Book Review: Vonnegut, Kurt. Cat’s Cradle, Henry Holt, 1963

•April 11, 2017 • Leave a Comment

Introduction:

Overview of the Book’s Themes and Purpose

University of New York Professor Kurt Vonnegut’s 1963 novel Cat’s Cradle recounts, from the first-person perspective of a journalist named John [but who calls himself “Jonah”] of the end of the world and of life, as we know it by means of a substance he calls “Ice 9”. The story begins with John writing a biography of fictional physicist Felix Hoenikker, whom the book calls its fictitious “Father of the Atomic Bomb”, who invents the “Ice 9” which ultimately destroys the world in the end. The novel ends with John as the President of the fictional Caribbean Republic of San Lorenzo with the death of its Military Dictator called “Papa” Monzano, which in turn results in the release of the “Ice 9”, left by Felix Hoenikker upon his death to his three children, including his eldest son Franklin Hoenikker, the Major General of San Lorenzo.

It should be noted that the concept of Ice 9, arguably the primary antagonist of the story, is not first introduced until the twentieth Chapter, on page 46, when it is first mentioned to John by Felix Hoenniker’s Supervisor at Vonnegut’s fictitious General Forge and Foundry Company in Vonnegut’s fictional town of Ilium, New York, a man named Asa Breed.

 

Summary:

Key Points of the Chapters

Much of the book is spent as an exploration through experience of Vonnegut’s fictional religion of “Bokononism”. Most if not all of the characters and situations in Vonnegut’s book are labeled using terms from the Books of Bokonon. The Ice 9, as the novel’s antagonist, is labeled as John’s “Wampeter”, or “pivot” defined in the novels’ 24th chapter on page 52 as an object around which revolve the lives of otherwise unrelated people. Such a group of thereby related people Vonnegut identifies as a “karass”, or “team” linked in a cosmically significant manner. As such, very nearly all of the characters in Vonnegut’s novel form John’s “karass”: Breed, Felix Hoenikker and his three children, Monzano and his daughter Mona, as well as Bokonon himself, a man born by the name of Lionel Johnson who co-founded the Republic of San Lorenzo and invented both the religion of Bokononism and its terminology. The sacred scriptures of Bokononism consist of, according to the book’s 110th Chapter, no fewer than fourteen Books of Bokonon [Page 245]. The “wisdom” of Bokonon is communicated in the form of poems called “Calypsos”, of which according to the novel’s 102nd Chapter, there are no fewer than 119 [Page 227]. Bokononists practice their religion through a ritual Vonnegut calls “Boko-Maru”, defined in Chapter 73 as being “the mingling of awareness” [Page 158], and constituted by contact between the soles of the feet. Much of what the reader learns of Bokononism comes from John’s reading of a book on the subject of San Lorenzo written by the character of Phillip Castle, son of the multi-millionaire owner of Castle Sugar Corporation

In spite of John investigation into Felix Hoenikker, the “Father of the Atomic Bomb” constituting the first 35 chapters and 77 pages of Vonnegut’s novel, and the fact that the title of the biography John is writing about Hoenniker, The Day the World Ended, could very well just as easily be the title of Vonnegut’s novel itself, the August 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima itself actually plays a relatively background role; What Vonnegut’s Bokonon calls John’s “kan-kan”, or “instrument”, defined on page two as that which brings a person into those who form their “karass”. It should also be noted, in stating that Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle is a novel about the end of the world, that the destruction in question, at the hands of Ice 9, does not occur until the novel’s 116th chapter on page 261, and that the novel itself only continues onward thereafter for another 11 chapters and 26 pages.

The death of San Lorenzo’s dictator “Papa” Monzano, which will in turn lead to the unleashing of the lethal life-and-world-destroying “Ice 9”, takes place in the novel’s 105th Chapter on page 235. In the 110th Chapter On Page 244, Vonnegut, through the voice of John, identifies this event as the beginning of what he calls a “pool-pah”, or “Shit Storm”. “What hope can there be for mankind when there are such men as Felix Hoenikker to give such playthings as “Ice-Nine” to such short-sighted children as almost all men and women are?” Vonnegut writes. “What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years?” The character of John then quotes the answer to this question given in the Fourteenth Book of Bokonon: “Nothing”.

 

Conclusion:

Evaluate the Book’s Overall Argument and Its Writing

For all of its demonization of science, scientism and scientists, whether in the form of the atomic bomb or Ice 9, Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle is equally unforgiving of anti-intellectualism: “She hated people who thought too much.” Vonnegut writes in of a woman John meets at General Forge and Foundry. “At that moment she struck me as an appropriate representation for almost all of mankind.” [Chapter 15, Page 33].

Two hundred pages later, Vonnegut offers an equally profound insight in his discussion of John’s forced and rushed romantic relationship and marriage with “Papa” Monzano’s daughter Mona, when he quotes one of the “Calypso” poems from the Books of Bokonon:

A lover’s a liar.

To himself he lies.

The truthful are loveless

Like oysters their eyes.” [Page 233]

Indeed, the theme of liars, lies and lying is a ubiquitous one throughout the book, which begins with the precautionary proclamation by Vonnegut that “Nothing in this book is true” [Epigraph, Page VII] and that “All of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies.” [Chapter 4, Page 5].

Vonnegut, however, embraces what he calls “foma”, “harmless untruths” intended to comfort simple souls, which Bokonon claims make a person “brave and kind and healthy and happy”. [Epigraph, Page VII]. The character of Lionel Johnson, too, like his creator Vonnegut, sees nothing wrong with such dishonesty, inventing his imaginary made-up religion in his Books of Bokonon on the thin justification that “Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either.” To which he replies laconically: “So be it.” [Chapter 4, Pages 5-6]. Johnson makes no secret of the fact that his religion is invented, even going so far as to refer to Bokononist cosmogony as being “foma” [Page 191].

