# Anyone read "Icons of Evolution"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 9, 2001, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873 "2001-07-09T20:34:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jalopeura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecae2f/32.png) [@jalopeura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jalopeura)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2001, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/21 "2001-07-12T04:49:08Z")
> [@](#): > > hardcore: > **jalopeura** , I’ll try this once more in the hope that you will attempt to understand what I am saying, but I fear you may have become so influenced by Well’s rhetoric that you will be unable to do so. Let me know if I should skip this step and go straight to slamming my head against the nearest wall. I hardly think I’ve been influenced by Wells’s rhetoric, when _I’ve never read his book_. I have only read reviews of it, most of them by opponents of Wells. If you take another look at my previous posts, you’ll see that my summary of the book’s contents is based on those reviews. (I _have_ read a paper of his on the peppered moth experiments, which I cite below.) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Granting your points about other experiments (for the sake of argument only), then why is the Miller-Urey experiment still used as ‘proof’ of evolution in textbooks? …But in any case, the main point still stands: it is no longer considered valid by the scientific community, yet they let it stand as is in the textbooks. > > I don’t suppose you have anything remotely resembling a cite indicating the Miller-Urey experiment is still used as ‘proof’ of evolution in textbooks? Something other than this offal from Wells, if you please. _(Note: this will be a recurring theme throughout this post)_ > > As has been previously noted, this experiment showed a possible pathway of abiogenesis, which you finally realized. And why do you think the experiment is no longer valid? The experiment was a breakthrough, in that it showed organic molecules forming spontaneously, and rightly deserves placement in textbooks. How about the two _college-level_ textbooks in front of me as I write this? Both claim that the experiment simluated atmospheric conditions on early earth (although one makes a disclaimer that methane is no longer thought to be as prevalent in the atmosphere of early Earth - and yet still assumes the validity of the experiment). And while abiogenesis and evolution are, strictly speaking, different topics, they are covered in the same chapter in both of these texts (indeed, one of the chapter titles does not even mention abiogenesis or the origin of life). As to why it’s invalid, if I offer proof that the French habitually eat frogs and snails, does this tell you anything about dietary habits in China? If I claim that air travel is dangerous and provide statistics about deaths from automobile accidents, should my claim be taken seriously? Similarly, the Miller-Urey experiment offers proof that organic compunds can form in a certian type of atmosphere - but to the best of our knowledge, that type of atmosphere did not exist on the early Earth. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > But the tree-of-life diagrams used in textbooks also cover tens of millions of years, and do not bear resemblance to the actual pattern found in the fossils. > > And you have some evidence of this, or are you just repeating Well’s claim? I’m looking at two tree-of-life diagrams right now (although, to be fair, one of them leaves out any references to specific amounts of time, having only an arrow labelled ‘TIME’ at the side). Why do you think I have two biology texts? When I first heard of this book, I looked in my text, which I kept after my biology class. Then, I got a slightly newer text from a friend who had just completed a biology class. The ‘icons’ Wells mentions are in both of them. > [@](#): > > You wrote this about Homology of vertebrate limbs: > > > [@](#): > > > > But that’s not how it’s presented in the textbooks. > > Again, I would like to see an actual quote from a widely accepted high school biology book that supports your position. Do you have one? Yes (and from college-level texts, not high-school-level): > [@](#): > > And so, in the lineages of the pterosaurs, birds, , and bats, the five-toed limbs…gradually became molded into wings…In the lineages that led to porpoises and to penguins, the five-toed limb gradually evolved into flippers…In still other lineages into the long, one-toed limbs of modern horses, the stubby limbs of moles and other burrowing mammals, and the pillarlike limbs of elephants. It also became modified into the human arm and five-fingered hand. Step 1: Assume what you want to prove. > [@](#): > > What we have been describing is an example of **homology** - a similarity in one or more body parts that we can attribute to descent from a common ancestor. Step 2: Use the assumption to prove the point. Perhaps an analogy will make it clearer: The Invisible Pink Unicorn began to defecate all over the universe. The floating globs of dung soon became planets and stars and other celestial bodies. What we have described here is **creation** - the process whereby the existence of planets and stars can be explained. > [@](#): > > Concerning Darwin’s Finches, you wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > Then why is it presented as evidence of speciation? > > I sincerly doubt that variable beak lengths are used as evidence of speciation. Maybe you have something besides unverified supposition to support your claim? How about another quote? > [@](#): > > The 14 known species of Galapagos finches are variously specialized for a variety of lifestyles that are elsewhere filled by birds of different species which never had the opportunity to colonize the Galapagos Islands. The likely evolution of such different birds from a common ancestor suggested to Darwin that species originated by natural selection There you have both finches being used as evidence for speciation and the story that finches inspired Darwin’s theory. Now, beak size is not explcitily mentioned here, but it _is_ one of the factors, if not the major factor, by which these finches are separated into distinct species. Okay, to be more precise, feeding habits and general body size are the major factors in separating the finches into species. But beak size and feeding habits are clearly related, and I assume general body size will have at least some effect on beak size. > [@](#): > > On the topic of Archaeopteryx, you said: > > > [@](#): > > > > The why is it presented as a missing link in the textbooks? > > I’m not trying to be pedantic, but do you even know of a biology textbook using the phrase “missing link” in conjunction with Archaeopteryx? When I reviewed my daughter’s biology textbook recently, it classified Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil having both reptilian and avain characteristics, which is entirely accurate. The phrase ‘transitional fossil’ or ‘transitional form’ (as my book has it) are to my mind synonymous with ‘missing link’. Now if you are objecting to the ‘missing’ part of the phrase becuase the fossil has been found, I’d say you’re being overly pedantic. > [@](#): > > Your response to the peppered moth explanation was: > > > [@](#): > > > > Any experiment that is staged is invalid as scientific evidence. It should not be presented as such in the textbooks. > > What on earth are you talking about?? What experiment are you referring to? The _picture_ of the moth was staged, just like many of the pictures in textbooks. The peppered moth story is a prime example of evolution and _should_ figure prominently in textbooks. The story is simplified for high school students, but so fucking what? So are many of the concepts we teach students. Why do you choose to single out evolution for your concern? What am I talking about? Kettlewell’s experiments with peppered moths. You know, the ones that the photo is supposed to be representative of. I didn’t single out evolution. I responded to a question about a book. Why do you have such a knee-jerk reaction to this topic? The point is that it’s not just the photos that were faked. The whole experiment was just unscientific. The moths were released during the day, even though they are actually active at night. In some of the experiments dead moths were pinned to tree trunks. The experiment did not replicate the actual predation patterns associated with the birds and the moths. This link: [http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw\_pepmoth.htm](http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm) contains an article about this, but as it was authored by Wells, I assume you have no interest in reading it. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Well, for a hole consider the fact that the fossil evidence as it stands does not support evolution as it is currently formulated. For lack of open debate, consider the fact that when Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge pointed this out and suggested that evolution be reformulated to fit the facts (I believe the exact quote was “the neo-Darwinian synthesis is dead”), they were hounded by others in this ‘open forum’ until they stated publicly that their statements had been misinterpreted. They said that their work did not disprove gradualism, all it did was show that it wasn’t as gradual as previously thought. > > The fossil evidence doesn’t support evolution? Man, I’ve got more work ahead of me than I thought if I intend to address the ignorance of that statement. > > First, read this FAQ on [transitional fossils](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#conc) to get an idea of exactly how well the theory and evidence match. Next, examine the [common errors in discussion of PE](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#errors) to understand that punctuated equilibrium is complementary to gradualism, not exclusive. PE theorizes that the speed of evolution is tied to pressures exerted by the environment. Therefore, some species may evolve quickly, while others evolve more gradually. Quickly, of course, is a relative term, and would still seem very gradual to the human observer. > > \[took out a quote from _The Origin of Species_] > > Try reading the entire book. You’ll find that Darwin was well aware of the rapid change evident in the fossil record by some species, while others appear to change more slowly. He attributes much of this to the incompleteness of the fossil record, but obviously realized the possibility of variable evolutionary rates. Are you contesting my claim that Gould and Eldredge want to reformulate the theory of evolution to better fit the pattern of fossil evidence? Because that was my point. In their opinion, the current formulation of the theory of evolution does not adequately explain the fossil record. > [@](#): > > I especially find it ludicrous that you depict the debate between gradualism and PE as something not representative of “open debate”. I find it to be exactly that – a prime example of challenging discourse in the scientific community. Perhaps you only see what you expect to see. Your last sentence applies as easily to you. I lent my copy of ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ to a friend, but when I get it back, I’ll look up the quote where Dawkins complained that GOuld and Eldredge went to the press and the public with wild claims about the theory of evolution being dead. They did this because their work wasn’t being taken seriously by a large portion of the scientific community. That is what I meant. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t see that you have refuted the main point of the book - that is, that these ‘proofs’ are not valid evidence for evolution. …It’s interesting - nowhere did my summary state that evolution was false - as I said, the author believes in evolution - and yet you leap to its defense at the perceived threat. > > I hope to have shown exactly what I intended – namely, that Archaeopteryx, the peppered moths, Darwin’s Finches, and homology are _all_ valid evidence for evolution, which is entirely in opposition to your stance. Also, the Miller-Urey experiment is an important one in the field of abiogenesis, and should rightly be given space in biology textbooks. I leave it to others to judge whether I have been successful. Well, from my perspective, you haven’t. Shoddy, unscientific experiments and false or outdated claims are not valid evidence for anything. Actually, I think homology is pretty good evidence for a common ancestor - but it shouldn’t be presented as a circular argument. In fact, I think evolution holds together pretty well for the most part, and as I have mentioned previously (though not, I think, on this thread), there really is no competitor that can lay claim to being a scientific theory. I just would like to see some of the holes in the theory filled in, and I don’t think suppressing dissenting opinion or filling textbooks with false or outdated evidence is going to achieve that. Now for those books: The World of Biology, Fifth Edition, by Eldra Pealr Solomon and Linda R. Berg First edition published 1995 by Saunders College Publishing (a division of Harcourt Brace & Company) ISBN 0-03-094865-7 (this copy purchased in 97 or 98) Biology: Concepts and Applications, Third Edition, by Cecie Starr First edition published 1997 by Wadsworth Publsihing Company ISBN 0-534-50440-X (this copy purchased in 99) ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2001, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/22 "2001-07-12T05:48:19Z")
