In “Evolution in Action” in the November 2005 Volume 114, Number 9 of the New York American Museum of Natural History’s “Natural History Magazine” [7], Pulitzer Prize winner [8] Jonathan Weiner, Maxwell M. Geffen Professor of Medical and Scientific Journalism at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism (Not to be confused with the William R. and Thomas L. Perkins Professor of Law, Environmental Policy, and Public Policy at Duke Law School, or the Professor of Health Policy and Management and Health Informatics at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) thoroughly addresses what is by far the most ubiquitous creationist claim against Charles Darwin’s Theory of Descent with Modification through Mutation, Adaptation, Natural Selection, and Speciation: That “evolution has never been observed”.Somewhat ironically, what could be, and would have otherwise been, Weiner’s most profound point when it comes to scientists’ observation of speciation is mentioned in just three short sentences in the sixth to last paragraph. That is Michigan State University John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor of Microbial Ecology Richard E. Lenski’s E. Coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project [4]. As reported by Bob Holmes for the New Scientist in June 2009 [3], the experiment, started on February 24, 1988, even prior to reaching its milestone, 50,000 generations, in February 2010, saw the bacteria make a dramatic evolutionary innovation. What was more, the shift the bacteria made happened in “one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species”, the ability to metabolize citrate.
Unfortunately, Weiner follows that brief mention up almost immediately with a seriously destructive blow to his credibility both as a scientist and a journalist, in parroting an unscientific and uninformed anti-evolution creationist talking point. In discussing Oxford University Genetics Department Nuffield Research Fellow and Senior Research Officer Henry Bernard Davis Kettlewell’s 1952-1972 experiments [1]; demonstrating that because the trees that Peppered Moths rested on became darkened by pollution, light-colored moths were more conspicuous than dark-colored moths and were therefore easier prey for insectivorous birds and died off from predation, while the dark-colored moths survived better because their camouflage made them difficult to see against the darkened trees; Weiner states that: “The moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks. In forty years of observation, only twice have moths been seen resting there.” This is a demonstrably false statement.
According to the National Center for Science Education on November 23, 2006, “the authoritative reference on this topic” [2] is “Industrial Melanism: Evolution in Action” by Michael E.N. Majerus [5]. Majerus’s data indicates that 70 of 203 “Peppered Moths found in the vicinity of mercury vapor traps” were on tree trunks, meaning that the moths did indeed rest on tree trunks 37% of the time, and that 25% of 47 “Peppered Moths found in the wild” rested on the trunks of trees. According to Nicholas J. Matzke on November 24, 2002 [6], the secondary claim made by creationists, when the error of their original statement is pointed out to them, is that the moths don’t rest on “exposed tree trunks”. This, too, however, is untrue, as Majerus’s data shows that 23.6% of moths found near traps and 12.8% of mouths found in the wild rested on the “exposed trunks” of trees. Of the remainder, roughly 50% of peppered moths resting in the wild were found at branch-trunk junctions (on the trunk 2-3 inches below the branch). In a later six-year study [4], Majerus found that 37% of peppered moths were found on trunks.
Weiner could have better rounded off his essay had he instead included wording like to those of Carl Zimmer, Fellow at Yale University’s Morse College, in a June 25, 2002 letter to the editor of the New York Times:
“Peppered moths may be the one example of evolution some people remember from their biology class, but it's by no means the only one. Just since 1987, scientists have published 1,582 records of natural selection acting on wild animals and plants, according to a review in the March 2001 issue of the journal American Naturalist. Scientists may still be figuring out how exactly natural selection acts on peppered moths. But those questions do not alter the mountain of evidence documenting natural selection's reality or its importance.” [9]
According to the National Center for Science Education on November 23, 2006, “the authoritative reference on this topic” [2] is “Industrial Melanism: Evolution in Action” by Michael E.N. Majerus [5]. Majerus’s data indicates that 70 of 203 “Peppered Moths found in the vicinity of mercury vapor traps” were on tree trunks, meaning that the moths did indeed rest on tree trunks 37% of the time, and that 25% of 47 “Peppered Moths found in the wild” rested on the trunks of trees. According to Nicholas J. Matzke on November 24, 2002 [6], the secondary claim made by creationists, when the error of their original statement is pointed out to them, is that the moths don’t rest on “exposed tree trunks”. This, too, however, is untrue, as Majerus’s data shows that 23.6% of moths found near traps and 12.8% of mouths found in the wild rested on the “exposed trunks” of trees. Of the remainder, roughly 50% of peppered moths resting in the wild were found at branch-trunk junctions (on the trunk 2-3 inches below the branch). In a later six-year study [4], Majerus found that 37% of peppered moths were found on trunks.
Weiner could have better rounded off his essay had he instead included wording like to those of Carl Zimmer, Fellow at Yale University’s Morse College, in a June 25, 2002 letter to the editor of the New York Times:
“Peppered moths may be the one example of evolution some people remember from their biology class, but it's by no means the only one. Just since 1987, scientists have published 1,582 records of natural selection acting on wild animals and plants, according to a review in the March 2001 issue of the journal American Naturalist. Scientists may still be figuring out how exactly natural selection acts on peppered moths. But those questions do not alter the mountain of evidence documenting natural selection's reality or its importance.” [9]
- “Critique: Exploring “Exploring Evolution”.” National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. http://ncse.com/book/export/html/11821
- “Critique: “Icons of Evolution”.” National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icons-evolution
- Holmes, Bob. “Bacteria Make Major Evolutionary Shift in the Lab.” The New Scientist. June 9, 2008. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
- Lenski, Richard. “The E. coli Long-Term Experimental Evolution Project.” Michigan State University. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
- Majerus, Michael. “Industrial Melanism in the Peppered Moth, Beston betularia: An Excellent Teaching Example of Darwinian Evolution in Action.” Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2 (2009) 63-74. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/01/27/rsbl.2011.1136.full.pdf+html
- Majerus, Michael. “Melanism: Evolution in Action.” Oxford University Press. Oxford (1998).
- Matzke, Nicholas. “Icon of Obfuscation.” August 29, 2006. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html
- Weiner, Jonathan. “Evolution in Action.” Natural History. 114 (2005) 47-51. http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/1105/1105_feature3_lowres.html
- Weiner, Jonathan. “The Beak of the Finch: The Story of Evolution in Our Time.” Alfred A. Knopf. New York (1994).
- Zimmer, Carl. “The Moth’s Tale.” The New York Times. June 25, 2002. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/25/science/l-the-moth-s-tale-704890.html
No comments:
Post a Comment