It is from Johnson’s invention of his own religion wherefrom the novel gets its title. The character of Felix Hoenikker’s youngest son Newton points out the problem with the titular simple string trick to John thusly:

For maybe thousands of years, grownups have been waving tangles of string in their children’s faces…No wonder kid’s grow up crazy. A cat’s cradle is nothing but a bunch of x’s between somebody’s hands…No damn cat and no damn cradle.” [Chapter 74, Pages 165-166]

Later, Newton describes religion in a strikingly similar manner; holding his hands up and asking Castle “See the cat? See the Cradle?” [Chapter 81, Page 183]

Since he describes “karasses” as ignoring “national, institutional, occupational, familial and class boundaries” [Chapter 2, Page 2], Vonnegut reserves some of his harshest hatred for what he calls “granfalloons”, or false karasses: proud associations of human beings that are “meaningless in terms of the ways god gets things done”. Under this overarching umbrella, Vonnegut encompasses “any nation, anytime, anywhere”.

John, like his creator Vonnegut, is from Indiana, and in Chapter 42 meets other characters from Indiana; namely Hazel Crosby, the wife of a bicycle repair shop owner from Evanston Illinois, who has an unhealthy obsession with locating fellow “Hoosiers”, through which the concept of a “granfalloon” is introduced. Vonnegut describes the meaningless of such associations through the voice of Bokonon, writing that:

If you wish to study a granfalloon;

Just remove the skin of a toy balloon.” [Chapter 42, Page 92]

That is to say: saying someone is a “Hoosier” is as empty as the inside of a balloon.

The thing that puts the twist on Vonnegut’s, and in turn John’s distaste for state and national identification is their embrace of the “karass”, the members of which find their lives tangled “for no very logical reasons”, and which Vonnegut says “do god’s will without ever discovering what they are doing”. [Page 2]

Like lies, however, Vonnegut, in the voice of John, equally embraces this ignorance as well. “My god—Life!” John says to Castle. “Who can understand even one little minute of it of it?”

Don’t try.” Castle answers. “Just pretend you understand.” [Chapter 81, Page 182].

Book Review: Walker, Brett. Toxic Archipelago: A History of Industrial Disease in Japan, University of Washington, 2010. 352 Pages. Part II: Preface-Chapter 2, Pages X-16

•March 25, 2017 • Leave a Comment

 

Evaluate the Book’s Overall Argument and Its Writing

In his 2010 book Toxic Archipelago, Montana State University Department of History, Philosophy and Religious Studies Professor Brett Walker [Ph.D., Japanese History, University of Oregon] explores hybrid spaces and causations through which human health and industrial pollution are intertwined. He describes his principal argument as being that “at a certain level, the Earth has become a gargantuan hybrid environment in which we are deeply embedded, one interlaced with complex, historically constructed ecological pathways” [Page 16] and that, as Walker writes “at certain moments in history, historical and natural drivers come together…to form what I label in this book as “hybrid causations.” [Preface, Page XIII]. His simple overriding assertion is that physical pain associated with industrial pollution emerges from intertwined ecological and technological systems. “Physical pain caused by industrial pollution is the product of toxins that navigate naturally occurring ecosystems;” Walker asserts; “And technological systems that are seamlessly intertwined and indicative of highly engineered environments.” [Page 16]

He contrasts this physical pain against its polar opposite, opining “Pleasure, while rooted in the body, often eludes out consciousness of its bodily origins and finds a comfortable spot in ordinary social practices such as eating and talking.” [Page 6]

Embracing analysis of complex causal webs offers a far more compelling explanation than an overly simplified history does.” [Preface, Page XIV] Walker writes. “They are, in effect, the product of complex hybrid causations and obey no single reductionist trajectory of reasoning or disciplinary methodology.” [Page 16]

Walker makes a compelling case for environmental toxicity as a condition of history. University of Wisconsin—Madison Professor of History, Geography and Environmental Studies William Cronon’s Foreword summarizes Walker’s book’s argument simply: “toxicity was an inevitable outcome of cultural innovations that viewed nature as a resource waiting to be exploited toward useful human ends.” [Foreword, Page X] Cronon writes that “what seemed like a new age of toxicity exploded into public view with the atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, followed in turn by countless nuclear tests and the radioactive fallout they generated” but cautions that “Environmental toxicity was hardly limited to radiation” [Foreword, Page IX] and that “to really understand the rise of environmental toxicity one has to go much further back in time, to the dawn of the industrial era.” [Foreword, Page X]

Walker convincingly argues that humans know the nation state in a visceral way through pain. “Pain has long been part of Japan’s national experience;” Walker writes, qualifying that a “careful distinction must be made between premodern and modern…notions of sacrifice.” “Loyalty both to lords and to extended families held together Japan’s premodern state structure.” He explains. “Loyalty to the medial and early modern states was measured by the endurance of individual pain”. [Page 9] Walker enumerates that the Kyoiku ni Kansuru Chokugo [Imperial Rescript on Education] signed by 122nd Emperor of Japan Mutsuhito, or “Meji-taitei” [“Meji the Great”] on October 30, 1890 ordered subjects of the Yamato Dynasty Imperial Family of Japan to:

Offer themselves courageously to the State.”