**astorian** : > [@](#): > > Hardcore is all too typical of Darwinians- he’s wrong on the facts, but rather than admit it, he prefers toi close his mind and circle the wagons, pretending that Jalo and I are fanatical creationists. Slow down there a second, cowboy. When have I ever insinuated that you or Jalo are fanatical creationists? Please give me something of mine indicating this. Or are your “facts” on this as strong as they have been on other issues so far in this thread? While you’re searching for my quotes labeling you as a creationist, try to give me a specific “fact” you consider in error. > [@](#): > > Hardcore, get something straight: the errors, distortions, lies and anachronistic “facts” in most high school (an many college) biology textbooks are many, and they’re obvious. DON’T take my word for it! Pick up a few such texts, and leaf through them at your leisure. Not to slow your diatribe with any “facts”, but I have recently (last year) perused my daughter’s high school AP biology book, and more recently (this year), her college biology book. I haven’t found any of these supposed errors you are so sure exist. Here’s a suggestion: why not dig up an actual QUOTE from a biology book in widespread use to support your position instead of just proclaiming it to be true. > [@](#): > > Now, it’s important to note something: though Jalo and I have noted that Stanley Miller’s model was highly flawed, and that the famous pepper moths anecdote does NOT prove what it was supposed to prove, and that a host of “proofs” offered for Darwinian evolution in a standard science text are utterly bogus (archaeopteryx IS invariably cited as a “missing link”), that does NOT mean God made the world in six days, and it does NOT mean the creation story in Genesis is literally true. Again, try to read what I am saying and not what you THINK I am saying. I have never likened your position to that of a creationist. What I HAVE done is challenge your “facts” and interpretations, and you have responded with more speculation and NO support. The Miller experiment was NOT flawed in any way. It used the existing opinion on the content of the atmosphere, and there is still much debate today over the composition, with most scientists agreeing it was either weakly reducing or neutral. Note that in a weakly reducing atmosphere, the experiment still produces organics. And regardless of the content of the atmosphere, it almost certainly simulates the processes that originate organic materials inside meteorites. Furthermore, it showed that important organic compounds involved in biological processes can be created from ordinary, natural events. _At the very least_, it is an important historical experiment in the field of abiogenesis. I contend the peppered moth story still is good evidence in favor of evolution, and at least I have provided a [cite from an actual biologist](http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/December/13-653-news92.txt) supporting my view. What have you done to provide evidence? Oh wait, that’s right… nothing. Except your continued insistence that you have the “facts”. Pardon me if I choose not to simply rely on your word. Try trotting out your point that Archaeopteryx isn’t solid evidence in favor of evolution to a biologist at your nearest university. I’m sure he’ll get quite a laugh. If you could even _ **find** _ a biology book with the phrase “missing link”, at least you would have some SMALL point that the phrasing should be changed. Keep in mind that it was only within the last few years that Archaeopteryx was reclassified as a side branch instead of a direct ancestor to modern birds, and the debate is still ongoing. Surely your “host of bogus proofs” are more solid than these. Care to share any, or can you not be bothered with anything as trivial as supporting your arguments instead of simply restating them? > [@](#): > > What it DOES mean is that science education is in MAJOR need of repair. That repair can come from either of two sources. MAYBE the scientific community will get their heads out of the sand, and acknowledge that they’ve done a crummy job of spelling out the basic principles of evolution. If your understanding is indicative of the average person, I’ll be forced to agree. I submit that your righteous indignation is misplaced. _ **Even if** _ there are errors in the biology textbooks, why do you single out evolution? Many errors can also be found in physics, chemistry, and math books. It is an unfortunate fact of our imperfect processes that errors will occasionally find their way into the textbooks, and take some time to purge. Yet I don’t seem to notice the same zeal and fervor taken with these subjects. Why do you suppose that is? I completely concur that biology textbooks need to be “beefed-up” with respect to evolution. The time has come to thumb our collective nose at the creationists and place the proper emphasis on the important topic of evolution, giving it far more classtime than is currently assigned due to fear of lawsuits from the religious right. Take _that_ approach, instead of this misguided attempt to attack perfectly valid evidence supporting evolution, and you’ll find me solidly in your corner. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2001, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/23 "2001-07-12T08:21:24Z")
**jalopeura** , now that you have provided some actual quotes from textbooks, maybe we can debate real issues instead of imagined errors. Miller experiment: > [@](#): > > How about the two college-level textbooks in front of me as I write this? Both claim that the experiment simluated atmospheric conditions on early earth (although one makes a disclaimer that methane is no longer thought to be as prevalent in the atmosphere of early Earth - and yet still assumes the validity of the experiment)…Similarly, the Miller-Urey experiment offers proof that organic compunds can form in a certian type of atmosphere - but to the best of our knowledge, that type of atmosphere did not exist on the early Earth. You have a strange standard for “invalid” concerning this issue. Notice that at least one of your two books gets it exactly right – the methane probably isn’t as prevalent, but the experiment still holds, just with lesser yields. Reference my previous post to astorian for other points supporting why the experiment should be in every biology textbook. I agree the other book should make the same disclaimer, but in an area as fluid and undefined as abiogenesis, this hardly seems to be an important criticism. Also note that you have _not_ supported your original point, that this experiment is presented in textbooks as a ‘proof’ of evolution. tree-of-life: > [@](#): > > I’m looking at two tree-of-life diagrams right now (although, to be fair, one of them leaves out any references to specific amounts of time, having only an arrow labelled ‘TIME’ at the side). Again, provide support for your point – how does this diagram conflict with the actual pattern found in the fossils? Homology and circular arguments: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And so, in the lineages of the pterosaurs, birds, , and bats, the five-toed limbs…gradually became molded into wings…In the lineages that led to porpoises and to penguins, the five-toed limb gradually evolved into flippers…In still other lineages into the long, one-toed limbs of modern horses, the stubby limbs of moles and other burrowing mammals, and the pillarlike limbs of elephants. It also became modified into the human arm and five-fingered hand. > > Step 1: Assume what you want to prove. > > > [@](#): > > > > What we have been describing is an example of homology - a similarity in one or more body parts that we can attribute to descent from a common ancestor. > > Step 2: Use the assumption to prove the point. You should read up on [circular arguments](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus). Providing examples of a concept and defining that concept does NOT make it a circular argument. An example: “Homologous structures are the result of evolutionary processes. Hence any creatures sharing a common ancestor will likely have homologous structures. Therefore any 2 creatures having homologous structures likely share a common ancestor. Therefore homologous structures are the result of evolutionary processes.” Notice that your quotes do not follow this pattern, nor does my example hold true – there is no logic between sentence 3 and 4. Darwin’s Finches: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The 14 known species of Galapagos finches are variously specialized for a variety of lifestyles that are elsewhere filled by birds of different species which never had the opportunity to colonize the Galapagos Islands. The likely evolution of such different birds from a common ancestor suggested to Darwin that species originated by natural selection > > There you have both finches being used as evidence for speciation and the story that finches inspired Darwin’s theory. Now, beak size is not explcitily mentioned here, but it is one of the factors, if not the major factor, by which these finches are separated into distinct species. Okay, to be more precise, feeding habits and general body size are the major factors in separating the finches into species. But beak size and feeding habits are clearly related, and I assume general body size will have at least some effect on beak size. I see nothing wrong with the provided quote, and now you are slowly “evolving” to my position – beak size is not used as evidence of speciation. Not only is beak size not even mentioned, you now realize that many factors play a role in separating the finches into species. And you have left out the most important factor – _mating habits_. Clearly the Galapagos finches have speciated from a common ancestor. Beak sizes vary between the different species, and even within the species. But you have not shown anyone claiming that variable beak sizes are _the_ evidence for speciation. Archaeopteryx: > [@](#): > > The phrase ‘transitional fossil’ or ‘transitional form’ (as my book has it) are to my mind synonymous with ‘missing link’. Now if you are objecting to the ‘missing’ part of the phrase becuase the fossil has been found, I’d say you’re being overly pedantic. My objections have nothing to do with the ‘missing’ part of the phrase. Archaeopteryx is correctly labeled as a ‘transitional fossil’ (or ‘form’ if you like) as it has both reptilian and avain characteristics. Just because you think this means ‘missing link’ between dinosaurs and birds, or that it must be a direct ancestor of birds in order to be included in the textbook does not make your objections valid. Due to the imperfections of the fossil record, we may never find exact intermediates between two forms along their direct line of descent. Archaeopteryx is important and does belong in textbooks, because it shows us that intermediate forms are possible and did in fact exist. Peppered moths: > [@](#): > > What am I talking about? Kettlewell’s experiments with peppered moths. You know, the ones that the photo is supposed to be representative of. I didn’t single out evolution. I responded to a question about a book. Why do you have such a knee-jerk reaction to this topic? > > The point is that it’s not just the photos that were faked. The whole experiment was just unscientific. The moths were released during the day, even though they are actually active at night. In some of the experiments dead moths were pinned to tree trunks. The experiment did not replicate the actual predation patterns associated with the birds and the moths. My “reaction” is a result of the fact that you have yet to make a coherent point on this topic. It is of absolutely no consequence if a moth was pinned to a tree to take a picture, or a given experiment did not replicate reality. The facts as given in textbooks are valid and support the conclusion that evolution occurred. To wit: [ul] [li] The frequency of black moths in the population changed[/li][li] Tests have shown the color to be determined by genes[/li][li] Evolution is defined as the change in gene frequency of a population[/li][li] Therefore, the peppered moths are a fine example of evolution. **QED** [/li][/ul] Now most textbooks simplify the situation and claim the change in the population was due to differential predation, leaving out other contributing factors such as migration, the flow of genes between moth populations in different regions, the importance of lichens on trees, and so on. But again, so fucking what?! Physics texts constantly simplify systems in order to teach a concept, astronomy texts do not give a completely accurate picture of our solar system, and these simplifications are addressed as students progress toward PhD’s. I have repeatedly linked to a response to Wells from a [biologist involved in the actual experiments](http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/December/13-653-news92.txt). In particular, he says: _"In your paper, Ms. Katrina Rider “asserts” the peppered moth story is a hoax. She conveys the impression that dead moths were glued to trees as part of a conspiracy of deception. She seems unaware that moths were glued to trees in an experiment to assess the effect of the density (numbers) of moths on the foraging practices of birds. "_ He goes on to lambast Wells for misrepresenting their work, but since you have not yet read it, I doubt you will do so now. > [@](#): > > Are you contesting my claim that Gould and Eldredge want to reformulate the theory of evolution to better fit the pattern of fossil evidence? Because that was my point. In their opinion, the current formulation of the theory of evolution does not adequately explain the fossil record. I challenge you to find ANYTHING from Gould stating the theory of evolution does not adequately explain the fossil record, or as you claim, there are “holes” in the theory. He and others are debating the pacing of evolutionary change, and as I have shown, even Darwin alluded to this fact of differential evolutionary rates. Concerning your doubts _(that Archaeopteryx, the peppered moths, Darwin’s Finches, and homology are all valid evidence supporting evolution)_, I respectfully submit that if you will refer this information to an actual biologist, or if one of the biologists that regular post here at the SDMB will weigh in (are you out there **Ben**? and others?), I will gladly adhere to whatever “ruling” they make. Are you willing to do the same? ---
**Author:** ![jalopeura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecae2f/32.png) [@jalopeura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jalopeura)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2001, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/24 "2001-07-12T13:45:01Z")
> [@](#): > > hardcore: > **jalopeura** , now that you have provided some actual quotes from textbooks, maybe we can debate real issues instead of imagined errors. Gee, and notice how my quotes make the exact same points I made without them. > [@](#): > > Miller experiment: > > > [@](#): > > > > How about the two college-level textbooks in front of me as I write this? Both claim that the experiment simluated atmospheric conditions on early earth (although one makes a disclaimer that methane is no longer thought to be as prevalent in the atmosphere of early Earth - and yet still assumes the validity of the experiment)…Similarly, the Miller-Urey experiment offers proof that organic compunds can form in a certian type of atmosphere - but to the best of our knowledge, that type of atmosphere did not exist on the early Earth. > > You have a strange standard for “invalid” concerning this issue. Notice that at least one of your two books gets it exactly right – the methane probably isn’t as prevalent, but the experiment still holds, just with lesser yields. Reference my previous post to astorian for other points supporting why the experiment should be in every biology textbook. I agree the other book should make the same disclaimer, but in an area as fluid and undefined as abiogenesis, this hardly seems to be an important criticism. Also note that you have _not_ supported your original point, that this experiment is presented in textbooks as a ‘proof’ of evolution. Where, exactly, in my paragraph did you pull the information from that states the experiment still holds with lesser yields? (And by the way, you’re beating a dead horse here. It’s already been established that I used the wrong word when originally discussing this. It should have abiogenesis, not evolution. Are you going to keep bringing up this point as though it’s relevant to the issue?) And I still hold that using an experiment that does not accurately reflect the conditions of the early Earth is invalid. If there are other experiments that show the same thing with lesser yields, _those experiments should be in the textbooks_. It is entirely misleading to say that the Miller-Urey experiment shows how organic compunds could have formed in the atmosphere of the early Earth. > [@](#): > > tree-of-life: > > > [@](#): > > > > I’m looking at two tree-of-life diagrams right now (although, to be fair, one of them leaves out any references to specific amounts of time, having only an arrow labelled ‘TIME’ at the side). > > Again, provide support for your point – how does this diagram conflict with the actual pattern found in the fossils? Because it’s small at the bottom and branches out at the top, whereas the actual fossil record shows a pattern that is thick at the bottom and thins out at the top. (Yes, I do realize that this is because there were no hard body parts to fossilize before the Cambrian explosion.) It is misleading to present the tree-of-life diagram as representative of the fossil record. > [@](#): > > Homology and circular arguments: > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > And so, in the lineages of the pterosaurs, birds, , and bats, the five-toed limbs…gradually became molded into wings…In the lineages that led to porpoises and to penguins, the five-toed limb gradually evolved into flippers…In still other lineages into the long, one-toed limbs of modern horses, the stubby limbs of moles and other burrowing mammals, and the pillarlike limbs of elephants. It also became modified into the human arm and five-fingered hand. > > > > Step 1: Assume what you want to prove. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > What we have been describing is an example of homology - a similarity in one or more body parts that we can attribute to descent from a common ancestor. > > > > Step 2: Use the assumption to prove the point. > > You should read up on [circular arguments](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus). Providing examples of a concept and defining that concept does NOT make it a circular argument. An example: > > “Homologous structures are the result of evolutionary processes. Hence any creatures sharing a common ancestor will likely have homologous structures. Therefore any 2 creatures having homologous structures likely share a common ancestor. Therefore homologous structures are the result of evolutionary processes.” > > Notice that your quotes do not follow this pattern, nor does my example hold true – there is no logic between sentence 3 and 4. The actual pattern for circular arguments is the one I provided - assume what you want to prove, then use the assumption to prove it. Your pattern contains more steps, but note that it still contains those two. What I quoted does exactly that - states something without proof in the first part, then uses that as an example of what it is purporting to prove. > [@](#): > > Darwin’s Finches: > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > The 14 known species of Galapagos finches are variously specialized for a variety of lifestyles that are elsewhere filled by birds of different species which never had the opportunity to colonize the Galapagos Islands. The likely evolution of such different birds from a common ancestor suggested to Darwin that species originated by natural selection > > > > There you have both finches being used as evidence for speciation and the story that finches inspired Darwin’s theory. Now, beak size is not explcitily mentioned here, but it is one of the factors, if not the major factor, by which these finches are separated into distinct species. Okay, to be more precise, feeding habits and general body size are the major factors in separating the finches into species. But beak size and feeding habits are clearly related, and I assume general body size will have at least some effect on beak size. > > I see nothing wrong with the provided quote, and now you are slowly “evolving” to my position – beak size is not used as evidence of speciation. Not only is beak size not even mentioned, you now realize that many factors play a role in separating the finches into species. And you have left out the most important factor – _mating habits_. Clearly the Galapagos finches have speciated from a common ancestor. Beak sizes vary between the different species, and even within the species. But you have not shown anyone claiming that variable beak sizes are _the_ evidence for speciation. But what you asked me to do was provide an example that beak size was used as evidence of speciation - you did not specify that it had to be _the_ evidence. I did just that. I am not “evolving” into any position - this has been my position from the first. The point is that many textbooks use beak size as evidence of speciation - I believe the usual way is to say that the change in beak size shows that a new species could be formed in as little as 200 years. Neither of my books explicitly states this, as I mentioned. And while Darwin may have emphasized sexual selection over natural selection in his later work, neo-Darwinists tend to reflect his earlier position, that natural selection is the main factor. > [@](#): > > Archaeopteryx: > > > [@](#): > > > > The phrase ‘transitional fossil’ or ‘transitional form’ (as my book has it) are to my mind synonymous with ‘missing link’. Now if you are objecting to the ‘missing’ part of the phrase becuase the fossil has been found, I’d say you’re being overly pedantic. > > My objections have nothing to do with the ‘missing’ part of the phrase. > > Archaeopteryx is correctly labeled as a ‘transitional fossil’ (or ‘form’ if you like) as it has both reptilian and avain characteristics. Just because you think this means ‘missing link’ between dinosaurs and birds, or that it must be a direct ancestor of birds in order to be included in the textbook does not make your objections valid. Due to the imperfections of the fossil record, we may never find exact intermediates between two forms along their direct line of descent. Archaeopteryx is important and does belong in textbooks, because it shows us that intermediate forms are possible and did in fact exist. No, it does not need to be a direct ancestor of birds to be in the texts, but it should not be identified as such. I am not disputing the identification of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form. I am disputing its identification as a transitional form between birds and reptiles. That is what should not be in the books. And to state that Archaeopteryx is such a transitional form and use that to prove evolution is misleading. > [@](#): > > Peppered moths: > > > [@](#): > > > > What am I talking about? Kettlewell’s experiments with peppered moths. You know, the ones that the photo is supposed to be representative of. I didn’t single out evolution. I responded to a question about a book. Why do you have such a knee-jerk reaction to this topic? > > > > The point is that it’s not just the photos that were faked. The whole experiment was just unscientific. The moths were released during the day, even though they are actually active at night. In some of the experiments dead moths were pinned to tree trunks. The experiment did not replicate the actual predation patterns associated with the birds and the moths. > > My “reaction” is a result of the fact that you have yet to make a coherent point on this topic. It is of absolutely no consequence if a moth was pinned to a tree to take a picture, or a given experiment did not replicate reality. The facts as given in textbooks are valid and support the conclusion that evolution occurred. To wit: > > [ul] > [li] The frequency of black moths in the population changed[/li][li] Tests have shown the color to be determined by genes[/li][li] Evolution is defined as the change in gene frequency of a population[/li][li] Therefore, the peppered moths are a fine example of evolution. **QED** [/li][/ul] > > Now most textbooks simplify the situation and claim the change in the population was due to differential predation, leaving out other contributing factors such as migration, the flow of genes between moth populations in different regions, the importance of lichens on trees, and so on. But again, so fucking what?! Physics texts constantly simplify systems in order to teach a concept, astronomy texts do not give a completely accurate picture of our solar system, and these simplifications are addressed as students progress toward PhD’s. > > I have repeatedly linked to a response to Wells from a [biologist involved in the actual experiments](http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/December/13-653-news92.txt). In particular, he says: > > _"In your paper, Ms. Katrina Rider “asserts” the peppered moth story is a hoax. She conveys the impression that dead moths were glued to trees as part of a conspiracy of deception. She seems unaware that moths were glued to trees in an experiment to assess the effect of the density (numbers) of moths on the foraging practices of birds. "_ > > He goes on to lambast Wells for misrepresenting their work, but since you have not yet read it, I doubt you will do so now. In fact, I have already heard of Bruce Grant’s assertions about Dr. Wells, not through this link, but through another review of the book in question. And if you will reread my previous posts, you will see that I mention that Wells does not have a reputation for honesty. I think Grant is probably right and that Wells did this intentionally. But that does not mean his claims about textbooks are untrue, just as false and outdated evidence used in support of evolution does not mean evolution is not true. But you know what? It is nowhere mentioned in the textbooks that_any_ moths were pinned to _any_ trees. And that doesn’t answer the point about releasing them during daylight hours. And representing the staged photographs as natural resting positions for the moths (whether implicitly or explicitly) is misleading. I am not disputing the fact that the change in color was due to changeing allele ratios. I am disputing the claim that such an unscientific experiment is valid evidence for that fact. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Are you contesting my claim that Gould and Eldredge want to reformulate the theory of evolution to better fit the pattern of fossil evidence? Because that was my point. In their opinion, the current formulation of the theory of evolution does not adequately explain the fossil record. > > I challenge you to find ANYTHING from Gould stating the theory of evolution does not adequately explain the fossil record, or as you claim, there are “holes” in the theory. He and others are debating the pacing of evolutionary change, and as I have shown, even Darwin alluded to this fact of differential evolutionary rates. I have already provided a quote, the rather famous “the neo-Darwinian synthesis is effectively dead” thing. So you’re telling me that he thought the current formulation of the theory of evolution was perfectly adequate? If not, then why would he think his work had ‘killed’ it? If you will read his work, you will find that he is saying that the theory needs to be reformulated - not discarded, but reformulated. The whole reason he came up with punctuated equilibrium is because the current formulation of the theory does not adequately explain the fossil record. > [@](#): > > Concerning your doubts _(that Archaeopteryx, the peppered moths, Darwin’s Finches, and homology are all valid evidence supporting evolution)_, I respectfully submit that if you will refer this information to an actual biologist, or if one of the biologists that regular post here at the SDMB will weigh in (are you out there **Ben**? and others?), I will gladly adhere to whatever “ruling” they make. Are you willing to do the same? I don’t recall expressing any such doubts. I recall expressing doubts that these things are not valid evidence _as they are presented in textbooks_ (you kep on missing that point). You see, that was the context of the whole discussion. I would gladly stand by whatever a biologist says, but remember, if the biologist responds to your straw man, you have proved nothing. The real question is, are these things valid evidence _as they stand_? That is, while peppered moths may be valid evidence, is the experiment a valid way to show that? While Archaeopteryx may be a transitional form, is it a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs? I will say it once again: False and outdated evidence is used as though it were true and current. Staged photographs and unscientific experiments are used as evidence. Is this a valid way to ‘prove’ evolution? Is it okay to lie in defense of the truth? Those are the questions I am asking, not whether the finches or the moths in and of themselves are valid evidence, but whether the way they are presented constitutes valid evidence. I don’t know that I can justify wasting any more time in responding to you. You persist in setting up a straw man that misrepresents my position and then tearing it down. You know, astoria is right - if the scientific community doesn’t do something about this issue, creationists are eventually going to succeed - and I don’t think any of us on this list want to see Creation Science taught in the classroom. ---
**Author:** ![jalopeura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecae2f/32.png) [@jalopeura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jalopeura)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2001, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/25 "2001-07-12T15:11:16Z")
> [@](#): > > hardcore: > I challenge you to find ANYTHING from Gould stating the theory of evolution does not adequately explain the fossil record, or as you claim, there are “holes” in the theory. He and others are debating the pacing of evolutionary change, and as I have shown, even Darwin alluded to this fact of differential evolutionary rates. You asked for it, you got it. Go to this page: [http://www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/resources/interview.html](http://www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/resources/interview.html) . Click on the picture of Gould. A pop-up window comes up. Scroll about halfway down and you find this: > [@](#): > > As a paleontologist, I think what’s most lacking is adequate theory to explain the > full range of large-scale events in the three and a half billion years of life’s > history. It’s not clear to me that you can take Darwinian processes operating in > small scale and, just by extrapolating them through hundreds of millions of years, > in every case explain everything about the pattern of life as just ordinary > processes operating on a weekly or monthly or yearly scale extended. Do you think that just because I disagree with you I must be stupid? That I don’t check up on things I read? That I’m just spouting nonsense? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2001, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/26 "2001-07-12T19:23:52Z")
I realize I’m a little late getting to the party here, but I’d like to add my $.02, if I may. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jalopeura \* > **Darwin’s Tree of Life (says an outward branching tree from few life-forms to many does not reflect the actual fossil record; uses Cambrian explosion as support)** I’m not sure what is meant here by “Darwin’s Tree of Life”. I’m also not sure what you mean (mentioned in one of you recent posts) about the trunk (of the tree as reporesented by the fossil record) supposedly being thick, and thining near the top. Speaking from my experience, the fossil record shows exactly what most texts claim it shows: a relatively thin trunk with increased branching near the top. The Cambrian Explosion was a time of experimentation - many of the forms which first surfaced during that period did not survive it. So, while there may well have been a multitude of new forms present, many proved to be dead-ends. Only a (relative) few of these forms proved “successful” and continued on. The Tree has also been pruned back numerous times during Earth’s history as a result of one cataclysm or another. None of the many biology / evolution texts I have mention a ‘Darwin’s Tree of Life’, though. \*\* > [@](#): > > Homology in Vertebrate Limbs (says it’s circular reasoning)\*\* Homology in vertebrate limbs (or anything else, for that matter) is assumed (defined, actually) to be the product of an ancestor-descendant relationship. Without any knowledge of the relationships between two organisms, it cannot be determined whether a given structure is homologous between the two, or merely analogous. I have never encountered the idea that homology _proves_ evolution; homology is a _product of_ evolution. \*\* > [@](#): > > Haeckel’s Embryos (known to be fraudulent for over a century)\*\* I can’t speak to the fraudulent aspect, but I do know that the idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” has been discredited for most of the 20th century. Of course, I have also encountered at least one university professor who still clung to the notion. I haven’t seen it surface in any reputable texts, however. \*\* > [@](#): > > Archaeopteryx (no longer believed to be a missing link)\*\* I also haven’t seen the term “missing link” in a modern textbook. The phrase is misleading, and, ulitmately, incorrect, since it implies a “ladder” rather than a “tree” for evolutionary relationships. Again, no reputable evolutionist, Darwinian or otherwise, accepts the ladder analogy. _Archaeopteryx_, it can be argued, isn’t much of a transitional form, either, since it is currently believed to represent a dead-end (or, at the very least, it is not an avian ancestor, but perhaps shares a common ancestor with birds, though this, too, is debatable). However, it is believed to lie fairly close to the actual split, and as such, can still tell us a lot about what may have been happening on the other branch (the one that _did_ lead to birds). However, again, I am not aware that _Archaeopteryx_ is listed as a missing link (and if it is, it seems to show more a bias of the author as opposed to the current state of evoltutionary theory). \*\* > [@](#): > > Peppered Moths (the experiment was staged - moths were glued to tree trunks instead of resting on the underside of branches)\*\* I am not aware of any experiment in this case. What was being tested? If the point of the moths was to simply show how a population of moths changed with respect to environmental pressures, then I don’t see that it matters whether the moths were resting on the branches or if they were stapled to them. My biggest problem with Wells’ claims that textbooks are using outdated evidence, etc., is that for every book which one can point to where this might be the case, I can probably point to one or two others where it is not. Again, none of “problems” posted by **jalopeura** appear in any of the texts I currently own (both general biology and evolution-specific). I’m not sure if there is some national peer-review process for textbooks, but it seems to me that what winds up in any given text is probably in large part a result of the author’s bias, not so much the current state of the scientific field in question. Many general biology courses gloss over evolution, and the texts used in these courses typically do likewise (of course, some present the theory and the evidence to support it better than others). Many of the high-school and middle-school texts appear to be written by laypersons as well (one tends to find a substantially higher number of texts authored by Ph.D.s the higher in education one goes) - folks who may not have been keeping up with all of the latest research in a given field. So, I guess my primary point here is that, yeah, there are better examples to use as evidence for evolution than what appears in some texts, but then, they often _are_ presented in reputable texts (by which I mean those written by someone with more than a cursory knowledge of the subject matter). That textbooks exist which _do_ use outdated information says more about the author and the school districts which approve their use than it does about any inadequacies of the field itself. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2001, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/27 "2001-07-13T03:32:19Z")
If I might try to shed a little light on the four-winged Drosophila thing… back on LBMB I was debating C/E with ghoti, and he at some point claimed that we don’t know anything whatsoever about how genotype determines anatomy (and therefore evolution must be wrong- although I don’t quite grasp the torturous logic that got him from point A to point B there.) I replied that we must know a thing or two about it if we can manipulate Hox genes in order to deliberately create a four-winged fly (an experiment which recently won the Nobel, BTW.) After a while he stated oh, koff koff, of course I’m aware that you can create four-winged flies by treating them with ether, but mumble mumble they lose the extra wings after a while and therefore evolution is wrong. I tried to get him to explain his argument in more detail, but it was clear that he didn’t understand a word I was saying (after all, I talked about the deliberate engineering of specific genes and he shot back that of course he knows all about that, you just soak the flies in ether…) To be honest, I got the distinct impression that he was parroting arguments from somewhere, Eliza-fashion, without really understanding them. We ended when ghoti kept promising that he’d bring Jonathan Wells to the LBMB to personally mop the floor with my butt (needless to say, Wells never materialized.) Some time later I was arguing C/E with Navigator, and he pointed me to a webpage containing an essay by Wells which he said would refute all my arguments. I read the page and it had nothing to do with my arguments (Navigator then admitted that he hadn’t read it, because he couldn’t understand it anyway,) but it was clearly ghoti’s text from which he had been parroting in the earlier conversation. The long and short of all this is that when I finally read Wells’ arguments in the original, they were pretty incomprehensible too, but the long and short of it seemed to be that if you expose flies to mutagens they can gain or lose features (extra wings or losing eyes,) but subsequent mutations can reverse their effects. He certainly _seems_ to be arguing that this proves evolution wrong because it proves that phenotype doesn’t follow genotype, and that the genome only contains a small percentage of the information needed to create an organism, and science proves that God sculpts every embryo by hand. If I’m not mistaken, here’s Nav’s link: [http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/hobi182.htm](http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/hobi182.htm) -Ben ---
**Author:** ![jalopeura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecae2f/32.png) [@jalopeura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jalopeura)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2001, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/28 "2001-07-13T06:18:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Darwin’s Finch: > I realize I’m a little late getting to the party here, but I’d like to add my $.02, if I may. Welcome! > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jalopeura \* > > **Darwin’s Tree of Life (says an outward branching tree from few life-forms to many does not reflect the actual fossil record; uses Cambrian explosion as support)** > > I’m not sure what is meant here by “Darwin’s Tree of Life”. I’m also not sure what you mean (mentioned in one of you recent posts) about the trunk (of the tree as reporesented by the fossil record) supposedly being thick, and thining near the top. > Speaking from my experience, the fossil record shows exactly what most texts claim it shows: a relatively thin trunk with increased branching near the top. The Cambrian Explosion was a time of experimentation - many of the forms which first surfaced during that period did not survive it. So, while there may well have been a multitude of new forms present, many proved to be dead-ends. Only a (relative) few of these forms proved “successful” and continued on. > The Tree has also been pruned back numerous times during Earth’s history as a result of one cataclysm or another. > None of the many biology / evolution texts I have mention a ‘Darwin’s Tree of Life’, though. Well, there’s nothing in my text actually labelled ‘Darwin’s Tree of Life’ (this is the term Wells uses), but there are tree of life diagrams in every biology textbook (well, every one I’ve seen, anyway). And this is what Gould has to say on the subject (this is from the same place as the earlier quote - [http://www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/resources/interview.html](http://www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/resources/interview.html)): > [@](#): > > The reasons I was emphasizing bushes as opposed to trees is at least > certain trees have, as their anatomy, a very strong central trunk and a bunch of > side branches. That leads to undue and unfortunate support for the rather biased > and prejudicial notion that the history of life has a central directionality > represented by the main trunk of the tree. > > The reason why I think you ought to think in terms of bushes is that if anything’s > characteristic of life, it is its multifariousness, it’s diversity. A bush doesn’t have a > central fundamental pathway, it just has a common root. You do need to have a > common root source, as evolutionary theory does insist on common ancestry for > related living things. But once you have that common root, the bush can go off in > hundreds of directions with no preferred pathway. That’s why I think it’s a better > metaphor or better model for depicting the history of life. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Homology in Vertebrate Limbs (says it’s circular reasoning)\*\* > > Homology in vertebrate limbs (or anything else, for that matter) is assumed (defined, actually) to be the product of an ancestor-descendant relationship. Without any knowledge of the relationships between two organisms, it cannot be determined whether a given structure is homologous between the two, or merely analogous. I have never encountered the idea that homology _proves_ evolution; homology is a _product of_ evolution. Yes, but it’s assumed without proof (in the textbooks in question) that it is a product of evolution, and then its existence is used as a proof that evolution occurs. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Archaeopteryx (no longer believed to be a missing link)\*\* > > I also haven’t seen the term “missing link” in a modern textbook. The phrase is misleading, and, ulitmately, incorrect, since it implies a “ladder” rather than a “tree” for evolutionary relationships. Again, no reputable evolutionist, Darwinian or otherwise, accepts the ladder analogy. > _Archaeopteryx_, it can be argued, isn’t much of a transitional form, either, since it is currently believed to represent a dead-end (or, at the very least, it is not an avian ancestor, but perhaps shares a common ancestor with birds, though this, too, is debatable). However, it is believed to lie fairly close to the actual split, and as such, can still tell us a lot about what may have been happening on the other branch (the one that _did_ lead to birds). > However, again, I am not aware that _Archaeopteryx_ is listed as a missing link (and if it is, it seems to show more a bias of the author as opposed to the current state of evoltutionary theory). Yes, the term ‘missing link’ is not generally used in the texts, but most people mean a transitional form when they say ‘missing link’ (it can also have the much more specific meaning of a transitional form between humans and a common ancestor with other primates). And I just realized by looking at your quote of my earlier post that I don’t specify ‘between birds and dinosaurs’. While it seemed obvious to me when I was writing it what I meant, I didn’t actually write the words. Which means that some of that earlier confusion with hardcore was my fault. Sorry. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Peppered Moths (the experiment was staged - moths were glued to tree trunks instead of resting on the underside of branches)\*\* > > I am not aware of any experiment in this case. What was being tested? If the point of the moths was to simply show how a population of moths changed with respect to environmental pressures, then I don’t see that it matters whether the moths were resting on the branches or if they were stapled to them. It’s a rather famous experiment that showed that predation by birds was the cause for the color change in the moths. But it was conducted unscientifically. I think a better example could be found. (In fact, I mentioned one I consider better in an earlier post.) > [@](#): > > My biggest problem with Wells’ claims that textbooks are using outdated evidence, etc., is that for every book which one can point to where this might be the case, I can probably point to one or two others where it is not. Again, none of “problems” posted by **jalopeura** appear in any of the texts I currently own (both general biology and evolution-specific). Lucky you. Both of mine contain these problems (and they’re designed for university undergraduate courses). > [@](#): > > I’m not sure if there is some national peer-review process for textbooks, but it seems to me that what winds up in any given text is probably in large part a result of the author’s bias, not so much the current state of the scientific field in question. Many general biology courses gloss over evolution, and the texts used in these courses typically do likewise (of course, some present the theory and the evidence to support it better than others). Many of the high-school and middle-school texts appear to be written by laypersons as well (one tends to find a substantially higher number of texts authored by Ph.D.s the higher in education one goes) - folks who may not have been keeping up with all of the latest research in a given field. One of the textbooks I have was actually authored by two Ph.D.s. > [@](#): > > So, I guess my primary point here is that, yeah, there are better examples to use as evidence for evolution than what appears in some texts, but then, they often _are_ presented in reputable texts (by which I mean those written by someone with more than a cursory knowledge of the subject matter). That textbooks exist which _do_ use outdated information says more about the author and the school districts which approve their use than it does about any inadequacies of the field itself. I think it says much more about the scientists (experts in the field, mind you) who wrote them and reviewed them. But you’re correct that it doesn’t really say anything about the inadequacies of the field itself. It’s kind of odd that someone like Gould can claim that evolution doesn’t adequately explain the fossil record and that science education is pretty messed up and people listen, but when someone like Wells makes the same argument, people think he’s a crackpot. Admittedly, Wells does not have a reputation for honesty (as I mentioned in at least two posts), but this strikes me as a kind of ‘ad hominem’ approach to science. Isn’t science supposed to concentrate on the ideas themselves, not the people who bring them up? Perhaps this question should be its own thread. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2001, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/29 "2001-07-13T06:50:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jalopeura \* > \*\*It’s kind of odd that someone like Gould can claim that evolution doesn’t adequately explain the fossil record and that science education is pretty messed up and people listen, but when someone like Wells makes the same argument, people think he’s a crackpot. Admittedly, Wells does not have a reputation for honesty (as I mentioned in at least two posts), but this strikes me as a kind of ‘ad hominem’ approach to science. Isn’t science supposed to concentrate on the ideas themselves, not the people who bring them up? Perhaps this question should be its own thread. \*\* I think the difference lies in the way one goes about questioning science. Gould does so because he realizes that it is an activity performed by humans, and as such human biases creep in, facts get muddled, and mistakes get perpetuated. We just need a good housecleaning every now and again to clear out the old, falsified theories, to test the current ones, and to revamp whatever needs revamping. From what I have seen of Wells’ work (admittedly, I have not seen much of it), he makes these arguments in an attempt to discredit aspects of scientific work; not to falsify it using scientific methods, but rather to further his own agenda regarding intelligent design - something which is inherently _un_scientific. Gould sees problems with using Darwinian theory exclusively to interpret the fossil record because, among other things, the Darwinian view does not encompass catastrophic events (e.g., mass extinctions). The limitations of Darwinian gradualism are part of the reason he and Eldredge posited PuncEq. Wells sees problems with Darwinian theory because it excludes intelligent design. ---
**Author:** ![jalopeura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecae2f/32.png) [@jalopeura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jalopeura)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2001, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/30 "2001-07-13T13:16:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Darwin’s Finch: > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jalopeura \* > > \*\*\…Isn’t science supposed to concentrate on the ideas themselves, not the people who bring them up? Perhaps this question should be its own thread. \*\* > > I think the difference lies in the way one goes about questioning science. Gould does so because he realizes that it is an activity performed by humans, and as such human biases creep in, facts get muddled, and mistakes get perpetuated…\…Wells sees problems with Darwinian theory because it excludes intelligent design. Yes, but shouldn’t the ideas be accepted or discarded based on their own merit, regardless of the agenda of the person behind them? Of course, I realize that it would waste a lot of time if we were required to investigate every single claim that came along - but why, now that the idea has been brought forth by a respected member of the scientifric community, is it worthy of consideration or debate when Gould invokes it, but not when Wells invokes it? The idea that science education is messed up is exactly the same, and the idea that the theory of evolution is inadequate is the same except for what they want to replace it with. Well, this issue isn’t really so important, I guess, as long as the idea is being discussed and debated. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/31 "2001-07-14T01:23:52Z")
**jalopeura** , let’s begin by getting something out of the way right up front. You said: > [@](#): > > Do you think that just because I disagree with you I must be stupid? That I don’t check up on things I read? That I’m just spouting nonsense? You need to calm down and get a grip. I have not even come close to calling you “stupid” or anything remotely resembling it. I am challenging your arguments, not hurling invectives. It is your logic that I find specious and without merit. If I feel the need to start spewing personal insults, rest assured I will do so in the proper forum – The Pit. You have made several wild claims about the state of education with regards to evolution, and I have challenged you to support them with evidence. When you have tried to do so, I have found your logic sorely lacking. Let’s review: Claim #1 > [@](#): > > From what I’ve been able to tell, his points are basically valid - most people in the respective fields know that these things are not valid evidence for evolution. You have not even come close to justifying this statement. Far from it – in fact, you have not shown ONE scientist other than Wells who agrees with you. I, on the other hand, have at least linked to several scientists who disagree with your assessment. So you should start by showing ONE scientist, then proceed from there to your claim of “most”. Good luck. Claim #2 > [@](#): > > Homology in Vertebrate Limbs (says it’s circular reasoning) Here I think you have simply misunderstood what a [_deductive argument_](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) really is. Your quotes were nothing more than examples followed by a definition. You had no inferences, nor was there a conclusion. Were this really a circular argument, then these would be also: "Water is formed by joining hydrogen and oxygen. Carbon and hydrogen combine to create methane, while sulfuric acid results from hydrogen, sulfur and oxygen. What we have been describing are _compounds_ - distinct substances formed by chemical union of two or more ingredients in definite proportion by weight " “Alpha particles consist of 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Beta radition is made up of electrons. Gamma decay is the result of ordinary x-rays emitted when the protons and neutrons rearrange themselves inside the nucleus. What we have been describing is _radioactive decay_ - the act of nuclei spontaneously emitting energetic particles” These examples are no more circular than yours, and this entire argument is just the reformulation of the tired [Natural selection is tautological](http://www2.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html#4.16) refrain. It was not applicable then, and it certainly isn’t here. Claim #3 > [@](#): > > Archaeopteryx (no longer believed to be a missing link) > > _you later go on to say:_ > I am disputing its identification as a transitional form between birds and reptiles. That is what should not be in the books. Of course you were unable to provide anything stating Archaeopteryx was a ‘missing link’. It is most assuredly a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and rightly belongs in biology textbooks, your uninformed objections notwithstanding. From the [Talk Origins website](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html). _“In discussions about the existence of transitional forms in the fossil record, no fossil has caused more feathers to fly than Archaeopteryx, due to its pride of place as a classic example of a transitional form - in evolutionary terms, a form which exhibits characters shared with one group and only that group, whilst also exhibiting other characters shared with another group and only with that group (e.g. Kitcher, P. 1982. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism.), in other words a morphological intermediate.”_ Here you see a good definition of transitional form, one that Archaeopteryx easily fulfills. Note there is no mention of needing to be directly ancestral to all members of the later group to be defined as a transitional form. Also from [Talk Origins](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#conclusions): _“Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible.”_ Guess I’m not the only one who thinks Archaeopteryx is a valid example of evolution and justly belongs in textbooks labeled as a transitional form. Since you are obviously fond of S.J. Gould, I thought I would include [this quote](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html) from him: > [@](#): > > “Archaeopteryx, the first bird, is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever hope to find.”_(Gould, S. J. 1991. Bully for Brontosaurus.)_ Claim #4 > [@](#): > > Peppered Moths (the experiment was staged - moths were glued to tree trunks instead of resting on the underside of branches) > > _(later)_ > It is nowhere mentioned in the textbooks thatany moths were pinned to any trees. And that doesn’t answer the point about releasing them during daylight hours. And representing the staged photographs as natural resting positions for the moths (whether implicitly or explicitly) is misleading. I am not disputing the fact that the change in color was due to changeing allele ratios. I am disputing the claim that such an unscientific experiment is valid evidence for that fact. Your stance keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. Remember your first claim was that ‘most’ scientists knew the Peppered Moth story was bogus evidence for evolution (more on that in a moment). Now you agree that the Peppered Moths evolved, but some bogus experiment, _which is not even mentioned in the textbooks_, means the whole incident should be expunged. This is a prime example of the type of logic that is destroying your entire argument. Furthermore, your charge that it is misleading to show photographs of pinned moths on tree limbs which may not be their primary resting place is ludicrous. No claim is made in the textbook picture, other than it is a photograph of the moth in question. I suppose you also wish to rid textbooks of all other photos portraying animals in locations other than their “natural resting position”, or otherwise manipulated to obtain the photo for a textbook.:rolleyes: I have previously linked to one scientist that firmly believes the Peppered Moth story is a fine example of evolution in action, but just to be thorough, I will include a few more. From [Dr. Massimo Pigliucci](http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Debates/Wells%20guide.htm), University of Tennessee: > [@](#): > > The current evidence still very strongly points toward natural selection in response to pollution, but the story is more complex than the original research done in the 1950s was taken to show. From [Ken Miller](http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Elephant%20stuff/Chapters/Ch%2014/Moths/Moth-Update.html), Brown University: > [@](#): > > In fact, the basic elements of the peppered moth story are quite correct. The population of dark moths rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution, and the percentage of dark moths in the population was clearly highest in regions of the countryside that were most polluted. As Majerus, the principal scientific critic of Kettlewell’s work wrote, “My view of the rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarilty responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors.” (p. 155). > > What we do know is that the rise and fall of dark-colored moths, a phenomenon known as “industrial melanism,” remains a striking and persuasive example of natural selection in action. Huh… even Kettlewell’s primary critic agrees the peppered moth story is correct. Imagine that. So instead of showing that ‘most’ scientists are sure the peppered moth does not represent valid evidence for evolution, you must now counter my data indicating they still agree it is perfectly valid. Or you could just modify your view and realize there is nothing wrong with it as presented in textbooks, but somehow I doubt this will happen. But I’m not even sure what you striving for. What is it you want – the textbooks to mention some bogus experiment so they can turn around and denounce it as bogus? Claim #5 > [@](#): > > Darwin’s Finches (were not really the ipetus behind Darwin’s theory; also, most textbooks fail to mention that beak sizes grow during droughts and shrink again after, which is more indicative of changing ratios of alleles than of speciation) Maybe I am just not following the point you are attempting to make. What is it, exactly? That ‘most’ scientists don’t think Darwin’s Finches represent evolution or speciation? Obviously that’s not true. Textbooks contain erroneous information on this topic? I found nothing wrong with the passage that you posted from your textbook. Is it that textbooks should mention the continuing evolution of Darwin’s Finches in response to environmental changes? Why is this so important? Claim #6 > [@](#): > > The Miller-Urey Experiment (no longer considered an accurate representation of Earth’s pre-biotic atmosphere; similar experiments using current beliefs about the pre-biotic atmosphere have all failed) As I mentioned previously, similar experiments using current beliefs (i.e. weakly reducing) about the pre-biotic atmosphere have been successful, just with lower yields. You even quoted a disclaimer in your book stating the change in current beliefs. I noted other reasons why this experiment should be in our textbooks which you have yet to address, but since you feel I am harping on this topic, I’ll let it go. At least you realized this has nothing to do with evolution. Claim #7 > [@](#): > > Haeckel’s Embryos (known to be fraudulent for over a century) While researching this topic, I came across [this information](http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Elephant%20stuff/Chapters/Ch%2013/Haeckel/Haeckel.htm) from _BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine_. Although Haeckel’s idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was quickly rejected, Miller indicates that their drawings, like most biology texts, were originally based on Haeckel’s, which were fudged to show more similarity than actually exists. When another scientist (British embryologist Michael Richardson) exposed the errors in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_, Miller had their book updated within 4 months. Please note that Wells published his objections in '99, long after this issue had been resolved. I especially liked the comparitive picture on their website, and was amazed at the striking similarity between the pig and human embryos. > [@](#): > > Darwin’s Tree of Life (says an outward branching tree from few life-forms to many does not reflect the actual fossil record; uses Cambrian explosion as support) If I am interpreting your subsequent posts on this correctly, you are simply saying the diagram should be a bush instead of a tree. If so, then I agree with you, but it doesn’t seem like a very salient point. If not, try to resubmit your point I’ll attempt to readdress. Claim #8 > [@](#): > > evolution isn’t as open and shut as textbooks would have you think. There are lots of holes in the theory. … A little more open debate might allow those holes to be plugged. Here I think we are talking past one another, and probably agree on most of the basic facts (I hope). What I am taking issue with is your characterization of it. First, I can provide you with numerous quotes from a vast array of scientists who state that [evolution is a fact](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html), as solid as anything we have in science. So I think it qualifies as “open and shut”. When I asked about the “holes in the theory” and further explanation on the lack of “open debate”, you responded with the same thing for both – examples of the debate over the mechanisms of evolution, namely punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism. You followed this with a quote from Gould intended to show he agrees there are “holes” in the theory of evolution. I will repost your quote, but include the part you left out: > [@](#): > > QUESTION: What’s missing from the Darwinian view of things? Do we now understand evolutionary principles completely? > > GOULD: I think we certainly have developed and validated some very basic, general and, I think one can say, true principles that regulate evolutionary change, of which natural selection is the most important. But we certainly don’t have anything like a complete explanation or a complete catalog of evolutionary mechanisms. > > As a paleontologist, I think what’s most lacking is adequate theory to explain the full range of large-scale events in the three and a half billion years of life’s history. It’s not clear to me that you can take Darwinian processes operating in small scale and, just by extrapolating them through hundreds of millions of years, in every case explain everything about the pattern of life as just ordinary processes operating on a weekly or monthly or yearly scale extended. > > The most obvious example, of course, is mass extinction. Notice that the theory he refers to is of evolutionary mechanisms, not the theory of evolution itself. Now I have previously posted links indicating PE is expansive of gradualism, not exclusive. Also, I’ve shown that others feel the entire debate is unnecessary, as Darwin himself agreed with variable evolutionary rates, he just didn’t classify it as ‘punctuated equilibrium’. As further evidence, I provide these quotes from Gould: From [this site](http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html): > [@](#): > > This quotation, although accurate as a partial citation, is dishonest in leaving out the following explanatory material showing my true purpose–to discuss rates of evolutionary change, not to deny the fact of evolution itself. > > Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate stages. From [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html): > [@](#): > > Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. …Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution. In this [video](http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/gould/excerpts/darwin.html), Gould