Moth balls
January 2nd, 2009 | 
Author: When I was a kid studying biology I was introduced to the charming story of the peppered moth. Kids nowadays may not have heard about it because it has been challenged by the witch hunters as flawed science. It’s laughable that the intelligent design crew are criticising the methods of science when their own evidence based practice consists of citing a bad translation of book which is mostly 2500 -3000 years old.
The peppered moth is still the poster child for explaining evolution to the great unwashed and it is a popular choice because the events described all happened in the last century and were observed by reliable recent sources.
For those who don’t know the story of the peppered moth, here’s the synopsis as I remember it:
White peppered moths used to be common across the British Isles and their wings made effective camoflage against the lichens on tree trunks. During the industrial revolution the lichens died out and the tree trunks were darkened by soot in some parts of the country and so the white moths were more easily spotted by predatory birds. At the same time the darkened form of the moth (occasional genetic freaks) were better camoflaged so thrived in numbers. Since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1956 the lichen has returned and the tree trunks have whitened; this has caused a resurgence in the white moth population.
My last encounter with doorstep creationists included their rebuttal of the peppered moth, the creationists told me that it had been dropped because the science behind it was flawed and so it was not to be considered as evidence of evolution. I asked why it had been dropped and for what reason but creationists rarely cite sources, they just recite what their handlers have told them to preach. They were incredulous at the thought that the moths had changed colour and seemed to be unable to grasp the very basics of the evolution theory that they were seeking to disprove.
The science behind the peppered moth has been done again with better methodology and it evidenced what reasonable people already knew, that light moths on dark trees are eaten by predators in greater numbers than dark moths on dark trees. The experiments were conducted with greater controls for other environmental factors and from my reading of the paper it seems a sound assumption that this was the cause of the changes in moth population (of course I don’t expect you to take my word for it, look at the paper by Majerus in 2005 on his Cambridge experiment).
The peppered moth is the chosen favourite explanation of evolution because it cuts through all the clouds of disinformation that the creationists preach and answers the simplest of questions: how do things evolve? The answer is this: as one species is more adapted to surroundings it has an advantage and numbers of that variation will increase. The moths did not change colour any more than we changed from being monkeys to humans in a lifetime, we evolved because genetic mutations and variations produced offspring who where more suited to their environment and they succeeded and passed on their traits to offspring in greater and greater numbers.
Posted in Religion | 
Tags: catholics, credit crunch, darwinism, evolution, get a grip, intelligent design, Religion, retard
That’s not a bad little synopsis. I am, incidentally, an evolutionary biologist and palaeontolgoist so yes, I know a thing or two about evolution and yes I do have to deal with creationists (though rarely). The problem is always and without exception a basic lack of knowledge coupled with a lack of desire to listen. The former is annoying, the latter inbuilt, sadly. Even if you give them the information and context it will only be warped, or ignored to twist to their fixed worldview.
Too true. I tend to put creationists in the same boat as the kind of people who refuse to learn a foreign language on the assertion that “everyone already speaks English”. They both believe that their objectives can be achieved by jumping up and down and yelling the same thing over and over and over and over again.
The idea that they’re the ones who need to change tack just doesn’t occur.
Anyone with half a brain can make a good case for evolution to anyone who will listen; the problem is that the bible thumpers are not listening to anyone who questions what they have been taught. Unfortunately the Cult of Dawkinsians are heading down the path where blind belief in evolution as the fountain of all understanding puts them on the same level of rational thought as those they seek to discredit.
I am not usre it is so blind when it comes to following Dawkins et al. as such. I guess my argument would run along the lines of when yor car needs fixing you go toa mechanics, when you are ill you go to the doctor, when you build a house you ask an architect. You don’t have to read the Haynes manual and spend three years under the car to know everything (not that self educations is bad). You have to take as a measure of trust things that experts tell you – they are experts for a reason. I know bugger all about partical physics, but I trust what I am told by partical physicists. I have neither the time nor energy (or ability) to understand it, so I belive them. I *do* knwo that other physicsits are chekcing their stuff and that amaterus / undergrads etc. with greater understanding than me can follow it and have not found any problems, so I do jsut accept it. It’s a point of practicality rather than faith.