Walker explains that in 1890 “mass sacrifices to the state would be measured in collective pain.” [Page 10] “All modern nations, including the Japanese one, require pain and acceptance of that pain from their subjects and citizenry, particularly at key historical moments. The act of interpreting and contextualizing such pain as dignified national sacrifice is critical to state legitimacy”; Walker argues; “But Pain caused by industrial pollution is less easily interpreted and contextualized as dignified and so can prove…dangerously subversive to the nation”. [Page 9] “The interpretation of pain;” Walker explains; “occurs only after it has been inflicted and so the imagined community, insofar as pain is concerned, is an attempt to make sense of the suffering that occurs in national contexts.” [Page 10]

Pain is an important part of participation in national communities, including the Japanese one.” Walker writes, arguing that it “ranks even higher than national myths and a shared language in creating Japan’s national community” because “Japanese do not have to learn in school to feel pain, as they learn shared myths and language, but they do have to learn how to interpret its meaning as a form of dignified…sacrifice on behalf of their nation.” [Page 9] “Nations are not entirely culturally determined, invented entities;” Walker argues; “The effects of ecological transformation and pollution demonstrate that people really do physiologically experience nations’ policies and priorities.” [Page 11]

Walker argues for recognition that the complex intertwined natural system. “Humans tend to recognize pain in the weapon itself that than in or on the victim’s body.” [Page 14] Walker argues. “To destroy factories or nations, or even to recognize them as weapons, as opposed to icons of modern progress, is to defy Japan’s entire modern experience…In Japan and elsewhere, therefore, the price of this recognition is simply too high and so the pain of the victims of industrial disease is transformed into a form of less-than-dignified and certainly not always empathetically shared sacrifice for the nation.” [Page 15]

 

Overview of the Book’s Themes and Purpose

According to Professor Cronon’s Foreword, Walker’s Toxic Archipelago is a story about hybrid spaces, environments simplified by engineering. “The ability of engineers to redesign productive processes so at to maximize desired outputs almost always involved simplifying those processes;” Cronon offers; “And turning a blind eye toward the biological contexts within which they took place.” [Foreword, Page XI].

Walker then contextualizes this within the history of Japan, convincingly arguing how engineered hybrid environments are inextricably woven into state-led industrialization and masterfully intertwining empathetic narratives of human pain and sacrifice at the altar of state-led industrial development. “Toxins sicken bodies because industrialization, with the id of the modern state, simplifies and…this simplification requires engineering the environment… Once environments have been simplified, toxins move through them more easily and, in effect, directly into human bodies.” The author adds. “By contrast, toxins move less easily in less simplified environments, such as naturally occurring ones.”[Page 6]

Walker states that his themes are the “ultimate causes of the colossal toxic pollution that saturates our modern landscapes and the manner in which pain caused by pollution insults our always-porous bodies” and the “relationship between pain and the nation”. [Page 5] “Pain;” Walker concludes; “Creates the cultural milieu we inhabit.” [Page 14]

Walker states that his books purpose is to assemble the web of cause and effect involving toxic agents, engineered landscapes, human and nonhuman beings, opining that “the critical moment in Japan’s environmental history is the nineteenth century, when the manner in which Japanese interacted with themselves, nonhuman organisms and the environment was transformed. With the nineteenth century came the advent of Homo Sapiens industrialis on the Japanese islands;” Walker explains. “A new breed of human utterly penetrated, engulfed and transformed…by the engineering, industrializing and poisoning of the environment in and around it.” [Page 6] “Industrial toxins that flow through engineered Earth and its technological systems;” He articulates; “Render useless academic ruminations on the differences between wilderness areas and cities, organic and inorganic, nonhuman and human, biology and technology or even nature and artifice. Industrial toxins, when finding their way into human bodies, reject such boundaries” [Page 16].

According to Walker, Humans and nonhuman species seek to thrive in hybrid environments increasingly saturated with poisonous toxins, which transcend the boundaries of human bodies. “Toxins cause pain in bodies;” Walker reiterates; “And certain kinds of pain serve as internal “biological indicators” of a poisoned landscape.” [Page 6]

Walker focuses on the complex causations of environmental crises, opining “Parsing the differences between natural and artificial agency in the creation of environmental pollution is a fool’s errand because the circumstances that produce, transform, transport and concentrate deadly toxins are usually the result of a complex mixture of agencies.” “Some agencies are naturally occurring and others are anthropogenic;” Walker continues. “Both remain relevant to understanding how industrial toxins function, sicken bodies and cause pain.” [Page 16]

Again according to Cronon’s Foreword, the lesson is that “modernity’s promise to liberate humanity from the constraints of nature was a lie, plain and simple.” Indeed, Walker himself goes onto proclaim precisely that, first quoting University of Tokyo Professor Emeritus Masao Maryuama’s 1974 book Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan:

True modernity provides individuals with autonomy by liberating them completely from nature.” [Page 7]

Walker then goes on to disagree with Muyama, writing “modernity and its technologies and engineered landscapes have not distanced us from nature, as Muyama and other theorists imagined they would.” [Page 8] “Modernity, for all its lofty promise;” Walker concludes; “is a cruel fantasy.” [Page 7]

 

Brief Summary of Key Points of the Chapters

In Chapter One: The Agency of Insects, Walker looks at how age-old Japanese predilections for keeping insects, historically and culturally mediated human relationships with an invasive beetle pest and the fly that preys upon it [“Buddhist attitudes towards insects…informed how Japanese viewed insect emergences in paddies;” Walker says; “Historically, Buddhist cosmologies constructed the notion of agrarian entomology as much as the biological sciences or applied chemistry did”], the rise of sericulture as a cash crop and the concomitant displacement of traditional grain production in areas once used to produce grain for Tokyo via the rise of monocrop mulberry plantations to feed hungry silkworms [“Here the hybrid causation in question takes the form of biotechnologies, such as certain insects;” Walker argues; “Insects such as silkworms better fit the taxonomies and categories of technology than biology”], crop failure and finally rampaging wild boars outcompeting humans for the crops that survived triggered a cascade of unintended consequences that led to a devastating famine caused by industrial agriculture in 1749. About this “wild boar famine”, Walker paraphrases University of Chicago Associate Professor of History and East Asian Languages Susan Burns’ January 1, 2003 book Before the Nation: Kokugaku and the Imagining of Community in Early Modern Japan in reiterating his assertion that:

Pain that occurred because of nationwide ecological shifts that caused large-scale starvation…witnessed during the wild boar famine provided a far more physical reminder to Japanese…of their membership in a new form of national community.” [Introduction, Page 11]

According to Professor Cronon’s Foreword, in Chapter Two: The Agency of Chemicals, Walker describes the evolution of insect pest-control technologies from the rather innocent applications of whale oil, curses and prayers to the horrific introduction of compounds based on toxic elements such as lead and arsenic during the western-oriented Mejii period and finally the massive use of synthetic pesticides such as the chemical parathion during the latter half of the twentieth century. “Before DDT was used to control insects;” Cronon explains; “It had precursors, like copper sulphate and lead arsenate, whose biological effects and long-term accumulation in the environment were hardly benign.” [Foreword, Page X]. Walker also considers the effects of insecticides, quoting Yale University Professor of Sociology Charles Perrow’s 1984 book Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies:

You could stare under a microscope at a sample of the biocide parathion for weeks and never fully understand how it kills people or facilitates insect evolution…When sprayed, insecticides become part of insect bodies and alter their evolution by inducing resistance. Even more germane, these toxins become part of the paddy ecosystems that insects inhabit, leading to systemic…accidents”.

Book Review: Weinberg, Steven. “To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science”. 2015

•March 24, 2017 • Leave a Comment

A historian has many duties. Allow me to remind you two of which are important. The first is not to slander; the second is not to bore. I can excuse you for neglect of the first for few will read your work. I cannot, however, forgive you for neglecting the second, for I was forced to read you.”

-Francois-Marie Arouet [Francois Voltaire], French deist historian and philosopher [1694-1778]

 

Introduction: What Makes a “Good” Historian?

 

Voltaire accurately portrays the common conceptualization, in the popular press as well as within the academic and scholarly literature, of what makes history “good”. Written history must be factually accurate in very nearly every detail, but at the same time actively engaging to the reader. In the magazine Bookforum in March 2007, University of Georgia Professor of Humanities William McFeely appears to agree with Voltaire, writing that “well written” is a “cliché used for history that is readable rather than turgid”.

However, in the first decades of the 21st century, scholars such as the subject of McFeely’s review, Cornell University History Professor Aaron Sachs, and Montana State University Department of History, Philosophy and Religious Studies Professor Brett Walker have complicated Voltaire’s simplistic instruction to historian “not to bore” by introducing concepts such as Walker’s analytical model of “hybrid causation” and Sachs’s “unification ecology” in the spirit of the subject of the 2006 book of Sachs’ that McFeely was reviewing, Prussian geographer Alexander Von Humboldt. These new conceptual models force historians in the second decade of the 21st century to largely discard the common conceptualization of history as a simplistic sequence of chronological cause and effect. With Walker’s analytical model of “hybrid causation” especially, in which even environmental events, conventionally considered natural, have multiple causes both internal and external, anthropogenic and otherwise, any historian following the twentieth-century tradition of attributing effects [events] to their singular cause could, by such reductionism, quite easily fall into the trap of perpetrating precisely the sort of “slander” that Voltaire warned historians against in the Eighteenth century.

Though both Sachs and Walker mange marvelously in their respective works, it is not difficult to imagine how such a multiple-cause, multiple-effect model might make much more complicated the task of fulfilling Francois Voltaire’s assignment “not to bore”.

This is, it should be noted here, not entirely, if indeed at all, the fault of the historians themselves, but rather instead is easily attributable to inextricable elements of human nature: Namely, the nature of the human mind and its evolutionary origins. As Doctor Phillip Mason, also of Cornell University, explained in November 2013, at its simplest, the human brain is little more than a probability calculator. For example, if one were to step off the edge of a cliff, the probability of one’s survival is extraordinarily low. The human brain, in effect a supercomputer, calculates this probability, and thus instructs its fellow muscles to keep the body well away from cliff edges. While this provides a clear evolutionary advantage in terms of survivability to those whose brains are best at calculating such probabilities, the inevitable downside of such calculations is of course their tendency to reduce the world that surrounds us to as simple of terms as possible: in this case, to a sequence of causes and their direct effects. This is, in turn, what makes adapting the brain to such radical conceptual complications as Walkers “hybrid causation” so extremely challenging.

This raises the practice of studying and writing about history to a whole new intellectual level, as it requires historians to not only be able to themselves conceptualize events as having multiple causational correlations, but also be able to express such a seemingly counterintuitive concept as this in an easily understandable way as well to their readers, and not only just their fellow academics and historical scholars but also to the broader popular public.

All too often, especially when dealing with effects and events which are unpleasant or even abhorrent, there exists an impulse, deeply-seeded in the subconscious if not the conscious mind, which even academics are by no means entirely immune from, to try to track down a presumably singular someone or something upon which or whom to place responsibility and blame. Walker warns against this impulse, however, as in an intricately interconnected ecological ecosystem such as the one in which we live our lives, the effects or events for whom it can accurately be said a single person or thing is entirely responsible, if indeed any do even exist at all, are extraordinarily few and far between. This is how historians participating in the traditional tracing of human history from one event to the next, from cause to direct effect, easily, even unknowingly, violate Voltaire’s first prohibition “not to slander” by fallaciously misattributing events, especially if anthropological or environmental atrocities are involved, to causational agents who were, at the very least, not solely or exclusively responsible for them.

