Academic persecution of ID proponents

This is incorrect. He purposefully releases (shakes out of a box) them right next to where he wants them to be, on boughs and tree trunks, where they wandered around a little bit, and then did not move any more.

Each insect, having been marked on its underside with a small dot of quick drying celulose paint with a colour-position for each day, was shaken from its box on to the bough or trunk. They generally wandered about for a few moments, and rapidly took up the optimum position available. … Having done this, they did not move again.

He then states in the conclusion this is problematic because where he places the moths is most likely where they would not naturally come to rest under their own control.

I admit that, under their own choice, many would have taken up position higher in the trees, and that since the surface area of a tree increases proportional to the distance up the trunks and boughs, in so doing they would have avoided concentrations such as I produced.

1 Like

He didn’t place the moths. He released them. He didn’t take them out one by one and physically put them on the trunk.

These problems are solved in the Majerus paper where the distribution of the experimental group is consistent with distributions in the wild.

Maybe this guy?

2 Likes

Well whether you call that releasing them or placing them, it is not gluing them to trees as you asserted earlier:

In any case, you’re still splitting hairs about one small detail of evolution here. You aren’t coming anywhere close to demolishing the entire edifice.

2 Likes

Nope, still the same problem:

Each night one moth was released
into each of the 12 netting ‘sleeves’ surrounding a branch selected randomly from among the 103 (reduced to 97 by 2007) branches used in
the study. Sleeves and any moths resting on them were removed
before dawn, and positions of moths remaining undisturbed on bark
were noted. Release density averaged less than 10 moths per ha per night.
Moths absent from resting positions 4 h after sunrise were presumed
eaten by predators as they rarely fly away during daylight unless greatly
disturbed.

Still manually placing moths according to a predetermined distribution. Majerus claims it’s faithful to reality, but who is really to say. All I can find is the summary statistic in his paper, not the raw data. So, if Majerus biased the distribution towards a favorable experimental outcome, we shall be none the wiser. Plus, it is quite likely Majerus’ distribution is not accurate, given what Kettlewell said.

I admit that, under their own choice, many would have taken up position higher in the trees, and that since the surface area of a tree increases proportional to the distance up the trunks and boughs, in so doing they would have avoided concentrations such as I produced.

At any rate, it’s all pretty badly executed science in terms of trying to get an objective view on the matter. Certainly should not be held up as the canonical example of evidence for evolution, and certainly should be stricken from the textbooks.

Stick to teaching people good science that gives evidence for evolution, and you’ll remove all the easy fodder for them durn creationists :wink:

The fundamental problem I am experiencing is there appears to be no solid evidence for evolution. It is like an impressionist painting, where from far away, if you blur your eyes a bit, there seems to be a solid picture of evolution in the scientific evidence. But whenever I step in close and analyze the matters that I know something about, it all becomes fuzzy and squishy upon closer inspection, or even outright false when it comes to the math and comp sci domain. I’ve been trying this for the past couple years, studying on my own big evolution textbooks, debating atheist and Christian evolutionists, running my own bioinformatics experiments, and so on.

I still think I’m approaching this in an unbiased manner. I don’t feel I have a strong prior need for the evidence to go a certain way. For awhile I was considering becoming atheist. But if I do, I want to become one for rational reasons, not bad science, bad logic, and fallacious argumentation.

What is the really solid, hardcore quantitative evidence for evolution, that doesn’t fall apart under closer inspection? Why is it so hard to come by this evidence if evolution is so well supported? It is a really big puzzle.

"there appears to be no solid evidence for evolution." - EricMH

Like you, EricMH, I was a student at the Discovery Institute’s summer program and am quite aware that this is exactly what they taught you to think, with some nuance and subtlety. However, let me assure you that once you get outside of that echo chamber, it will give you confidence and freedom to think more clearly, based on evidence provided across the board by both non-religious and religious natural scientists.

"I still think I’m approaching this in an unbiased manner."

Wasn’t this a thread about “Academic persecution of ID proponents”? It does seem like you’ve lost the way.

For a third time, asking for dialogue with you in good faith, responding and being responded to: Why not go and ask the heads of the CSC Stephen Meyer and John West if they will open up to you to answer that “important question” you mentioned above? Why not ask them to clarify for you, in order to help reduce your confusion and persecution complex, and to pass along to us, how they distinguish between “Divine Design” and “human design”? This could add real value to this “why the persecution?” topic you’ve raised. Please consider it. Thanks.