Not that I need to personally, ut when I want to know what the consensus is on evolution, I listen to a biologist, not a priest. It might be ‘blind’ following, but it is practical and understanding. Though again, nothign wrong with trying to learn a bit more on your own to add to it, and indeed I’d encourage it!
Apologies for appaling typing on that BTW it was a flood of conciousness and I MUST remember to re-read my own text!
I see your point and I am not expecting every Joe Sixpack (to borrow a term from the lipstick clad pig) to understand the finer points of all things sciency however the basic distinctions between the creation of life and the evolution of life are often lost on the fundamentalist atheists. Abiogenesis and evolution are two different things and while evolution leaves no place for spirituality or a divine being, abiogenesis does. I am not a believer but unless science gets its story straight it risks the message being perverted and destroyed by the fundamentalists, either religious or atheist.
I take your point too (isn’t scientific discourse great). I think the problme is less of ’science getting it’s story straight’ that the way people interpret it. We know what the difference is and how to deal with the two, (and abiogenesis is not a huge field and one that rarely impacts on other aspects of evolution / biology – I work mostly on dinosaurs, so while it’s of academic interest to me, whatever the results of research in this areas, it’s unlikely to impact on my work). The fault lies with those who don’t know the difference, though I admit scientists could do more to clarify these issues one can’t really blame the researchers for the way people misinterpret their work.
I think the only way I can illustrate my point is through this link and my comments on it.
http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/mississippi-disclaimer-bill/
The bill detailed requires text books to state that evolution is just a theory, and not fact. It’s been greeted with hatred from many of the pro-evolution brigade when in fact it should be encouraged because evolution is a theory, it’s the best one we have and in fact the only theory we have that stands any sort of scientific scrutiny, but we should be open to others that do.
Faith based preachings need not apply because evidence is the pre-requisite for a theory.
I have to say that evolution is as much as a fact as we can define one. Although we cannot say for certain if happened in the creation of life on earth, it is by far the most likely way. however the process of evolution is abouit as rock solid a fact as you can go. Its has been observed in laboraties, makes predictions, has been observed in nature and has plausible and observable methods of acting. Yes we should be open to others, but it would require pretty strong evidence to be regarded as an alternative, and have a circumstance in nature that couldn’t be explained by evolution. Even so evolution would still hold true, just not for every circumstance. No-one assumes that evolution is above checking, and there can still be the possibility that it is untrue, however unlikely.
On a side note, I would be hard pressed to find any ‘fundementalist athiests’ even the staunch atheist Richard Dawkins has stated he would beleive in God if there was Evidence for it, and I feel i would too. Do not confuse fundementalism with passion.
Sorry for the long comment,
No worries, long comments are good.
“Although we cannot say for certain if happened in the creation of life on earth, it is by far the most likely way.”
Evolution does not in any way explain the initial creation of live, just what happened between single celled life forms and us.
“No-one assumes that evolution is above checking, and there can still be the possibility that it is untrue, however unlikely.”
My point exactly.
Yes, evolution is a theory. But the use of such stickers / disclaimers is specifically designed to prey on the ignorance of the public on the scientific use of the word theory, as opposed to the more common useage (basically meaning a hunch or hypothesis). I have yet to see any creationists demand that gravity, atomic theory, cataylst theory etc. be listed as ‘only a theory’. THey don’t have a problem with them.
Evolution is a theory. Possible issues / unexplained aspects should not be ignored. BUT those asking for such things to be advertised / taught are trying to undermine it, and not push scientific rigour and scientific concepts. It is a weasel-y use of linguistics to use correct languge in an incorrect context to confuse, not to educate. A good science text book should explain what a theory IS first of all, and most do not.
Isn’t the responsibility then for science to educate people on the difference between a theory that is substantiated with evidence and a belief that is supported only by faith.
Instead, what seems to be happening is that science is just raising its voice and shouting “EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY IT’S FACT” which is a doomed tactic because not only is the statement incorrect and easily refutable (playing into their hands a little by claiming something that science does not agree with); but also it is pretty much impossible to shout louder than the bible thumpers.
