Talk:Peppered moth evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Microevolution? 2 Navigable cohesion with parent article 3 Hoax 4 POV fork 5 cabal mediation

[edit] Microevolution?

I removed the phrase "more specifically microevolution" from the first paragraph. I left the rest, though simply explaining that changing morphological features represent underlying changes in the frequency of alleles is rather irrelevant. "Microevolution" is not a scientific term, and while scientists - not any I've ever met, but I accept there might be some - may use it in a informal and conversational way to refer to a specific type of evolution, it is not part of mainstream scientific literature and creates a false dichotomy between "macroevolution" and "microevolution." They're the same thing in the sense that one leads to the other when a population is in isolation. There's no need to go feeding fuel to the fires of creationist ignorance by using this irrelevant and unscientific term. JF Mephisto 13:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that the split creationists often imply is not the case (i.e. that there is a hard and fast line separating speciation from all other changes in allele frequency, when in fact speciation is simply something that happens when enough alleles change), it's an overstatement to say that mirco/macro means nothing to biologists. Macroevolutionary change IS distinct in some ways because we can describe macroevolutionary events (i.e large changes in entire populations or ecosystems like extinction, or long term effects like genetic drift) that have no good analog in microevolution (which, again, is about the process of allele frequency). So it is a useful distinction sometimes: it just doesn't happen to be useful in the way that creationists use it.Plunge 17:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navigable cohesion with parent article

this child article does not read well on its own. if one has followed it from the parent article the background there adds helpful context. - Rgrant 20:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax

I removed all fraudalent information, and put in a rough overview of the known facts. If anyone has more knowledge than I do on the hoax, please do feel free to add. The hoax itself is well-documented and sourced, and proponents of Darwinian evolution one way or another have accepted the fact of the hoax for years, as indicated in the NYT article, so please note I am not attempting to discredit evolution as a whole, but only that the rhyme and dance about this particular instance of "evolution" was unmasked for what it was a long time ago, relatively speaking.

MSTCrow 07:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a single proponent of Darwinian evolution accepts that there was a hoax, because there plainly wasn't one, and the NYT article, which was a book review, did not indicate any of what you claim. Your "edit" (it was plainly and clearly vandalism, but we're supposed to assume good faith even when the evidence contradicts it) stated that the NYT "broke the news" -- but book reviews do not "break news"; if anything, the book "broke the news", but it simply repeated false claims made previously by others and repeatedly debunked by authorities in the field. Basically nothing you have said on this matter, either here or in the article, is true, which was predictable given your real source (Ann Coulter's book). --Jibal 03:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Reference: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/moonshine.htm --Michael Johnson 07:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't revert simply because you find a clearly biased source. Try finding some additional sources, and discussing it here. That is WP. Thanks.

MSTCrow 08:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't simply delete an entire article and replace it with an entirely POV claim from a dubious source. talkdesign is indeed "clearly biased" -- towards facts, science, and providing supporting documentation for its claims. The "clearly biased source" charge is ad hominem and thus irrelevant; the content of their page refutes the charge that there was a hoax by providing the factual details as to what actually took place. --Jibal 03:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a new idea. Why don't we create a pro-hoax and anti-hoax section.

MSTCrow 08:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not how wikipedia works. It relates facts and describes controversies (i.e. can describe various positions) but it doesn't split its tone into advocating the views of one side or another. Plunge 17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Provide a source which is not related to "creation science" or "intellegent design" and I'd be happy to look at it. Scientific source, that is, not a newspaper report.--Michael Johnson 08:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers reports are credible sources according to WP. You are not being fair, and excluding facts based on an ideological basis.

MSTCrow 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The newspaper report is simply a report that some person claims this is a hoax, not evidence of a hoax at all. I'm not being at all ideological. --Michael Johnson 08:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have forwarded this issue to the mediation cabal, so they may help and resolve this issue.

MSTCrow 08:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The mediator stated the obvious: the use of the word "hoax" is POV --Jibal 02:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Link? --Davril2020 09:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Did someone want evidence of the hoax?