2 Likes

I find this a very odd post. As I recall, you looked very hard at the mutational evidence that I had presented for common descent, criticized the bioinformatics aspects of it, and finally concluded it was sound. Did that never happen?

3 Likes

As I recall, Majerus released his moths before their daily flight, so they would presumably be landing wherever they chose, right?

Backing up a little, it seems that from school you learned that peppered moths were an example of natural selection, while from ID you learned that the peppered moth work was a staged experiment in which moths were glued to trees. I’d say you were a lot closer to the truth before the ID input.

2 Likes

Bump: I asked you several questions about your statements here and you haven’t responded.

1 Like

Distribution was consistent with natural distribution.

Sure it should. The ratio of alleles is a very real thing in wild populations, and the difference in camouflage does explain it.

2 Likes

No. I get how you might infer that from just reading the beginning of the paper:

Majerus released live moths in night-time experiments in multiple locations

However, read a bit further:

Each night one moth was released into each of the 12 netting ‘sleeves’ surrounding a branch selected ran- domly from among the 103 (reduced to 97 by 2007) branches used in the study. Sleeves and any moths resting on them were removed before dawn, and positions of moths remaining undisturbed on bark were noted. Each night one moth was released into each of the 12 netting ‘sleeves’ surrounding a branch selected ran- domly from among the 103 (reduced to 97 by 2007) branches used in the study. Sleeves and any moths resting on them were removed before dawn, and positions of moths remaining undisturbed on bark were noted. Release density averaged less than 10 moths ha21 night21. Moths absent from resting positions 4 h after sunrise were presumed eaten by predators as they rarely fly away during daylight unless greatly disturbed.

So, he placed the moths at night, but they were kept from leaving their placement location by netting, which was removed before dawn.

The fact the moths did not move from their position voluntarily is essential to his experimental protocol, because he assumes any moths missing after four hours of daylight were eaten (which seems like quite the assumption).

I like your idea for the experiment much better. I don’t know why it has never been done in all these years and in the midst of all the controversy. Seems allowing moths voluntary movement would put the matter to rest once for all.

How would an experimenter be able to make a reliable count of the moths if they are allowed to fly anywhere they want at night?

This does not seem unreasonable to me. The moths generally do not move in the first few hours of the morning, per the paper:

they rarely fly away during daylight unless greatly disturbed.

You say that it is “quite the assumption.” How do you know, Eric, that they merely assumed this? Is it possible they had some expertise in moth behavior and ecology that you yourself might not possess?

And if the moths didn’t move voluntarily, what other mechanism besides predation might have caused them to disappear?

Peace,
Chris

3 Likes

That is for the scientists to figure out. But, that is what must be done if we want a reliable demonstration that bird predation and camoflage is responsible for the appearance and growth of the melanic peppered moth population. Otherwise, we just have the conclusion built into the experiment, so it tells us nothing.

Please excuse, it’s so hard to understand why you won’t actually face up to the topic of your own OP - the so-called “Academic persecution of ID proponents”! :worried: Now you just want to talk about moths, bird predation and camouflage, but no longer the supposed “persecution” you are facing as an IDist?! Can you try to connect the dots for your readers?

2 Likes

Here’s another good story on the evolution of protective coloration, this time in the Rock Pocket Mouse of New Mexico: The Making of the Fittest: Natural Selection and Adaptation. Seems pretty clear to me, unless God makes the volcanic eruption and then paints the mice who live on the lava flow? What do you think @ericMH ?

2 Likes

@EricMH -

I notice that you did not respond to my key questions. Let’s try again, shall we?

Peace,
Chris

EDIT: Eric did respond to one question, though it was by far the least important.

1 Like

“I notice that you did not respond to any of my questions.”

This seems to be a pattern with EricMH. It’s rather disingenuous then to complain about “persecution of IDists”. It’s rather just legitimate push back that IDists affiliated with the DI, like Eric, refuse to treat fairly. They are simply reaping what they’ve sown.

1 Like

It looks like a very interesting piece of work, and I look forward to understanding the genetic analysis further.

I would say it does not look like science as I normally understand it, where there is a hypothesis and the scientist is trying to falsify or confirm the hypothesis. In this case, the scientist appears to assume the hypothesis is already correct (i.e. the melanic mice were caused by natural selection), and then seeks an explanation as to how this happened with specific genetic mutations. Definitely a different way of going about science than I am used to, but not necessarily invalid.

I’m just poor boy, nobody loves me :frowning: