It’s a familiar story. A striking, though minor, scientific finding, is used to illustrate a well-established scientific theory, and becomes the target of those opposed to the theory, and to science in general, for political or religious reasons. Minor errors in and procedural criticisms of the work supporting the finding are conflated into accusations of fraudulent conspiracy that are then used to attack the theory as a whole. Distorted versions of the whole story circulate around the parallel universe of antiscientific thinktanks, blogs and commentators, rapidly being taken as established fact.
This time, the story looks set to have a happy ending. The case of industrial melanism in the peppered moth was long used as a textbook example of evolution (I remember it from high school). Before the Industrial Revolution, the peppered moth was mostly found in a light gray form with little black speckled spots. The light-bodied moths were able to blend in with the light-colored lichens and tree bark, and the less common black moth was more likely to be eaten by birds. As industrial pollution increased, blackening trees, black forms became more prevalent. With more recent declines in pollution, the process is set to be reversed.
But in the late 90s, it turned out that some of the experimental work used to establish the bird predation hypothesis had been unacceptably sloppy, at least by modern standards. Under ferocious attack from creationists, some textbooks stopped mentioning the peppered moth. Claims of fraud proliferated, and the creationists celebrated a famous victory.
Now for the happy ending (which I found via New Scientist (unfortunately paywalled).
Over the last seven years, Michael Majerus has painstakingly rerun the experiments on bird predation of peppered moths, producing results which he describes as a complete vindication of the peppered moth story, and saying “If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution.”
Of course, this won’t stop the creationists or their tame journalists and politicians. But as the New Scientist says, this kind of episode shows science at its best, and its enemies at their worst.
Update While I’m at it, a nice piece on skepticism and scientific consensus.
John Quiggin 
From memory I believe the original peppered moth experiment actually glued moths to trees.
That said the concept of allele ratios changing due to the environment. I understand that allele ratios in fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) heat shock proteins are being used to measure environmental change.
So I think that whatever the outcome of the peppered moth saga the idea of natural selection is fairly well backed up.
The peppered moth proves natural selection and adaptation but obviously it does not prove speciation which is what most creationists seem to object to and what most of them seem to mean when they talk of evolution being bunk. For proof of speciation we need to turn to a bigger body of work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Speciation
The biggest problem for creationists however is not in their failure to refute such experiments but rather in their failure to produce verifiable evidence of their own alternate theory. If they were merely agnostic about the origin of species then I think they would not be so far behind the eight ball and might occasionally make a positive contribution.
Anthony, your memory is unsurprising, since this bogus claim was made by creationists. Although moths were pinned to trees for photos and for some procedural tests, the main experiments did not do this. The details are in the Wikipedia article.
This kind of thing is typical of the antiscientific method.
I sorta get the evolution bit about the moths in the middle, but you’ll need to run the beginning and end bits by me again. You know the beginning bit about the big bang and how all the water appeared for the amoebas to crawl out of and evolve into moths and then the end bit about how different critters evolve, but none are more evolved than others.
I’m no creationist, but I have to aver. The rise and fall of the peppered moth proves natural selection, but it does not prove much about the origin of man.
I actually think that when the intelligent design people came up with the theory of irreducible complexity (originally with the eye and more recently with other examples) they actually helped to strengthen the evolution argument. The response to the theory of irreducible complexity and the various examples that have been countered in the process has been very compelling and enlightening. Both in terms of how complex nature is and how simple mechanism can lead systematically to complex outcomes. Not to mention how clever people are at deconstructing processes and finding common patterns.
In so far as the theory of evolution is about a dynamic process that involves decentralised creation (ie no prime mover) I think it has much to offer by way of analogy on how we can best organise our societies. If nature can produce such wonders without a central planning commitee then I can more readily retain my faith in the idea of a free society.
Not to mention my faith in wikipedia.
terje, i believe in hyenas and lions too, but social organization is why we’re here in front of the screen, and they’re getting rained on in ‘natural’ zoos.
Purposive action had nothing to do with changes in the sizes of various types of pepper moth. (Human intervention in the form of pollution was accidental).
Purposive action had nothing to do with the evolution of homo sapiens from earlier hominid species.
That’s why this process is called “natural selection”.
But now purposive action by humans can influence the course of evolution for every species on the planet, including humans.
We are now in a position where unnatural selection may stand alongside natural selection in the story of evolution.
Perhaps its time for some committees to step in to decide whether that’s a good idea.
Interestingly, this is an issue that unites sections of the Left with sections of the Right.
