ATTN: Texas residents, School board challenges EVOLUTION

[PurpleBuddha]

Given that only a tiny percentage of fossils are believed to have survived erosion and various other changes to the modern day, then relying on a fossil "record" as "evidence" seems questionable at best.

Your understand on the subject is clearly not very accurate; there's plenty of literature available online and in print if you'd like to learn more about evolution and the theory behind it. The way your dismissing it out of hand is doing you no favors.

That sounds contradictory, but it isn't really. Whilst in colloquial use a 'theory' is just an idea, second string to a fact, in it's strict scientific definition a theory is an explanation for a fact.

And how!

Gravity exists. The theory of gravity is the attempt to explain the mechanism through which it functions. Similarly, evolution exists. The theory of evolution is the attempt to explain the mechanism through which it functions. It's always unfortunate when people don't understand the details of the science that they're discussing... and even more unfortunate when those people are in the position to set policy and stunt the scientific growth of children.

Just to the point about theories. Every time I hear someone say "x is just a theory", in an attempt to knock it down, I have to laugh. With one sentence they prove they have spent little to no time in their life reading or trying to understand science. If they had, theory would be the last word they would use to try to delegitimize something.

 

[Dayton3]

Interesting that no one has bothered to deny that the "Kettlewell Speckled Moth Experiment"

"the finest example of evolution in action"

turned out to be fraudulent.

Likewise, no one has denied Gould's guilty in failing to identify it as such.

If your "finest example of evolution in action" is fake, then what does it say about lesser evidence?

 

[Arrqh]

Interesting that no one has bothered to deny that the "Kettlewell Speckled Moth Experiment"

"the finest example of evolution in action"

turned out to be fraudulent.

Likewise, no one has denied Gould's guilty in failing to identify it as such.

If your "finest example of evolution in action" is fake, then what does it say about lesser evidence?

It shows that your understanding of science is fundamentally flawed. I am not familiar with the experiment in question nor should I be because many other independent studies and observations demonstrate the existence of evolution. One particular flawed experiment does not invalidate totally independent research.... such as, say, this guy's research. And this is just a small example.

As I said before, the literature is out there both in the web and in print. If you actually are interested in education yourself on the subject I and I'm sure many others would be happy to help. But if all you're going to do is repeat anti-science rhetoric... then what are you doing in the science forum?

 

[PurpleBuddha]

Interesting that no one has bothered to deny that the "Kettlewell Speckled Moth Experiment"

"the finest example of evolution in action"

turned out to be fraudulent.

Likewise, no one has denied Gould's guilty in failing to identify it as such.

If your "finest example of evolution in action" is fake, then what does it say about lesser evidence?

Wow, we went over this in depth last time. You are recycling debunked arguments and even though the comprehensive and complete points have been given to you on this you do not care, nor do you bother to put them in addition to the propaganda because you are not concerned about an objective viewpoint on the topic.

But I am much more at a point in life where I do not care so much if you are convinced or not. Rather, having studied the topic from all sides exhaustively I think you points are rather cute. Reading them gives me some small measure of joy because they remind me of the movie Inherit the Wind. Anyway, if you do care to educate yourself on this topic one day, you will find there are arguments far better for 'your side' than the nonsense you are shot gunning here.

Edit: Out of the kindness of my heart I will give you a hint. You will not find the weakest points about evolution on websites designed to debunk it. The reason is simple. To find where it is weakest, you actually have to have some understanding of the theory beyond a few sound bites here and there. That is not to say you need to be a biologist. For this purpose reading layperson books such as The Blind Watch Maker, among others will do fine.

 

[The Badger]

There's an interesting site that, despite it's somewhat provocative name (How to talk to an Evolutionist without being dismissed as ignorant and stupid), gives a decent background to the issues involved. I can recommend it to all who feel the need to contribute to this thread.
http://blog.kickin-the-darkness.com/2008/09/howto-talk-to-evolutionist-without.html

 

[Dayton3]

I don't get much of my information from websites.

And I meanted to say "peppered moth" instead of "speckled moth".

Once again, what faith should we have in other evidence of evolution if

"the best example of evolution occurring today" is fraudulent?

 

[The Badger]

Once again, what faith should we have in other evidence of evolution if

"the best example of evolution occurring today" is fraudulent?

As I understand it, the Kettlewell Peppered Moth experiments are by no means the 'best example of evolution occurring today'. They are merely the best known. That is not because they offer better data, but because it is simple to explain. As such it can be used to demonstrate the principles of evolution.

Furthermore I do not believe any reputable scientist has ever claimed the Kettlewell experiments to be the 'best example of evolution occurring today'. For one thing it has long been recognised by the scientific community that this particular experiment is only a demonstration of micro-evolution.