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out. He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real. J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36 ^rossnixon 10:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But then again, I've discovered it is far more complex than this. See wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Peppered_moth (would not load for me, so use Googles cached version). ^rossnixon 10:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First, it is false that Jerry Coyne thinks the peppered moth story "has to be thrown out", as is clear from the context of the "prize horse" quote: "this classic example is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention." Second, his doubts about the peppered moth have absolutely nothing to do with thinking that it is a hoax; he does not. There plainly was no hoax involved; the claim of "hoax" is a misrepresentation of the facts. A hoax is a deliberate attempt to mislead, but no one deliberately attempted to mislead anyone; the belief that they did rests on ignorance and misunderstanding. Here is a letter from a relevant expert in the field, pointing out that the source of the claim of hoax practices intellectual dishonesty, including taking said expert's own quotes out of context. Any investigation will reveal that this view that no hoax was involved is universal among evolutionary biologists, including Jerry Coyne. --Jibal 02:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As an FYI, the specific reference of User:MSTCrow to the "New York Times" as stating its a hoax is a fraudulent, or at least ignorant, claim in and of itself. The NYT items are a standard book review of Of Moths and Men and a summary of its contents delivered effectively as a press release. As such they can not themselves be treated as a means to verify its contents nor be an independent source. They should not be considered "admissable" support for the claims. An extremely detailed summary has been written, larger than even the wikipedia entry, of the multiple experiements, with their methods and the means by which scientists addressed the criticisms (made by other scientists, not "creationists") of the earlier preliminary findings prior to the 1950's. The idea that the experiments can be considered a fraud is ridiculous, as it would have involved a secret conspiracy involving hundreds of scientists all across Britain and the United States. Such a claim may be worthy of Ann Coulter, but should not even begin to be treated with any sort of respect by Wikipedia. If you want to reference the "controversy" have a one-sentence entry pointing to Of Moths and Men and let that entry cover it. The chapter on the subject in Ann Coulter's recent book, btw, is a summary of Of Moths and Men, though it appears as though the most she knows about the subject is also from the same NYT articles and that she herself has never read the book nor has she looked at any of the primary articles by the actual researchers that she has decided to call fraudulent.

• Well-said! I've been wanting to say similar for a while now, but didn't have the time or references to back it up. Always refreshing when a little light is shed on a conflict. I don't have any strong opinions as to whether we ought cover the "hoax" claims in detail or not, but if we do so neutrally (i.e., summarizing many of the points you just made above, with appropriate quotations and references) so as not to make it seem like a genuine scientific controversy (which it's clearly not: there are certain aspects of the original experiments which are now disputed, but the underlying principles and conclusions are still universally accepted), we could make this a much more useful page for informing misinformed readers. I agree that the more intimate details of the refutation should be reserved for Of Moths and Men, though—speaking of which, I'm not sure why you keep referencing Ann Coulter. Did you mean to say "Judith Hooper", the author of the book, instead? -Silence 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I see, you were referring to Coulter from the Panda's Thumb article. Nevermind that. -Silence 17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not unlikely that Coulter's book was the impetus for User:MSTCrow's vandalism (I don't think replacing a consensus article with fraudulent claims is anything else) -- his views on other matters are close to hers, and it's almost certainly a book that he would have bought and read, and he says he's an atheist so he didn't get there via the usual route. -- Jibal 12:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV fork

A POV fork seems to have unwittingly arisen in this topic. This article, Peppered moth evolution, has become exclusively about the scientific perspective, without involving the creationism-evolution debate (even though it's important for readers to know about such), while the forked article, Natural selection and the peppered moth (originally named "Creationism and the peppered moth", but moved to this meaningless title by apparent creationist User:Ed Poor), has become exclusively about the creationist perspective. I strongly recommend a merge so that both topics can be handled in tandem, and thus be given a more rigorously NPOV analysis. -Silence 10:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds a reasonable approach. The Natural Selection article definately needed some work. There also needs to be some rigerous analysis of the current state of scientific thought, as well as the creationist attacks on the original research. --Michael Johnson 10:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're making an error in assumption here, most of the attacks on the original research comes from evolutionists, and creationism is only one of the factions that opppose the theory of evolution on its scientific merits. I am not a creationist, for instance.

MSTCrow 11:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Silence and Michael Johnson. Merge is a good way forward. In fact, just checking the article again, I notice that this has been done. New version makes sense to me, and covers the "controversy" pretty well. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cabal mediation

I have offered to mediate this case. Interested parties should go to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-12 Peppered moth evolution. Rick Norwood 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In regard to the mediator's statement: "In particular, I think that MSTCrow can show his good faith by doing the following. Read the review in Nature by Jerry Coyne (if your local library does not have a copy, they should be able to get a copy by interlibrary loan) and write a brief, impartial summary of what that review says." -- the review is available on-line from Dr. Coyne's website: http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ceb/Majerus_review.pdf --Jibal 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been two weeks now. Mr. Crow has had ample time to respond (and he's been quite active, having made over 90 edits in the interim). Isn't it time to wrap up this mediation?--RattBoy 11:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with this article? It is excellent and presents a neutral point of view in the critcism section. Regardless of experimental design flaws in Kettlewell's experiments ,other researchers have established the peppered moth is still an excellent example of natural selection, predation, etc. A recent artilce by DW Rudge, Myths about moths: a study in contrasts.Endeavour. 2006 Mar;30(1):19-23. PMID: 16549216 does an excellent job of rooting out the debate.GetAgrippa 12:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it now. As you can see from the dates of the entries above, there was a dispute several months ago. Its instigator, MSTCrow, tried to radically change the article, but ultimately disengaged from the debate. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)