As Walker shows, however, even the act of attempting the task of locating and corralling all of the often innumerable agents involved in any event’s ancestral origins can quite easily effectively draw even the most astute academic down a proverbial rabbit hole [of the sort envisioned by English logician Lewis Carroll in 1865’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland] of its own, and this in turn can lead to difficulties in avoiding violating Voltaire’s second prohibition “not to bore”. Making counterintuitive concepts such as effects without singular readily-identifiable causes actively engaging to readers, especially outside of academia is part of what lead Professor McFeely to note in his review the “readability” of Sachs’ magnum opus on Humboldt, as it all too often makes much written history what McFeely would most articulately identify as “turgid”, and even such an inspirational Enlightenment luminary as Voltaire would very nearly invariably find to be “boring”.

 

Thesis: Is Steven Weinberg a “good” Historian?

In his 2015 book To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science, Nobel-Prize-winning Harvard University Higgins Professor of Physics Steven Weinberg writes “As is natural for an academic, when I want to learn about something, I volunteer to teach a course on the subject” [Page IX]. This statement is telling about how Weinberg approaches the writing of history. From Voltaire’s twin prohibitions, we can extrapolate that the duties of a historian and a teacher are strikingly similar. Both have the professional responsibility “not to slander” and the positivity of the reception of both depends upon their aptitude “not to bore”. Weinberg’s critique of the writing in his own field closely mirrors Professor McFeely’s criticism of “turgid” history. “Much of the writing of physicists;” Weinberg writes; “Barely reaches the level of prose.” [Chapter 1, Page 16] It is this conversational tone, which Weinberg himself describes as “irreverent”, that makes Weinberg’s book not only “readable”, as McFeely may say, but actively engaging.

Furthermore, Weinberg justifies his choice of the title for his book in a distinctly Humboldtian manner that is reminiscent of Sachs’ “unification ecology”: “I chose “Discovery” instead of “invention” to suggest that science is the way it is not so much because of various adventitious acts of invention, but because of the way nature is.” Weinberg explains; “With all its imperfections, modern science is a technique that is sufficiently well tuned to nature so that it works—it is a practice that allows us to learn reliable things about the world. In that sense, it is a technique that was waiting for people to discover it.“ [Page XI]

However, whilst fulfilling Voltaire’s requirement “not to bore”, Weinberg’s narrative frequently treads dangerously near the realm of violation of Voltaire’s second requirement “not to slander”. For example; In discussing Italian astronomer, mathematician and physicist Galileo Galilei’s summer 1610 move from Padua to Florence, leaving behind his appointment to the Chair of Mathematics at the University of Padua under the patronage of Cosimo De Medici, to whom Galileo dedicated his March 13, 1610 treatise Siderus Nuncius [Sidereal Message] and placing him at the mercy of Pope Paul V and the Inquisition under Catholic Counter-Reformation Confessor Cardinal Robert Bellarmine; Weinberg opines that “A modern University Dean might feel that this danger was a just punishment for Galileo’s evasion of teaching duties.” [Chapter 11, Page 97]. To his credit, Weinberg readily admits to this particular danger of slander, making his agenda crystal clear: “In telling this story, I will be coming close to the dangerous ground that is most carefully avoided by contemporary historians, of judging the past by the standards of the present.” Weinberg warns the reader. “Some historians of science make a shibboleth of not referring to present scientific knowledge in studying the science of the past. I will instead make a point of using present knowledge to clarify past science.” [Pages XII-XIII]

The peril Weinberg refers to here Cambridge University Regius Professor of History Sir Herbert Butterfield coined “Whig History” in his 1931 book The Whig Interpretation of History. This “Whig history” was criticized both by Butterfield and later by John Schuster of the University Wollongong in Chapter 3: The Problem of “Whig History” in the History of Science of his 1995 book The Scientific Revolution: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science. Weinberg here once more gets credit for presenting both sides of the “Whig history” debate with equal accuracy and clarity. In summarizing the case against the Whig interpretation of history, Weinberg quotes University of Wisconsin—Madison Hillsdale Professor Emeritus of History of Science David Lindberg from his 1992 book The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious and Institutional Context, 600 B.C.E to A.D. 1450, expressing the sentiment that:

The proper measure of a philosophical system or scientific theory is not the degree to which it anticipated modern thought, but its degree of success in treating the philosophical and scientific problems of its own day.”

To this, Weinberg expresses his own response with equal articulateness, writing, succinctly, “I don’t buy it”. And again, Weinberg’s reasoning echoes Sachs’ Humboldtian “unification ecology”: “What is important in science [I leave philosophy to others] is not the solution of some popular scientific problems of one’s own day, but understanding the world.” He says. “In the course of this work, one finds out what sort of explanations are possible and what sort of problems can lead to those explanations.”

The progress of science has been largely a matter of discovering what questions should be asked.” Weinberg adds. “This sort of judgment is indispensable if one wants to understand how science has progressed from its past to its present”. [Chapter 3, Page 24]. Indeed, in his 1931 Whig Interpretation of History Professor Butterfield writes that:

History is not the study of origins; rather it is the analysis of all the mediations by which past has turned to present”.