Al – I am all for social organisation. I just don’t think it requires or benefits much from imposed central planning. And in fact I think much social organisation is in spite of imposed central planning rather than because of it. Wikipedia is a good example of a decentralised creative approach although clearly it required some innovative centralised enablers (ie good software logic). The political system of a free society should be like that software logic. It should exist primarily in order to allow people to get on with creation in a decentralised way. It should provide the necessary means by which people can collaborate, resolve differences discuss ideas and ultimately go their own way if they desire. Jimbo Wales who helped create wikipedia seems to share something of this worldview:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales#Personal_philosophy
But we digress.
Katz, your faith in committees is touching.
In my view “unnatural” selection as you put it is the most exciting thing to happen on planet Earth and possibly in the entire history of the universe (no evidence yet of extra-terrestrial intelligence).
What could be more intriguing than a physical system that evolves sufficient complexity such that it can change the rules of its own evolution? We’re like a physical embodiment of Godel’s theorem.
Observa
I think UQ does biology undergraduate degrees. Probably easiest if you sign up now and come back with any further questions in 4 years time.
Why yes, Mugwump.
It might be possible to remove human memory. Then people would never be troubled about how good things have become since … since when, again?
You think “things” are not better than they have ever been?
I don’t remember saying that.
Ahh. Joke.
But seriously. Things are pretty exciting on the unnatural selection front. I am envious of my own children; they will live to see far greater advances than I.
In a strict sense nothing is unnatural to science. The term “nature” encompasses the entire suite of natural laws of the universe. Therefore everything that happens in the universe is natural. It is not possible by definition for anything to be unnatural.
The term “unnatural” is not only too vague to be of use in science but it is in fact meaningless.
However, if Shakespeare wants to use the word “unnatural” I am perfectly happy with that.
Who said anything about opposing “unnatural” to “science”?
The appropriate opposition is “random” to “purposive”.
Ah. mugwump would like to see geniuses unfettered by committees design the planet his children will inhabit. Geniuses like Bush and Cheney, one assumes, rather than, like anyone who knows what they’re doing.
Molecules in a gas are random. Even an amoeba is purposive.
Homo Sapiens’ role is more than purposive. We’re able to model our universe and use those models to change it. And pass our knowledge to subsequent generations.
I’ll settle for not handing the reins over to a bunch of religious fanatics (greenies).
“If nature can produce such wonders without a central planning commitee then I can more readily retain my faith in the idea of a free society.”
You mean a bit of global warming doesn’t suddenly make you lose faith in adaptation and want to come over all creative like?
An amoeba does not form intentions. Whiie a dog can form some intentions, it has absolutely no understanding of its ancestry, nor does it have any sense of influencing the fate of its offspring, beyond whelping, of course.
You’ll have to explain how what you’ve described here is more than purposive. I think that you’ve created a false dichotomy between purposiveness and what you describe humans as doing.
I agree with your description of human insight and competence, but I’d simply call the behaviour that arises from them “purposive”.
Sounds like a typical ARC assessors report. 🙂 More seriousy, this happens all the time in referee reports, the media, the blogosphere etc. How does this differ from anything else? The ‘anti-science’ scare on the left must rate with the ‘politically correct’ scare on the right.
Hmm, an article on evolutionary theory leads Observa to fulminate about global warming; Mugwump to denounce the greens and Terje to spruik libertarianism.
Why do I get the feeling that a post on the Australia-India test or what John had for dinner last night would get much the same responses?
Ah glad you asked Ian…seems to me the Indian batsmen succumbed to a bit of MCG determinism, drop-in pitches being what they are designed for, scientifically or otherwise. I’ll leave the issue of John’s dinner…internet privacy has to count for something!
It all depends what John actually did have for dinner last night. If he had “freedom fries” or “liberty beans” then I can work with that. 😉
I was provoked.
I was taking issue with your random/purposive dichotomy.
Many things are non-random, but do not display the unique homo sapiens qualities of modeling, introspection and knowledge transfer. If by purposive you mean that latter collection of behaviours, then I don’t disagree, but then I’d also claim that random/purposive is not a useful dichotomy (leaves a rather large excluded middle).
So, being the product of an expensive, private high school, naturally I’ve never heard of the industrial melanism in the peppered moth. Would it be correct to say that it’s a bit like Daisyworld for moths, or is that too much of a long bow?
Here is an amusing review of the positions taken by George W Bush:-
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/25/120407.php
In short he believes in evolution, except when he doesn’t. This seems to be a common problem for US politicians. They want to have their cake and eat it.
Given that even the vatican accepts evolution it is strange that Christianity in the USA so often continues to demand a literal interpretation of the bible.
