evolution for her sources, and did not go to the original work herself).

Reading this, one wonders about the quality of her legal work - whether or not she actually reads actual legal decisions and rulings or just newspaper accounts.

[Stultis]

That's a great article, but the information was always there for anyone willing to look it up.

The insane creatoid Peppered Moth Jihad is just bizarre. After all, creationists are the first to tell us they have no problem with natural selection, or with "microevolution," which is exactly what the Peppered Moth research reveals. So what's the deal? Especially when there's no "there" there. Kettlewell's research, and his full and honest reporting thereof, was exemplary, and later researchers have verified and extended his results.

Why the utterly gratuitous and shockingly dishonest smears when the underlying phenomena is one that creationists (supposedly) don't even take issue with???

The only reason I can come up with is that Jonathan Wells decided to publish these idiotic and dishonest smears in a popular antievolution book, and none of his fellow antievolutionists possess the intellectual honesty (or simple sense of shame) to stand up an correct the lies.

And, btw, in answer to the article's question, this kind of shameless intellectual dishonesty is exactly what "Darwinists are so afraid of".