As to the allegations of deliberate fraud, these were, as I understand it, first put about by Judith Hopper in her book Of Moths and Men. Not having read it myself, I can not comment on it personally. I can point out that at least two studies discount the idea of fraud, and "that Hooper does not provide one shred of evidence to support this serious allegation”.
One such study can be found here:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/moonshine.cfm

 

[Dayton3]

I never claimed "deliberate fraud".

But photographing DEAD MOTHS GLUED TO TREES and then claiming that is an example of evolution in progress and NOT TELLING STUDENTS USING THE TEXTBOOK what has been done might well constitute fraud at least in the reporting of the experiment.

That said, the experiments were full of ARTIFICIAL SITUATIONS introduced by the observer that DO NOT OCCUR IN NATURE.

Thus the Kettlewell Peppered Moth experiment is not viable.

 

[The Badger]

I never claimed "deliberate fraud".

You have made that claim. Repeatedly.
Most recently with the phrase
"Once again, what faith should we have in other evidence of evolution if

"the best example of evolution occurring today" is fraudulent? ".

Fraud, by it's very nature, is a deliberate attempt to deceive. You may not have used the word 'deliberate' in your posts, but it's meaning is inherent in your use of the word 'fraudulent'.

But photographing DEAD MOTHS GLUED TO TREES and then claiming that is an example of evolution in progress and NOT TELLING STUDENTS USING THE TEXTBOOK what has been done might well constitute fraud at least in the reporting of the experiment.

The use of dead insects was a common practice for the purposes of photography, the photographs taken were not part of this particular study. Rather, they were used for illustrative purposes only, in textbooks to demonstrate the principles involved. Kettlewell's experiments relied on observation, not photography.
As an aside, Kettlewell did carry out a related experiment that DID involve gluing dead insects to trees. That, however, was to gauge the behaviour of birds, not to the evolution of moths.

That said, the experiments were full of ARTIFICIAL SITUATIONS introduced by the observer that DO NOT OCCUR IN NATURE.

Well, that is the nature of experimental science. To condemn it on those grounds would be to discard the methodology behind practically all modern knowledge. And unless you have a real humdinger of an argument that can explain why all science is wrong yet still allows us to have this discussion over the internet, a product of modern science, I don't think you can win that one.
Perhaps though I am mistaken in your meaning. Perhaps you were simply suggesting that Kettlewell's experiment suffered from poor methodology, that a more rigorous approach may have avoided. If that is the case then I must disappoint you. According to Bruce Grant (1999), there have been at least thirty studies, of varying moth species, that support Kettlewell's initial experiment.

Thus the Kettlewell Peppered Moth experiment is not viable.

If there is evidence to support that view I have yet to see it. Furthermore it remains just one (albeit well known) piece of evidence in support of evolution, evidence that I find conclusive in both quality and quantity.

 

[Dayton3]

Excuse me sir.

But the entire point of the Kettlewell Peppered Moth experiment was that moths of colors that blended into their surroundings more were less likely to be eaten by birds and thus survive to pass on their genes to another generation.

And the how the effect of polution on tree trunks changed which moths had better natural camoflauge.

Birds are pretty much key to the experiment.

 

[J.T.B.]

I don't get much of my information from websites.

And I meanted to say "peppered moth" instead of "speckled moth".

Once again, what faith should we have in other evidence of evolution if

"the best example of evolution occurring today" is fraudulent?

There are a couple of fallacies going on here. First of all, just because some unnamed source said that the moths were a "best example" does not mean that they were or that there was any meaningful consensus on that point.

Then, more to the point, there is the fallacy of generalization. Even if the moth experiment was a complete fraud (which it wasn't, although one can argue its methodology), that is one small sample that has no bearing on the validity of the much larger body of evolutionary theory.

As an aside, Kettlewell did carry out a related experiment that DID involve gluing dead insects to trees. That, however, was to gauge the behaviour of birds, not to the evolution of moths.

Excuse me sir.

But the entire point of the Kettlewell Peppered Moth experiment was that moths of colors that blended into their surroundings more were less likely to be eaten by birds and thus survive to pass on their genes to another generation.

And the how the effect of polution on tree trunks changed which moths had better natural camoflauge.

Birds are pretty much key to the experiment.

But gluing moths to trees played no part in the experiment cited above, about natural selection in the moths' coloring. That involved recapture rates of marked moths released into different woods.

--Justin

 

[Dayton3]

I don't get much of my information from websites.

And I meanted to say "peppered moth" instead of "speckled moth".

Once again, what faith should we have in other evidence of evolution if

"the best example of evolution occurring today" is fraudulent?