speaks precisely about the “fact” of evolution vs. the mechanism of evolution. Finally, from [this site](http://a-s.clayton.edu/criticalthinking/gould%20on%20evolution.htm): > [@](#): > > The fact of evolution is well established. We debate as any healthy science does; we debate mechanisms; we have different ideas about how evolution occurs. That’s all within a context of having no doubt that it occurs. I think to suppress debate within a field and rally around the flag of some nonexistent consensus about details of mechanisms would be intellectually dishonest Sounds to me like he sees evolution as “open and shut”, and doesn’t appear to believe there is any suppression of open debate. Given the context of your statements in conjunction with your other points, I may have misconstrued your meaning when you exclaimed there were “holes in the theory of evolution”. If you only meant to imply the mechanisms about how said evolution happens, and ONLY the mechanisms, then I submit we basically agree and need explore this no further. I disagree with how you are framing it, but that is all. If I still have not gathered your meaning properly, you may retry if you are so inclined. In summary, I don’t expect you to immediately abdicate your position and concur with mine. Instead, if I may quote Darwin - “My only hope is that at least it may stagger you in your certainties.” ---
**Author:** ![jalopeura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecae2f/32.png) [@jalopeura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jalopeura)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/32 "2001-07-14T04:09:52Z")
> [@](#): > > hardcore: > **jalopeura** , let’s begin by getting something out of the way right up front. You said: > > > [@](#): > > > > Do you think that just because I disagree with you I must be stupid? That I don’t check up on things I read? That I’m just spouting nonsense? > > You need to calm down and get a grip. I have not even come close to calling you “stupid” or anything remotely resembling it. I am challenging your arguments, not hurling invectives. It is your logic that I find specious and without merit. If I feel the need to start spewing personal insults, rest assured I will do so in the proper forum – The Pit. When you describe my positions as ‘ludicrous’ and ‘ignorant’, I see that as an attack on my intelligence. I think any reasonable person would interpret it the same way. > [@](#): > > You have made several wild claims about the state of education with regards to evolution, and I have challenged you to support them with evidence. When you have tried to do so, I have found your logic sorely lacking. Let’s review: > > Claim #1 > > > [@](#): > > > > From what I’ve been able to tell, his points are basically valid - most people in the respective fields know that these things are not valid evidence for evolution. > > You have not even come close to justifying this statement. Far from it – in fact, you have not shown ONE scientist other than Wells who agrees with you. I, on the other hand, have at least linked to several scientists who disagree with your assessment. So you should start by showing ONE scientist, then proceed from there to your claim of “most”. Good luck. Well, we’ll look at whether I have support for my claims at the bottom of this post. And I think the main reason you find my logic lacking is that you keep trying to apply it to what you think are my claims, rather than to what are actually my claims. I have never claimed that the fact that some of the ‘evidence’ presented in textbooks is invalid means that evolutuion itself is invalid. As a matter of logic, showing that evidence for something is invalid at worst simply puts the question back up in the air - it cannot prove it false. That would require valid evidence in the other direction. I don’t think that applies to this case. The only way that showing these evidences to be invalid could possibly cause someone not to believe in evolution is if his or her entire belief in evolution were based on these evidences. If there are such people, then isn’t that a sign that something needs to be done about these textbooks? You have to realize here that outside of the life sciences, most people only _believe_ in evolution based on what the people in those sciences have told them - they’ve never examined the evidence for themselves or bothered to look at anything more than their high school or college biology text. So if their entire belief is based on invalid evidences, they are probably going to stop believing when those evidences are shown to be invalid. _That_ is why we have to get this crap out of those books. So that people who rely on the books for their information will feel they can trust them, and the people who write them. > [@](#): > > Claim #2 > > > [@](#): > > > > Homology in Vertebrate Limbs (says it’s circular reasoning) > > Here I think you have simply misunderstood what a [_deductive argument_](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) really is. Your quotes were nothing more than examples followed by a definition. You had no inferences, nor was there a conclusion.\ I can’t agree with you on this point. One of the required courses for my major was a class on logical proofs. This one is flawed. It states without proof that A results from B, then implies that the existence of A is proof of B. > [@](#): > > Claim #3 > > > [@](#): > > > > Archaeopteryx (no longer believed to be a missing link) > > > > _you later go on to say:_ > > I am disputing its identification as a transitional form between birds and reptiles. That is what should not be in the books. > > Of course you were unable to provide anything stating Archaeopteryx was a ‘missing link’. It is most assuredly a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and rightly belongs in biology textbooks, your uninformed objections notwithstanding. I sense another straw man. My intent was to show that Arcaeopteryx is no longer considered a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs, yet is presented as such in the textbooks. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I neglected to put the words ‘bird’ and ‘dinosaur’ in my original post, but I believe I have since more than adequately clarified that that was my point. As one of your quotes says, it is now thought to be a side line. As to it’s being a transitional form - it seems to me that any species that ever ‘spawned’ another species (except, of course, the very first form of life) could be considered a transitional form. But that’s a tangent. > [@](#): > > Claim #4 > > > [@](#): > > > > Peppered Moths (the experiment was staged - moths were glued to tree trunks instead of resting on the underside of branches) > > > > _(later)_ > > It is nowhere mentioned in the textbooks thatany moths were pinned to any trees. And that doesn’t answer the point about releasing them during daylight hours. And representing the staged photographs as natural resting positions for the moths (whether implicitly or explicitly) is misleading. I am not disputing the fact that the change in color was due to changeing allele ratios. I am disputing the claim that such an unscientific experiment is valid evidence for that fact. > > Your stance keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. Remember your first claim was that ‘most’ scientists knew the Peppered Moth story was bogus evidence for evolution (more on that in a moment). Now you agree that the Peppered Moths evolved, but some bogus experiment, _which is not even mentioned in the textbooks_, means the whole incident should be expunged. This is a prime example of the type of logic that is destroying your entire argument. What I agreed to is that the Peppered Moth story supports evolution (at least, it does under the definition you gave). But since the alleles for those colors already existed within the species, that’s like saying that humans being are evolving whenever the ratio of brown-haired people to blond-haired people changes. While that may technically be evolution under the definition you gave, it’s not what most people mean when they say the word. (Laypeople, anyway - which are the people these books are directed towards.) And the moth experiment appears in both the textbooks I have - the books even mention Kettlewell by name. (As I have mentioned before, these are undergraduate biology textbooks - it may be that high-school books leave out any mention of the experiment - apparently your daughter’s doesn’t mention it, for example) > [@](#): > > Furthermore, your charge that it is misleading to show photographs of pinned moths on tree limbs which may not be their primary resting place is ludicrous. No claim is made in the textbook picture, other than it is a photograph of the moth in question. I suppose you also wish to rid textbooks of all other photos portraying animals in locations other than their “natural resting position”, or otherwise manipulated to obtain the photo for a textbook.:rolleyes: Actually, yes, unless it is obvious the picture is staged or it is explicitly stated in the caption. It’s part of academic honesty. And you used the word ‘ludicrous’ again. > [@](#): > > \ > > Huh… even Kettlewell’s primary critic agrees the peppered moth story is correct. Imagine that. So instead of showing that ‘most’ scientists are sure the peppered moth does not represent valid evidence for evolution, you must now counter my data indicating they still agree it is perfectly valid. Or you could just modify your view and realize there is nothing wrong with it as presented in textbooks, but somehow I doubt this will happen. But I’m not even sure what you striving for. What is it you want – the textbooks to mention some bogus experiment so they can turn around and denounce it as bogus? Yes, the ‘basic story’ is correct - but I still maintain that the experiment should not be used in textbooks. And by the way, I just read over my posts, just to be sure I didn’t misspeak - and I could find no statement of mine that claimed that the _story_ was bogus, or that the example of the moths did not support evolution. This is another straw man. My whole beef was with the experiment (and as I mentioned above, it appears in both my books). > [@](#): > > Claim #5 > > > [@](#): > > > > Darwin’s Finches (were not really the ipetus behind Darwin’s theory; also, most textbooks fail to mention that beak sizes grow during droughts and shrink again after, which is more indicative of changing ratios of alleles than of speciation) > > Maybe I am just not following the point you are attempting to make. What is it, exactly? That ‘most’ scientists don’t think Darwin’s Finches represent evolution or speciation? Obviously that’s not true. Textbooks contain erroneous information on this topic? I found nothing wrong with the passage that you posted from your textbook. Is it that textbooks should mention the continuing evolution of Darwin’s Finches in response to environmental changes? Why is this so important? I think you’re correct that you’re not following me. The claim in the original post was that the finches are not evidence for speciation and also that the false story is often told that they were the impetus behind Darwin’s theory. Many textbooks claim that the change in beak size showed how new species could develop, without mentioning that beak size shrinks again, which is evidence of Gould and Eldredge’s point that natural selection acts as a stabilizer. The omission of the fact that beaks shrink again after growing misleads students as to the nature of natural selection. > [@](#): > > Claim #6 > > > [@](#): > > > > The Miller-Urey Experiment (no longer considered an accurate representation of Earth’s pre-biotic atmosphere; similar experiments using current beliefs about the pre-biotic atmosphere have all failed) > > As I mentioned previously, similar experiments using current beliefs (i.e. weakly reducing) about the pre-biotic atmosphere have been successful, just with lower yields. You even quoted a disclaimer in your book stating the change in current beliefs. I noted other reasons why this experiment should be in our textbooks which you have yet to address, but since you feel I am harping on this topic, I’ll let it go. At least you realized this has nothing to do with evolution. I wouldn’t say it has _nothing_ to do with evolution - the Ph.D.'s that wrote one of my textbooks certainly seem to think they belong in the same chapter. The successful experiments that used current ideas about Earth’s early atmosphere are the ones that should be in the books; not this experiment. (And I notice you’re still beating that same dead horse.) > [@](#): > > Claim #7 > > > [@](#): > > > > Haeckel’s Embryos (known to be fraudulent for over a century) > > While researching this topic, I came across [this information](http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Elephant%20stuff/Chapters/Ch%2013/Haeckel/Haeckel.htm) from _BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine_. Although Haeckel’s idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was quickly rejected, Miller indicates that their drawings, like most biology texts, were originally based on Haeckel’s, which were fudged to show more similarity than actually exists. > > When another scientist (British embryologist Michael Richardson) exposed the errors in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_, Miller had their book updated within 4 months. Please note that Wells published his objections in '99, long after this issue had been resolved. > > I especially liked the comparitive picture on their website, and was amazed at the striking similarity between the pig and human embryos. My textbooks still contain drawings and references to it. One textbook was fixed among how many? (This is still good news, though - it means that at least some people actually care what they put in their books. And the idea that the morphology of the developing embryo reflects evolution was disproven long ago - those embryos go through phases where they look different before those phases where they look similar - and yet that never shows up in the texts, leaving students with the false impression that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. And another thing: why drawings, in this day and age? Why not photographs? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Darwin’s Tree of Life (says an outward branching tree from few life-forms to many does not reflect the actual fossil record; uses Cambrian explosion as support) > > If I am interpreting your subsequent posts on this correctly, you are simply saying the diagram should be a bush instead of a tree. If so, then I agree with you, but it doesn’t seem like a very salient point. If not, try to resubmit your point I’ll attempt to readdress. Yes, that was my point from the beginning - a tree simply is not representative of the actual picture we get from the fossils. > [@](#): > > Claim #8 > > > [@](#): > > > > evolution isn’t as open and shut as textbooks would have you think. There are lots of holes in the theory. … A little more open debate might allow those holes to be plugged. > > Here I think we are talking past one another, and probably agree on most of the basic facts (I hope). What I am taking issue with is your characterization of it. First, I can provide you with numerous quotes from a vast array of scientists who state that [evolution is a fact](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html), as solid as anything we have in science. So I think it qualifies as “open and shut”. This is the paragraph that made me decide it wouldn’t be a waste of my time to respond. In the sense that the fossil record tells us there was definitely something going on, it’s a fact. That is, there definitely was a succession of species living on the earth, some going extinct, new ones arising, etc. So in that sense I agree with you that evolution is a fact. > [@](#): > > When I asked about the “holes in the theory” and further explanation on the lack of “open debate”, you responded with the same thing for both – examples of the debate over the mechanisms of evolution, namely punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism. You followed this with a quote from Gould intended to show he agrees there are “holes” in the theory of evolution. I will repost your quote, but include the part you left out: > > > [@](#): > > > > QUESTION: What’s missing from the Darwinian view of things? Do we now understand evolutionary principles completely? > > > > GOULD: I think we certainly have developed and validated some very basic, general and, I think one can say, true principles that regulate evolutionary change, of which natural selection is the most important. But we certainly don’t have anything like a complete explanation or a complete catalog of evolutionary mechanisms. > > > > As a paleontologist, I think what’s most lacking is adequate theory to explain the full range of large-scale events in the three and a half billion years of life’s history. It’s not clear to me that you can take Darwinian processes operating in small scale and, just by extrapolating them through hundreds of millions of years, in every case explain everything about the pattern of life as just ordinary processes operating on a weekly or monthly or yearly scale extended. > > > > The most obvious example, of course, is mass extinction. > > Notice that the theory he refers to is of evolutionary mechanisms, not the theory of evolution itself. Now I have previously posted links indicating PE is expansive of gradualism, not exclusive. Also, I’ve shown that others feel the entire debate is unnecessary, as Darwin himself agreed with variable evolutionary rates, he just didn’t classify it as ‘punctuated equilibrium’. I didn’t think that evolution itself was at issue in the quote, nor was I presenting it that way. I thought the phrase ‘Darwinin processes’ made it clear that it was the mechanisms that were in question. I think you’re failing to make the disinction between evolution the fact (as discussed above) and evolution the theory (the purported mechanism behind the fact). Remember, although Darwin’s has proved to be the best theory so far, evolution the fact existed before his theory, and there were competing theories trying to explain that fact. So, I still hold that there are things that the _theory_ of evolution cannot explain about the _fact_ of evolution. That is, there are things that the ‘Darwinian processes’ postulated by the theory of evolution as it currently stands cannot explain about the fossil record. > [@](#): > > From [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html): > > > [@](#): > > > > Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. …Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution. This is what I’m talking about - although I disagree with the notion that Darwin ‘established’ evolution the fact - people had known about fossils and extinction for a long time. And as for observable changes in genes, which should also be clasifed as facts, Darwin knew nothing at all of Mendelian genetics. > [@](#): > > Sounds to me like he sees evolution as “open and shut”, and doesn’t appear to believe there is any suppression of open debate. > > Given the context of your statements in conjunction with your other points, I may have misconstrued your meaning when you exclaimed there were “holes in the theory of evolution”. If you only meant to imply the mechanisms about how said evolution happens, and ONLY the mechanisms, then I submit we basically agree and need explore this no further. I disagree with how you are framing it, but that is all. If I still have not gathered your meaning properly, you may retry if you are so inclined. I thought it was quite clear that was what I was doing. I’m sorry if you didn’t catch it. I’ve said several times. I don’t know anyone but YECs who doubt what the fossil record tells us about evolution, and I don’t think I know anyone at all who doubts that natural selection actually changes the allele ratios in a species. I do know people who doubt that the thoery _as it stands_ is sufficient to explain the fossil record. And the champions of that opinion are Gould and Eldredge (which is why I am fond of quoting him, as you noted). > [@](#): > > In summary, I don’t expect you to immediately abdicate your position and concur with mine. Instead, if I may quote Darwin - “My only hope is that at least it may stagger you in your certainties.” Now let’s look at tyour response to what you termed Claim 1 in terms of other the other claims. As far as I can see,the posts you gave support my claims (although they don’t support what you seem to think are my claims in some cases). Claim 2: Well, we have a disagreement here about what constitutes a circular argument. However, we both agree that that does not invalidate homology itself as a support of evolution. I don’t think this requires a quote from a scientist. Claim 3: Well, you have sucessfully defended your postion that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. However, my actual claim (not, I admit, worded clearly in my first post, but clarified later) was that it should not be called a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs, since it is believed to be a side branch. Your own sources show that it is now considered a side branch, so I think that effectively supports my point. Claim 4: I still hold that the experiment was shoddy and unscientific. A quote from Ken Miller from the page you presented: > [@](#): > > Well, the best way to put it is that what we are seeing is the scientific process at its best. Majerus and other ecologists have carefully examined the details of > Kettlewell’s work and _found them to be lacking_. As Majerus explains, to be absolutely certain of exactly how natural selection produced the rise and fall of the > carbonaria form, _we need better experiments_ to show that birds (in a natural environment) really do respond to camoflage in the ways we have presumed, that the > primary reason the dark moths did better in polluted areas was because of camoflage (and not other factors like behavior), and that migration rates of moths from the > surrounding countryside are not so great that they overwhelm the influence of selection in local regions by birds. Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story > will be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete. This confirms that while the example itself is valid, this experiment isn’t. (I italicized what I consider important in the paragraph.) I still maintain that such an experiment has no place in the textbooks (and I’m glad that some textbooks leave it out). Claim 5: The responses you posted indicate that you agree with me on this: the finches are not evidence of speciation (nor even, in my opinion, potential speciation) and should not be presented as such. Claim 6: The page you posted showed that this is seen as a problem and that responsible authors do what needs to be done to set things straight. So my point is confirmed. Claim 7: You agreed that the diagram should be a bush, not a tree. Claim 8: Aside from a little confusion in terms )(evolution the fact vs. evolution the theory), we seem to agree on this. And I still claim that resistance severe enough to make Gould and Eldredge go to a public forum to air their views represents a suppression of open debate. Here you might have a legitimate claim as to my not providing sources. But there’s quote from Richard Dawkins that I could give you if I hadn’t lent my book to a friend. So it seems that aside from a disagreement in claim two, we actually agree, and that the sources you posted are more than adequate to verify my claims that these things do not belong in the textbooks. Those sources also go the extra mile and show that that does not automatically invalidate evolution (which I never claimed, anyway). So while I may not have shown one scientist who supports my claims, you have shown several who do. If you see the theory as it is currently formulated as sufficient to explain the fossil record, good for you. I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/33 "2001-07-14T09:10:50Z")
Okay, I refuse to engage in this one - It’s just a spinnin’ and I don’t want to get a headache 😃 . But just to answer an utterly tangential, extremely minor, and probably intended as rhetorical, question… **jalopeura** : > [@](#): > > And another thing: why drawings, in this day and age? Why not photographs? Because photographs are much harder to do 🙂 . Really. You obviously aren’t a researcher ( or hang out with any ) at a working museum 😉 . I personally know several people that are employed as biological illustrators. Neat work, though it pays poorly. The reason for the illustrators is that the can do incredibly detailed drawings that show everything the scientists want them to. Posing a specimen and taking a photograph is actually quite a bit more difficult, because there is generally no “perfect” specimen. You would have to use a dozen photos to get all the relevant detail you can get from one “idealized” line drawing. And even in this day and age, getting the perfect resolution on some nitpicky little detail, is quite difficult with a photo. Drawing them is actually quicker and more efficient. Especially when we start talking about teensy internal structures and the like. - Tamerlane p.s. - > [@](#): > > If you see the theory as it is currently formulated as sufficient to explain the fossil record, good for you. I don’t. I do 🙂 . Sorry I’m too lazy to take you up on the challenge - But you and **hardcore** seem to be talking past each other a lot and I’m aggravated enough right now. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/34 "2001-07-14T09:24:48Z")
**jalopeura** : Oh, and just to add to my answer to your tangential, probably non-question: Most of the superior field guides sold in stores ( birds, flowers, etc. ) use line drawings for the same reasons I mentioned above. It’s the field gides that use photos ( the Audobon series, for example ) that tend to be inferior and more misleading, because the line drawings generally show the “most common”, “idealized” version of a given organism, while the photos show a single individual that are often less representative of the population as a whole. And they photos are more often lacking in useful detail. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![jalopeura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecae2f/32.png) [@jalopeura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jalopeura)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/35 "2001-07-14T13:45:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Tamerlane: > **jalopeura** : Oh, and just to add to my answer to your tangential, probably non-question: > > Most of the superior field guides sold in stores ( birds, flowers, etc. ) use line drawings for the same reasons I mentioned above. It’s the field gides that use photos ( the Audobon series, for example ) that tend to be inferior and more misleading, because the line drawings generally show the “most common”, “idealized” version of a given organism, while the photos show a single individual that are often less representative of the population as a whole. And they photos are more often lacking in useful detail. Okay, that makes sense. And it’s true that I’m not a researcher at a working museum, nor do I even know any. (The closest thing we have is the university ‘Life Sciences’ museum, which is mostly staffed by students and contains many stuffed specimens). I’m a mathematician and a programmer. My specialty is logic flow, which is why these things don’t constitute valid proof in my mind. For me, the evidence has to be solid, as in a rigorous mathematical proof. Fudging things doesn’t work for me. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/36 "2001-07-14T19:24:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jalopeura \* > My intent was to show that Arcaeopteryx is no longer considered a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs, yet is presented as such in the textbooks. I think you are misunderstanding the word “transitional”. A transitional form is a form that exhibits characteristics of two other forms. Since Archaeopteryx displays morphology that is characteristic of dinosaurs (and not found in today’s birds), and displays morphology that is characteristic of birds (and not found in today’s descendants of dinosaurs), Archie is a transitional form and it is correct to present it as such. Many people use “missing link” or “transitional” (the latter incorrectly) to mean a form that lies in the direct line of descent from one form to another. We’re pretty sure Archie is not a direct ancestor of any modern birds, and is therefore not a “missing link” in that sense. However, it is a transitional whether or not it represents a “side branch”. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/37 "2001-07-14T19:35:41Z")
**jalo:** _My specialty is logic flow, which is why these things don’t constitute valid proof in my mind. For me, the evidence has to be solid, as in a rigorous mathematical proof._ !!! Sheesh, then no wonder you’re not very happy here. Good luck trying to find **anything** that is truly comparable to “rigorous mathematical proof” in **any** of the taxonomic sciences! I think you’re trying to apply the methodology of one field to a different field where it’s just not applicable. ---
**Author:** ![jalopeura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecae2f/32.png) [@jalopeura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jalopeura)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2001, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/38 "2001-07-15T15:49:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Kimstu: > **jalo:** _My specialty is logic flow, which is why these things don’t constitute valid proof in my mind. For me, the evidence has to be solid, as in a rigorous mathematical proof._ > > !!! Sheesh, then no wonder you’re not very happy here. Good luck trying to find **anything** that is truly comparable to “rigorous mathematical proof” in **any** of the taxonomic sciences! I think you’re trying to apply the methodology of one field to a different field where it’s just not applicable. Well, I think you’re probably right. The taxonomic sciences seem to be mainly historical/interpretive, like archeology or anthropology, as opposed to hard sciences like physics or chemistry or genetics. But you can find logic flow along the lines of a rigorous mathematical proof: [ol] [li] Science cannot appeal to supernatural causes.[/li][li] The fossil record tells us that there has been a succession of species on the Earth.[/li][li] The only non-supernatural way to account for that is genetic change.[/li][li] We only know of one non-supernatural process that causes genetic change.\*[/li][li] Therefore we have to conclude that that process caused the succession of species.[/li][/ol] Now, if you changed the rules of science to allow supernatural causes, or if we discovered something else that could cause genetic change, this ‘proof’ would fail. However, I highly doubt that either of those will ever happen. - I’m referring here to mutation followed by selection, whether that be natural selection, artifical selection, sexual selection, or whatever. Although mutation itself is the actual _cause_ of the geentic change, such change wouldn’t persist without some kind of selection. ---
**Author:** ![jalopeura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecae2f/32.png) [@jalopeura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jalopeura)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2001, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/39 "2001-07-15T17:28:15Z")
> [@](#): > > JonF: > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jalopeura \* > > My intent was to show that Arcaeopteryx is no longer considered a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs, yet is presented as such in the textbooks. > > I think you are misunderstanding the word “transitional”. A transitional form is a form that exhibits characteristics of two other forms. Since Archaeopteryx displays morphology that is characteristic of dinosaurs (and not found in today’s birds), and displays morphology that is characteristic of birds (and not found in today’s descendants of dinosaurs), Archie is a transitional form and it is correct to present it as such. Many people use “missing link” or “transitional” (the latter incorrectly) to mean a form that lies in the direct line of descent from one form to another. We’re pretty sure Archie is not a direct ancestor of any modern birds, and is therefore not a “missing link” in that sense. However, it is a transitional whether or not it represents a “side branch”. > [@](#): > > From [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#conclusions](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#conclusions) > By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on > the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of > the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible. As I said before, Archaeopteryx is considered a transitional form, but not one between birds and dinosaurs, which is the point here. I don’t know of anyone who would simultaneously claim that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line and yet is a transition between birds and dinosaurs. It is nearly universally recognized as a sideline. It is an ‘echo’ of the actual event, and should not be presented as the actual event. In addition, since laypeople would not define ‘transitional form’ as you have it above, then it should be so defined in any text directed at laypeople. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2001, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873/40 "2001-07-18T04:01:27Z")