Alas, ultimately, it is in this respect that Weinberg comes to the defense of “Whiggish” history. “Science is now international, perhaps the most international aspect of our civilization, but the discovery of modern science happened in what we may loosely call the West.” Weinberg writes. “The West borrowed much scientific knowledge from elsewhere—geometry from Egypt, astronomic data from Babylon, the techniques of arithmetic from Babylon and India, the magnetic compass from China, and so on—but as far as I know, it did not import the methods of modern science.” [Page XII].

Again to his credit, Weinberg goes to great lengths to give credit where credit is due, especially when it comes to arithmetic and mathematics. “The Babylonians had achieved great competence in arithmetic, using a number system based on 60 rather than 10.“ Weinberg appraises. “They had also developed some simple techniques of algebra, such as rules [though these were not expressed in symbols] for solving various quadratic equations.” [Chapter 2: Music and Mathematics, Page 17]. In discussing Plato’s student, Fourth Century BCE Greek astronomer and mathematician Eudoxus of Cnidus, Weinberg writes that “he is credited with solving a great number of difficult mathematical problems, such as showing that the volume of a cone is one-third the volume of the cylinder with the same base and height [I have no idea how Eudoxus could have done this without Calculus]. But his greatest contribution to mathematics was the introduction of a rigorous style, in which theorems are deduced from clearly stated axioms.”

He goes on to identify this as being by no means small praise by effusively singing the praises of arithmetic and mathematics. “Mathematics is the means by which we deduce the consequences of physical principles.” Weinberg states. “More than that, it is the indispensable language in which the principles of physical science are expressed.” “The distinction between mathematics and Science is pretty well settled.” Weinberg concludes. “It remains mysterious to us why mathematics that is invented for reasons having nothing to do with nature often turns out to be useful in physical theories.” Weinberg quotes the May 11, 1959 lecture by University of Munster Professor of Mathematics Richard Courant at New York University, published by Weinberg’s fellow Nobel Prize-Winning physicist Eugene Wigner of Princeton University in the February 1960 Volume 13, Issue 1 of the New York University Courant Institute of Mathematical Science’s peer-reviewed scientific journal Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics: “In a famous article, the physicist Eugene Wigner has written of The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics.” [Chapter 2: Music and Mathematics, Page 19].

This he contrasts against science, writing, “Scientific theories cannot be deduced by purely mathematical reasoning. Science and technology benefit each other, but at it’s most fundamental level science is not undertaken for any practical reason.” [Page XIII]. What may be Weinberg’s most telling statement in terms of his outlook on science is when he writes that “Nothing about the practice of modern science is obvious to someone who has never seen it done.” [Chapter 3, Page 25]. “I want to show how difficult was the discovery of modern science, how far from obvious are its practices and standards.” Weinberg explains. “This also serves as a warning, that science may not yet be in its final form.” [Page XII]

Furthermore, in Weinberg’s defense, he largely steers well clear of ascribing any arbitrary value judgments upon the past as opposed to the present, going out of his way to emphasize the differences between the two. “Again and again in preparing the lectures for my courses I have been impressed with how different the work of science in past centuries was from the science of my own times.” Weinberg writes, quoting British novelist Leslie Hartley’s 1953 novel The Go Between, writing that:

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

[This sentiment was echoed even more strongly by astrophysicist and cosmologist Neil Degrasse Tyson in the May 4, 2014 Episode 9: The Lost Worlds of Planet Earth of his Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey in which Tyson says that “The past is another planet—so is the future… Actually, many… But most of us don’t really know this one.”]

Weinberg makes clear repeatedly that he does not regard the people of the past as being inferior, but merely fundamentally and substantially different in how they approached the world. “My focus in this book;” Weinberg writes; “Is how we came to learn how to learn about the world.” And in Weinberg’s eyes, that is exactly what Ancient and Classical philosophers did: they “learned how to learn”.

Weinberg begins with the Ancient Greek philosophers, from the pre-Socratic seventh-century BCE astronomer and mathematician Thales of Miletus through Classical Greek philosopher Plato. Here he draws what is his clearest differentiation between past philosophy and the science of the present. “There is an important feature of modern science that is almost completely missing in all the thinkers I have mentioned, from Thales to Plato: none of them attempted to verify or even (aside from perhaps [Fifth Century BCE Pre-Socratic Philosopher Zeno of Velia]) seriously to justify their speculations.” [Chapter 3, Page 15] Weinberg summarizes, opining, “The Early Greeks had very little in common with today’s physicists. Their theories had no bite…It seems to me that to understand these early Greeks, it is better to think of them not as physicists or scientists or even philosophers, but as poets…I have in mind here poetry in a broader sense: language chosen for aesthetic effect, rather than in an attempt to say clearly what one actually believes to be true.” [Chapter 1: Matter and Poetry, Page 16].

To be perfectly fair, Weinberg makes his critique of this philosophical “poetry” as being “science” quite clear, even going so far as to include a certain measure of what could be interpreted as sardonic self-deprecation. “We simply do not find anything in the laws of nature that in any way corresponds to ideas of goodness, justice, love or strife.” [Chapter 5, Page 32] Weinberg gripes: “Whatever the final laws of nature may be, there is no reason to suppose that they are designed to make physicists happy.” [Chapter 11, Page 90]

So on the question of whether or not Weinberg altogether avoids violating Voltaire’s prohibition “not to slander”, Weinberg makes what is perhaps the most earnest effort such a Whiggish historian conceivably could towards avoiding denigrating the thinkers of antiquity altogether undeservedly or unnecessarily.

However, what is readily evident throughout Weinberg’s work is his steadfast dedication to adhering to the responsibility proscribed to him and to historians by Voltaire “not to bore”. And at this his iconoclastic, self-described “irreverent” narrative perseveres and ultimately succeeds in spades.