There are a couple of fallacies going on here. First of all, just because some unnamed source said that the moths were a "best example" does not mean that they were or that there was any meaningful consensus on that point.

Then, more to the point, there is the fallacy of generalization. Even if the moth experiment was a complete fraud (which it wasn't, although one can argue its methodology), that is one small sample that has no bearing on the validity of the much larger body of evolutionary theory.

As an aside, Kettlewell did carry out a related experiment that DID involve gluing dead insects to trees. That, however, was to gauge the behaviour of birds, not to the evolution of moths.

Excuse me sir.

But the entire point of the Kettlewell Peppered Moth experiment was that moths of colors that blended into their surroundings more were less likely to be eaten by birds and thus survive to pass on their genes to another generation.

And the how the effect of polution on tree trunks changed which moths had better natural camoflauge.

Birds are pretty much key to the experiment.

But gluing moths to trees played no part in the experiment cited above, about natural selection in the moths' coloring. That involved recapture rates of marked moths released into different woods.

--Justin

They do if they are used to illustrate how microevolution is occurring today.

 

[Dayton3]

By the way, why didn't they put in the textbooks something like this:

"These pictures of the Peppered Moths resting on tree trunks are dead moths glued in place. In real life, Peppered Moths do not rest on tree trunks and neither the pictures nor the methodology of the experiment duplicate conditions that actually exist".

 

[TerriO]

They do if they are used to illustrate how microevolution is occurring today.

Cutting out the long stuff.

This brings one question to mind, Dayton, why?

I'm assuming you're meaning the botched experiment has every bearing on the overall validity of much of the evidence for evolutionary theory.

But why does one botched experiment invalidate an entire body of theory and experiment that's over a century old? Just because one scientist screwed up doesn't mean they all did, does it?

 

[Dayton3]

They do if they are used to illustrate how microevolution is occurring today.

Cutting out the long stuff.

This brings one question to mind, Dayton, why?

I'm assuming you're meaning the botched experiment has every bearing on the overall validity of much of the evidence for evolutionary theory.

But why does one botched experiment invalidate an entire body of theory and experiment that's over a century old? Just because one scientist screwed up doesn't mean they all did, does it?

It does if it was heralded for DECADES as being the "best example of evolution today".

If the best has been discredited, then it cast considerable doubt on examples which are "less than the best".

And by the way, I don't know how they teach scientific method today, but when I was in high school we were taught that a single experiment that gave results different from the theory did in fact invalidate that theory.

 

[Arrqh]

And by the way, I don't know how they teach scientific method today, but when I was in high school we were taught that a single experiment that gave results different from the theory did in fact invalidate that theory.

Then, frankly you didn't learn very well about the scientific method.

The example your giving is not an experiment that gave any sorts of results that contradict evolution. It is, at worst, simply not relevant to the topic. The fact that you are holding it up as the "best example" when, in actuality, no one else is just shows how unfamiliar you are with the breadth of observational and experimental evidence abound on the subject.

There have been plenty of other experiments that demonstrate the existence of evolution quite well. I linked to one in this thread... you ignored it. Are you actually interesting in understanding the science behind evolution? Because there are plenty of people here who would be happy to help. Thus far, though, your fixation on the moth thing is doing you no favors.

 

[Dayton3]

Are you actually interesting in understanding the science behind evolution?

Only if the person explaining it doesn't actually believe in evolution.

Statements against interest are far more credible.

 

[Arrqh]

Are you actually interesting in understanding the science behind evolution?

Only if the person explaining it doesn't actually believe in evolution.

Statements against interest are far more credible.

Once again... that isn't how science works. There is concrete evidence both in the lab and in the world that demonstrates the existence of evolution. You can choose to ignore it if you will... but then I can only ask why you are bothering to post in the science forum when your comments have been anything but.

 

[Dayton3]

Are you actually interesting in understanding the science behind evolution?

Only if the person explaining it doesn't actually believe in evolution.

Statements against interest are far more credible.

There is concrete evidence both in the lab and in the world that demonstrates the existence of evolution. .

For example?

 

[Arrqh]

Only if the person explaining it doesn't actually believe in evolution.

Statements against interest are far more credible.

There is concrete evidence both in the lab and in the world that demonstrates the existence of evolution. .

For example?

For example the thing I posted in this very thread a bit ago. Shouldn't be that hard for you to find!

It's a pretty neat experiment, basically this guy has watched the evolution of bacteria in his lab as they adjust to the conditions he changes. He took and preserved samples of the bacteria at regular intervals so he can actually "reset" the experiment to a previous state at any point and see how they react to the same or different conditions.