This thread looks like it has lost some steam since I was last here, but I feel compelled to respond anyway. **jalopeura** said: > [@](#): > > When you describe my positions as ‘ludicrous’ and ‘ignorant’, I see that as an attack on my intelligence. I think any reasonable person would interpret it the same way Not necessarily. Everyone, myself included, will likely hold ‘ignorant’ positions simply due to a lack of knowledge on a topic, and describing a stance as ‘ludicrous’ is a personal opinion that you are free to regard as just as outlandish. However, I suggest you develop a thicker skin if you plan to continue posting in GD. Debates may become fairly heated here, but the moderators are experts at preventing any personal insults. Homology > [@](#): > > I can’t agree with you on this point. One of the required courses for my major was a class on logical proofs. This one is flawed. It states without proof that A results from B, then implies that the existence of A is proof of B. Your stated passages followed the examples of homology with this – _“homology - a similarity in one or more body parts that we can attribute to descent from a common ancestor.”_ Nowhere does this state that A (homology) “proves” B (descent from common ancestor). Homology is simply evidence supporting evolution. This is not designed as a standalone “proof”, despite your attempts to construct it as such. In doing so, you are completely disregarding all the additional evidence presented in your textbook that supports descent from a common ancestor, and which eliminates any charges of circularity. If there were no other evidence in favor of evolution, and someone constructed an argument stating “if A, therefore B”, then it would indeed be circular. Fortunately, this is not the case, as there is plenty of [additional evidence](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) that supports evolution. I’m certain that many of these other facts are given in your textbook, so any attempt to build a standalone “proof” is entirely of your own doing. Please heed **Kimstu** ’s words concerning “rigorous mathematical proof” on this issue. They are extremely appropriate here. Archeopteryx: > [@](#): > > I sense another straw man. My intent was to show that Arcaeopteryx is no longer considered a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs, yet is presented as such in the textbooks. > > _(later)_ > As I said before, Archaeopteryx is considered a transitional form, but not one between birds and dinosaurs, which is the point here. I don’t know of anyone who would simultaneously claim that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line and yet is a transition between birds and dinosaurs. > > _(later still)_ > However, my actual claim (not, I admit, worded clearly in my first post, but clarified later) was that it should not be called a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs, since it is believed to be a side branch. Your own sources show that it is now considered a side branch, so I think that effectively supports my point. I am not sure if I should continue here, as my skull is starting to bruise from the repeated impacts, and now you seem to think I am proving your point. I have presented several sources explaining that Archeopteryx _IS_ considered a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs, and _SHOULD_ be presented as such in textbooks. These same sources claim that Archeopteryx is not on the direct line, yet _DOES_ represent the transition between birds and dinosaurs, so I can only conclude willful ignorance on your part. How this supposedly supports your position is anybody’s guess. You have yet to show that any textbook portrays Archeopteryx incorrectly, or that any scientists disagree with the way it is presented. Peppered Moths: > [@](#): > > What I agreed to is that the Peppered Moth story supports evolution (at least, it does under the definition you gave). But since the alleles for those colors already existed within the species, that’s like saying that humans being are evolving whenever the ratio of brown-haired people to blond-haired people changes. While that may technically be evolution under the definition you gave, it’s not what most people mean when they say the word. (Laypeople, anyway - which are the people these books are directed towards.) > > And the moth experiment appears in both the textbooks I have - the books even mention Kettlewell by name. The ‘definition I gave’ is exactly the same as the one in the textbooks you referenced, and conforms to the prevailing definition used by biologists. So the textbooks are performing precisely as intended – they educate laypeople about the proper definition of biological concepts. If your entire point now is that any mention of Kettlewell’s experiment should be removed or accompanied by a disclaimer, then I concur. Note this is a far cry from your original claim of “All scientists know that these things are not valid evidence for evolution”. You haven’t even demonstrated that the latest editions of textbooks don’t do just what you wish. As an aside, [humans are evolving](http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/biology/biology20.html), no matter what you think people mean when they say it. > [@](#): > > And by the way, I just read over my posts, just to be sure I didn’t misspeak - and I could find no statement of mine that claimed that the story was bogus, or that the example of the moths did not support evolution. This is another straw man. Let me see if I can clear this up for you. First, you listed the “Icons of Evolution” as identified by Wells (i.e. Archeopteryx, Peppered Moths, Darwin’s Finches, etc.). Then you explicitly state _“From what I’ve been able to tell, his points are basically valid - most people in the respective fields know that these things are not valid evidence for evolution”_, disregarding that the tree-of-life diagram or the Miller-Urey experiment could never be considered evidence for evolution in the first place. You follow this with _“This is more change than was observed in the moths, and even better, it happened in nature, without human intervention.”_, implying somehow that the moth example wasn’t adequate. Finally, you claim that _“evolution isn’t as open and shut as textbooks would have you think. There are lots of holes in the theory.”_ Given all this, perhaps I misinterpreted your original intent and you only wished for the removal of any references to Kettlewell’s experiment or further explanations of its shortcomings. But it is a dishonorable tactic to continually claim that I have constucted “straw men” when you freely admit you haven’t always been clear on your meaning. Darwin’s Finches: > [@](#): > > The claim in the original post was that the finches are not evidence for speciation and also that the false story is often told that they were the impetus behind Darwin’s theory. Many textbooks claim that the change in beak size showed how new species could develop, without mentioning that beak size shrinks again, which is evidence of Gould and Eldredge’s point that natural selection acts as a stabilizer. The omission of the fact that beaks shrink again after growing misleads students as to the nature of natural selection. > > _(later)_ > The responses you posted indicate that you agree with me on this: the finches are not evidence of speciation (nor even, in my opinion, potential speciation) and should not be presented as such. By no means do I agree with you, nor do any scientists from what I gather. Excluding Wells, of course. The Galapagos finches are a prime example of speciation from a common ancestor, just as your textbook stated. Also, from [this site](http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Debates/Wells%20guide.htm): – _“Even though it is true that some of the species of finches hybridize, modern genetics has demonstrated the existence of several distinct ones, all derived from a single ancestral stock. This is exactly what the theory of evolution would predict.”_ You have yet to produce one quote from a textbook that conflicts with reality on this topic. As far as I can tell, your entire objection reduces to the claim that neglecting to mention that the finches continue to evolve somehow misleads students about evolution. Miller-Urey experiment: > [@](#): > > The successful experiments that used current ideas about Earth’s early atmosphere are the ones that should be in the books; not this experiment. (And I notice you’re still beating that same dead horse.) If I continue to respond to this issue, it is only because you keep bringing it up. The “successful” experiment is the same one that is mentioned, done by the same person (Miller), with a slightly different gas composition. So it seems to me the reasonable approach is to mention the original experiment with further explanation about the current consensus. Oh wait… that’s what your textbook does. Haeckel’s embryos > [@](#): > > My textbooks still contain drawings and references to it. One textbook was fixed among how many? …And the idea that the morphology of the developing embryo reflects evolution was disproven long ago - those embryos go through phases where they look different before those phases where they look similar - and yet that never shows up in the texts, leaving students with the false impression that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Let’s turn that question around to its proper perspective. Do you have any data suggesting the current editions of popular textbooks are incorrect? I at least showed one that had been fixed. What does the current edition of your textbooks show? The idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was rightly discarded long ago. But the idea that the morphology of the developing embryo reflects evolution was _NOT_ disproven, and in fact is very much in effect as demonstrated [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#pred8) with _“The macroevolutionary conclusion is that the development of an organism is a modification of its ancestors’ ontogenies (Futuyma 1998, pp. 652-653). …Thus, embryology can provide confirmations and predictions about evolution.”_ I don’t have access to the textbooks you referenced, but I did find some [online material](http://www.brookscole.com/biology/member/student/concepts/chapter/) about the 4th edition of the _Biology:Concepts and Applications_ textbook you mentioned. I found nothing about Haeckel’s embryos, but I did notice that it correctly stated this in the [Chapter 18 Lecture Outline](http://www.brookscole.com/biology/member/student/concepts/chapter/outlines/ch18.html) – _“Different organisms may show similarities in morphology during their embryonic stages that often indicate evolutionary relationships. Embryological similarities are one of the reasons why fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are said to belong to the same phylum.”_ So it appears the only student getting a false impression is you. tree-of-life: > [@](#): > > Yes, that was my point from the beginning - a tree simply is not representative of the actual picture we get from the fossils. Criticising simplified diagrams designed to illustrate common descent because they don’t completely match reality hardly seems like an important point. Do you feel the same way about drawings of the solar system that are not done to scale? theory of evolution > [@](#): > > I didn’t think that evolution itself was at issue in the quote, nor was I presenting it that way. …That is, there are things that the ‘Darwinian processes’ postulated by the theory of evolution as it currently stands cannot explain about the fossil record…I do know people who doubt that the thoery as it stands is sufficient to explain the fossil record. And the champions of that opinion are Gould and Eldredge (which is why I am fond of quoting him, as you noted). I hope I have demonstrated above what led me to interpret your statements as I did. However, let me reiterate that I feel it is a mischaracterization to state that evolution isn’t “open and shut”, or the theory is “full of holes” because of ongoing debate about the mechanisms. By that logic, the theory of gravity isn’t “open and shut” and “full of holes”. > [@](#): > > So it seems that aside from a disagreement in claim two, we actually agree, and that the sources you posted are more than adequate to verify my claims that these things do not belong in the textbooks. … So while I may not have shown one scientist who supports my claims, you have shown several who do. Let’s summarize: [ul] [li]_Miller-Urey experiment:_ We still disagree about its inclusion. I have shown at least one scientist supporting my view.[/li][li]_Homology:_ Disagree about its circularity. I have shown at least one scientist supporting my view.[/li][li]_Archaeopteryx :_ Strongly disagree about its labeling as a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs. I have established support for my position.[/li][li]_Peppered Moths:_ Both agree it is a valid example of evolution, but mention of Kettlewell’s experiment should either be removed or have its shortcomings explained.[/li][li]_Darwin’s Finches:_ Strongly disagree they are evidence of speciation. I have shown support for my view.[/li][li]_Haeckel’s embryos:_ Agree these drawings should not be included, but strongly disagree about the current status of embryology with respect to evolution. I have shown support for my view.[/li][li]_Tree-of-life:_ Agree this could be shown as a bush, but I don’t feel it is important.[/li][li]_Theory of evolution:_ Agree on basic facts, disagree with your description as “full of holes” and not “open and shut”.[/ul][/li] As I see it, the only things we agree should not be in the textbooks are any mention of Kettlewell’s experiment without further clarification, and Haeckel’s embryo drawings. Other than those two, I see plenty of areas for continued debate, so perhaps more discussion will lead to some common ground on these issues. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-read-icons-of-evolution/71873.md?page=1)