 

Conclusion:

So is Steven Weinberg a “good” historian?

Whether Weinberg, before writing To Explain the World in 2015 had read Walker’s 2010 book Toxic Archipelago: A History of Industrial Disease in Japan, in which Walker coins his analytical model of “hybrid causation”, or not is unknown.

Nevertheless, the spirit of historical events having not one causational correlation but many is deftly disguised in Weinberg’s nuanced view of past philosophical “poetry” as being “clarified” by modern science, rather than the philosophers themselves being unjustly judged upon contemporary knowledge; such as when he writes of English astronomer, mathematician and physicist Sir Isaac Newton that “Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians.” [Calling to mind d’Overbroeck’s College—Oxford chemistry professor Michael White’s 1999 biographical book Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer].

It is not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that the hostility and vitriol shown toward Weinberg’s “Whiggishness”, such as in Weinberg’s colleague, Harvard University Franklin Ford Research Professor of the History of Science Steven Shapin’s February 13, 2015 Wall Street Journal review entitled Why Scientists Shouldn’t Write History is not entirely deserved. Schuster’s critiques of “Whiggish” history in his book on The Scientific Revolution are not devoid of merit. Neither, however, is Weinberg’s compelling and engaging full-throated defense of it. Weinberg does himself credit by preempting unqualified outside critiques of his Whiggish work in its Preface, forewarning in the very first page’s first paragraph “I am a physicist, not a historian.” [Page IX].

So the conclusion to this review would be that, for a physicist, Weinberg’s iconoclastically, irreverently and unabashedly Whiggish history of modern science performs at least one of its Voltairian duties very well indeed, if occasionally not so much the other. The answer to the question of whether Weinberg is himself a “good” historian is obvious, as it is given by Weinberg himself in his own words right from the get-go: He is, admittedly, not a historian at all.

Book Review: Walker, Brett. “Toxic Archipelago: A History of Industrial Disease in Japan”, University of Washington, 2010. 352 Pages. Part I: Chapters 1-4, Pages 38-228

•March 14, 2017 • Leave a Comment

 

In his 2010 book “Toxic Archipelago”, winner of the 2011 George Perkins Marsh Prize for the best book in environmental history, Montana State University Department of History, Philosophy and Religious Studies Professor Brett Walker [M.A., East Asian History, Portland State University; Ph.D., Japanese History, University of Oregon], the leading practitioner of the environmental history of Japan, explores the hybrid spaces and causations through which human health and industrial pollution are intertwined in the “longue duree” of Japanese industrial and environmental history, documenting how cultural practices, social institutions and biochemical pathways have intertwined with the toxic byproducts of modern industry to produce devastating pollution incidents and arguing for a nature-centered societal development that recognizes that human societies are part of the complex, intertwined natural system, his simple overriding assertion being that physical pain associated with industrial pollution emerges from intertwined ecological and technological systems.

By focusing on the complex causations of environmental crises and tracing multiple paths of causation, Walker avoids pinning the blame for Japan’s toxic, engineered environment on any one historical actor.

Toxic Archipelago is a story about hybrid spaces; environments simplified by engineering and the channels for contamination along routes unforeseen by the engineers who made them, where humans and nonhuman species seek to thrive in a milieu that is increasingly saturated with the poisonous byproducts of industrial society. These hybrid environments are conduits through which toxins transcend the boundaries of human bodies.

To assemble the web of cause and effect involving toxic agents, engineered landscapes, human being and nonhuman beings, Walker develops his own analytical model, which he names “hybrid causation”. Walker mentions that his model of hybrid causation is “reminiscent of actor-network theory, where nature is viewed as an actor in hybrid environments and social networks” [Walker, Page 228]. These “co-evolutionary processes between people and their bugs” [Walker, Page 38] carry the human partners along a path with both light and dark sides.

In Chapter One: “The Agency of Insects”, Walker looks at famine and outbreaks of encephalitis caused by industrial agriculture and details how historically and culturally mediated human relationships with an invasive beetle pest, the fly that preys upon it, silkworms and mosquitoes all triggered cascades of unintended consequences that fundamentally altered “nature” on the archipelago, along with humans’ place in it by tracing age old Japanese cultural predilections for keeping insects, the rise in sericulture as a cash crop, the concomitant rise in mulberry plantations to feed hungry silkworms in areas once used to produce grain for Tokyo, displacement of traditional grain production to monocrop plantations in northern Hachinohe and finally crop failure and rampaging wild boars that outcompeted humans for the crops that survived, leading to a devastating famine in Hachinohe in 1749.

In Chapter Two: “The Agency of Chemicals”, Walker considers the effects of insecticides and describes the evolution of insect pest-control technologies in Japan since the 1700’s: from the rather innocent application of whale oil, curses and prayers used during the Edo period and Tokugawa period to the horrific introduction of compounds based on toxic elements such as lead and arsenic during the Western-oriented Meji period and finally the massive use of synthetic organic pesticides such as the chemical parathion during the latter half of the twentieth century.

In Chapter Three: ”Copper Mining and Ecological Collapse”, Walker explores how the Ashio mine complex was embedded not only in regional and global geopolitics as early as the 17th century, but also in the rice paddies downstream that were watered by the adjacent Watarase River watershed and the human and nonhuman communities connected to those paddies. In the pages devoted to the devastating pollution caused by the Ashio copper mine, Walker’s section on the famously outspoken local politician, diet member and proto-conservationist Tanaka Shozo is marvelous and offers not only a brilliant synthesis of his leadership and mobilization of farmers but also a strong portrait of his pioneering ecological vision, “predating the thinking like a mountain conservationism of Aldo Leopold by decades” [Walker, Page 106].