In the Youtube debate presidential candidate Mitt Romney (a Mormon) when asked if every word of the bible was 100% literally true said he believe it to be the case. Ironically not even presidential candidate Huckabee (a former Baptist minister) agreed with that assertion.
http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate#qa_RF-nMaYq3QE
Love em or hate em their defininetly a weird lot when it comes to such matters. A good example of why it is dangereous to put too much power in the hands of central governments. 😉
Mugwump. It was your dichotomy, not mine.
I said that the words “random” and “purposive” were in opposition to each other. I didn’t say that they covered all cases. In fact, I used the example of a dog to distinguish beteen an amoeba an a human. A dog is more purposive than an amoeba but less purposive than a human being. However, there are some human beings in a vegetative state who are ot purposive at all.
Just because events are random doesn’t mean they are chaotic.
In craps you’re going to throw 7s much more frequently than snakes-eyes.
But the outcome of every individual throw is a random event by virtue of the fact that you cannot predict accurately what number will turn up.
Ok, no argument then.
Deep issue. Most random events are the result of chaotic physical processes, ie physical systems that are highly sensitive to their initial (and/or boundary) conditions. Eg, in craps, the outcome of each roll is unpredictable (random) precisely because the outcome of any roll is sensitive to miniscule changes in the initial state of the dice (exactly how they are thrown), and the state of the craps table (the tiniest fleck of dust can affect the outcome).
But there are non-chaotic random physical processes: quantum mechanical ones. Eg, prepare an electron in a superposition of spin states and fire it through a Stern-Gerlach apparatus. There’s a 50/50 chance of observing spin up or spin down, but you have no way of knowing which and it has nothing to do with chaos: identically prepared electrons in identical apparatus still come out 50/50.
The best proof of man being descended from more primitive animals is goose bumps. Every time you get goose bumps your body is trying to fluff up your fur to create a layer of air that will keep you warm. Fluffing up fur that you no longer have! But your brain still remembers that 2000 generations ago you were a chimp.
There are dozens of other vestigial features of the human body that defy intelligent design – unless the intelligent designer was deliberately trying to make us look like we were descended from apes. And why the hell would he do that?
Obviously Chris it is a case of divine entrapment. Clearly you have failed the test of faith. Please give back all Everlasting Gobstoppers and exit the tour. 😉
Siclair Davidson
The ‘anti-science’ scare on the left must rate with the ‘politically correct’ scare on the right.
The scare I find most scary is the nuttiness into which far too many Leftist sink over religion.
I read through all the comments, and then went back to the reference given by Terje at No 2 to do some reading.
Terje – how does the Wikipedia article ‘prove’ speciation? I followed through several of the links and footnotes and eventually came to this article, titled: “Observed Instances of Speciation”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I’m not a biologist (I was once trained in undergraduate physics and chemistry, and did quite a bit of work in philosophy) but none of what is said in the Wikipedia article (and even in the linked article above) suggest to me that speciation have been ‘proved’. It seems to me there are fundamental problems with the concept of a ‘species’ (both in terms of its actual, practical definition as well as the difficulty in gathering evidence to falsfying it). This seems to me to show that the evidence in support of speciation as a general explanatory construct is pretty thin. As a concept that can account for obesrved changes in certain ‘life forms’ of a lower order (bacteria, some plants)it looks not unreasonable, but to extrapolate from that to the claim that it is ‘proven’ in terms of higher order species seem to me to be a pretty big stretch. Adaptation, yes. But speciation – I can’t see the direct evidence.
I’m not suggesting an alternative theory (I’m not a creationist) but I wonder whether you have a response to this. Can you perhaps point me to any further reading that may be of assistance?
Anyone?
If the creationists get upset about the inclusion of the rise and fall of the peppered moth in the science curriculum, then all the more reason to include it.
I’m not sure I remember being taught about the peppered moth in high school, but I definitely remember reading about it in Mind Alive Encyclopedia, which I bought religiously every week, just like Lisa Simpson.
It was just the time when I was taught about evolution in high school, about the age of 14, that I gave up my Christian faith. It wasn’t the peppered moth that did it. It was the existence of the dinosaurs that did it. I had an argument with the pastor who had taught me Sunday school for 6 or 7 years about it. He kept insisting that the Bible story of creation was true, not the dinosaur and evolution story. It was impossible to argue the facts with him, so I left.
I went on to explore other religions, and later joined the environmental movement. However, there was no real religious component to my environmental consciousness. It was based on a scientific worldview. Now in my later years I am an atheist, but I am still an environmentalist. I have met many environmentalists in my time, and I can say that most environmentalists are atheists and see religion as a social negative.
It is just as ridiculous to say that the Greens are religious as it is to say that atheists are religious. Anyone who says the Greens are religious is just playing a cheap political game.