But I don’t think the scientists are doing that (well, I’m not, and I don’t know anyone who is). I agree totally that not enough of them are doing it, but the issue lies (I think) less with the scientists and even the creationists, but those people in the middle who are too lazy to both to check the facts for themselves, or too dumb to relaise that just becuase someone is shouting soemthing does not mean it’s necessarily right. We are doing ever more and better outreach, but while we are not supported by the government and etc. to do this kind of thing it is very hard. I am employed to do research and teaching, anything outside of that comes at my time and expense, yet there are entire religiously funded ‘institutes’ and law groups whose entire jobs are to challenge evolution / science in any and all ways. That puts us at a colossal disadvantage, especially when in many places there is a fundamental pro-religion bias. We are trying, but don’t blame us for not doing well, it’s not actually our job, nor do we have money, time, supprot or anyhting else to do more.
Science and religion are poles apart but they do rely on the public having faith in the in order for them to be well funded. Religion has promised us salvation for a few thousand years and works hard to maintain the position as our number one path to eternal contentment.
Science has promised to make our life easier, our bodies healthier and our understanding of the universe complete but in recent years could be perceived as failing to deliver (where’s my flying car that I was promised by 2010) or made matters worse (arguably it was industrialization rather than science that has got us to where we are). Some of the trust in science has been lost in the noise of infighting (climate change) and we have hit some brick walls in terms of innovation (Moore’s law has stalled, space travel stagnated a long time ago, innovation in engineering has slowed so I still need petrol to get around).
All through this, religion has been there to pick up the disaffected and promise something they don’t have to ever deliver (until after you are already dead). If science wants to get the funding to make the world a better place then they need to inspire the faith of society.
Religion is a big money machine which never has to deliver on a promise, so all their resources can be channeled into discrediting people who don’t agree with them and making themselves look good (thereby securing more funding). Science maybe needs to take a leaf out of their book and start doing a better job of PR, explaining to the public how they work and why they work the way they do.
Of course this could all be helped by better science education in schools. Western science education is terrible, especially in the US and the UK where the soft subjects are favoured. Japan does not have the same problems with creationism and France, a country built (quite literally) on a sound education in science and engineering, has less of a problem with creationists.
Would love to discuss a guest article some time.
I’d agree with some of that (space research i think has slowed since evryone is trying to do the smae thing – if the EU pooled with the US we would spend far less on everyone lanuching their own versions of the same satellites / probes and more on research, similarly I take your point on technology, but then technology is built on science – engineering as such wouldf not get too far without it) but not all. I would argue that much of the infighting is built on the press / public ignorance (there is broadly a consensus on climate change, the dinosaur extinction, the origin of humans etc.) but if the media always promote the conflicts (no matter how small and wrong the minority) then this promotes a non existant conflict. I would say that of course these would not be half as harmful if there was a better understanding of science in general allowing the public to see what is good and bad in research, but it has ti be a concerted effort. I agree that scientists must do more, but the goverment must provide more money for reearch, education must improve, the media needs to cut the crap and researchers need to be backed properly to do their work. If the goverment caves in on test of GM foods for example (as they did) becuase ignorant people are scared of a whipped up media storm then it’s just pointless. We’ll get there, eventually, it’s waht science does, but it could certianly be faster and better handled by all concerned.
Well you’ll get no complaints here for pointing out the flaws in our 24/7 ‘News’ society. There are an awful lot of column inches to fill and the best way to fill them is to make stuff up.
As for the education, many years ago when science education was not common in the UK (think 1920s) it was Shell that produced science education kits in vast numbers and sent them to schools. They basically funded and led a generation of science education in order to increase the basic level of understanding of the whole population and increase the supply of potential workers with an understanding of science. The BBC helped fund the development of a computer for schools in one of the largest social engineering experiments of last century and helped produce a generation of IT sorts.
Long termism is dead though it would seem because success in business, and indeed government is measured by the quarter, month, week or day rather than what is achieved over a longer time scale; thus decisions are made on what will make the organisation look good NOW rather than what will benefit people in 10+ years.