I did not mean to imply that the Wikipedia article proved anything, although I can see that my comment could have created such an impression. I merely included the link to the wikipedia article because I saw it as a good starting point in terms of outlining what speciation is.
Not readily. However if somebody else comes up with something I would also like to take a look.
Yet strangely you seem to imply that one replaced the other. I’m not sure why you feel the need to mention them in the same breath if there is no actual relationship.
p.s. How does one “join” the environmental movement. Is there a special place where you sign up? Do you get a badge? Is there a secret handshake?
News flash! Climate change is good for evolving http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22989973-23109,00.html
Pedro@37;
Speciation is difficult to define, but the best I’ve heard was from E.O. Wilson (I think?) who said that a species was a population that either could or would only breed with itself. In essence, a population has to be isolated by some means or other(geographic, food specialisation or gender preference – it’s not always the females being choosy!) for a long period of time, and with luck a viable new species will occur.
Silkworm.
It would be an interesting poll of ‘committed’ environmentalists to assess their religiosity. I think I would agree with your experience that most regard religion as a ‘social negative’. Not sure they would nominate atheism as their choice however, but if they did it would certainly clear the decks for a no-holds-barred attack on GHW should they ever get the chance. Hawkey where are you when we need you?
My mother, being religious, sent me to a Christian private school for the first three years of my schooling. My earliest memory of religion is being punished in grade 1 for innocently remarking to the teacher that many of the bible stories were obviously fabricated (I was stunned to discover that adults actually believed this stuff. I thought everyone knew they were just stories. I mean water into wine? Loaves and fishes? walking on water??).
Modern environmentalism has replaced religion for Western middle classes. It is not science, but it has the imprimatur of science. Environmentalism is fundamentally a value system that puts nature ahead of humanity, and in that sense it is a religion.
Religion without a central deity. Which is why it is consistent with atheism and often disparagingly referred to as paganism.
Although the human psychological need for a central deity is still present. Whence Gaia.
Environmentalism is (in part) the view that protecting the environment is a moral imperative for humankind; implicit in that is the assumption that humans are the principal agents of negative impact upon the environment.
I don’t see any essential relationship between environmentalism and religion, or for that matter, between atheism and environmentalism.
A broader definition of environmentalism includes the view that protection of the environment is also a practical concern for humankind; most environmentalists that I have met over the years seem to take this broader view.
I think that the key phrase in projection of environmentalism as some kind of religion is “protection of the environment”. How this is to be interpreted makes all the difference. For example, we could (tacitly) suffix this with “at all costs” to obtain an extreme view, or with “in a sustainable manner” to obtain a more moderate view, or with “where it doesn’t cost jobs” to obtain a different extreme view. Games of equivocation like this can be too easily played by politicians, journalists, and other heavily invested parties.
To tie back to the original topic, I think the only workable long-term defence against these sort of games, especially in the case of evolution versus ID, is to equip students with the tools and skills to understand just what it is that scientists do in the practice of science. These tools should include modes of analysis, scientific scepticism, observation and measurement, experiment, (the rather messy) history of discoveries, and an appreciation of forms of rhetorical argument in contradistinction to scientific argument.
In my opinion, too many people have a functionally incompetent notion of what science is, and unfortunately the representations in many textbooks provide no insight into it either. In the arguments over evolution versus intelligent design, the IDer’s have a large target for rhetorical attack; namely the highly stylised (and historically inaccurate) depictions of Darwin’s original theory of evolution. Reading the original works of Darwin should be a part of biology, tied in with the kind of scientific practice course I envisage. As a general example of a target, many scientific hypotheses start out as a creative idea with limited evidence; the idea’s promise provides some scientists with the impetus to seek out supporting evidence, while other scientists will attack the weak areas of the idea using basic principles of scientific practice – testing the hypothesis against experiment or observations, as well as testing observations and experiments for reproducibility and validity. Eventually the idea stands, falls, or lies dormant until new evidence can discriminate one of these alternatives. This is a messy and drawn out process, quite unlike the idealised one in textbooks.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Sure, you’re looking in the wrong place. Science has nothing to say about any of the forms of environmentalism, based as they are upon moral beliefs, not scientific facts.
For example, you don’t seem to realize how laden with moral assumptions your own views are, eg:
Why is avoiding job losses (or more generally, negative economic impacts) extreme? Where does science support that point of view?
As far as I can see, humans have radically altered most of the earth’s environment, and will continue to do so. What’s left is mere tinkering around the edges. There is no scientific basis for an environmentalism under which protection of economic growth some cost to the “environment” is considered “extreme”.
silkworn
The pagan theo-Gaia-Leftist is mankind’s greatest scourge.