In Chapter Four: “Engineering Pain in the Jinzu River Basin”, we are asked to think about what it must have been like for the farmers in Toyama Prefecture who unwittingly poisoned themselves by irrigating their rice fields with the water from the cadmium-polluted Jinzu River:

Where are the lines that separate miners deep in the bowels of the Earth, high-tech smelters on the surface, atmospheric and hydrologic currents, oxidation processes, carefully tended rice paddies, human and nonhuman stomachs and the bone and liver disorders that killed hundreds of farmers when arsenic, cadmium and sulfuric acid crippled their already malnourished bodies?” [Walker, Page 91]

Tailings of rock from the Kamioka lead and zinc mines deposited at the surface got washed into the river, weathering processes chemically transformed the cadmium into a bioavailable form, one that could be incorporated into the bodies of living organisms, allowing toxic cadmium in the tailings to make its way into adjacent rice paddies and from there into the kitchens and bellies of miners, their families and nearby residents.

He concludes his book by arguing how even those who argue for a stronger coupling between environmental protection and economic activities in the form of ecological modernization have failed to capture in their thinking the natural systems that humans are a part of. Walker’s close studies of the “co-evolutionary partnerships between people and their bugs” [p. 38] allow him to make a compelling case for environmental toxicity as a condition of history through life way assemblages, which forge hybrid causations, and he convincingly argues that understanding how engineered, hybrid environments are inextricably woven into state-led industrialization and militarization is key to comprehending how human know in a visceral way the nation state through pain.

Walker’s study adds an important new ecological dimension to our understanding of Japan’s modernization. He is calling for a greater sensitivity to the natural ecological order and the place of humans within it and is very good at highlighting science and ecology as culture and history.

Walker excels at analyzing the complex interactions between chemical and biological factors, humans and nonhumans. The author masterfully intertwines empathetic narratives of human pain and sacrifice at the altar of state-led industrial development with examinations of the biochemical, physiological and socioeconomic pathways of industrial disease.

Book Review: Sachs, Aaron. The Humboldt Current: Nineteenth Century and the Roots of American Environmentalism. Viking Penguin. August 2006. Part Four: “North: George Wallace Melville and John Muir”. Chapters 8-10, Pages 273-353

•March 7, 2017 • Leave a Comment

Overview of the Book’s Themes and Purpose

Presumably the purpose is the same as in Part One: to “overthrow white Anglo-Saxon dominance, capitalism and imperialism” [Worster, 2006]. Whether Sachs ultimately accomplishes this must be deferred to more expert reviewers than this one to decide.

The theme is presumably the same as Part One as well: that “American history of the 19th century is dominated by the civil War, the expansion to the Pacific and the push to industrialization” [Publishers Weekly] and “the course of the American empire [Summers, 2006] was many-sided and intensely contested, rather than monolithic and preordained” [Sachs, 2006, Page 18].

The Humboldt Current springs from the Ph.D. doctoral Thesis of the same title written by Sachs at Yale University at Yale University in 2004.

 

Brief Summary of Key Points of the Chapters

As the subtitle of Part Four suggests, the Chapters are divided between Sachs’s two primary subjects: Rear Admiral George Wallace Melville [in Chapter 8] and famous American conservationist John Muir [in Chapter 9]. Chapter 10: “The Grounding of American Environmentalism” is by far the shortest chapter of Sachs’ book at just 17 pages and, much like Chapter One, appears to be primarily focused around the first-person personal narrative of Sachs himself. Just as Chapter One fed off of the book’s Prologue, so too does Chapter Ten appear to feed fairly directly into the book’s Epilogue: “Humboldt on Chimborazo”, beginning on Page 355.

Chapter 8: In the Lena Delta: Arctic Tragedy and American Imperialism” begins with the voyage of the USS Jeannette under Commander George Washington De Long in 1879, twenty years after the death of Alexander Humboldt. Sachs ends Chapter 8 on pages 300-304 with a lengthy description of the 1905 portrait by Thomas Eakins of Admiral Melville, an engineer aboard the Jeannette. In between, Sachs recounts the sinking of the Jeanette on page 276-279 and 289-292 and Melville’s remembrances of his shipmates on page 292-296. The title of the chapter, “In the Lena Delta”, is that of the 1884 book written by Melville about De Long and the Jeanette, as well as the hardships experienced by the crew and his shipmates.

Sachs begins Chapter 9: “The Cruise of the Corwin” on Page 307 with an article in the November 1875 Volume 51 Issue 306 Harpers Magazine by Muir on California glaciers. Later on Page 309, Sachs cites another article by Muir, in the September 1877 Volume 55 Issue 328 of Harpers Magazine, on Black Butte [also called Muir’s Peak] of the active volcano Mount Shasta in California’s Cascade Range. Sachs ends Chapter Nine on page 331 with the death of John Muir on Christmas Eve in 1914. As with Chapter Eight, the title of Chapter Nine, too, is the title of a book, written by Muir but published posthumously in 1917. Like Muir’s book, Sachs’ chapter concerns a voyage by the USS Thomas Corwin in search of the Jeanette. Sachs begins Chapter Nine on page 305 and 311 with the Corwin’s departure from San Francisco on May 4, 1881.

 

Evaluate the Book’s Overall Argument and Its Writing

As a writer oneself, it is difficult for one to describe the writing in Sachs’ book as anything better than “Well-written”: a “cliché used for history that is readable rather than turgid” [McFeely, 2007].

Upon reaching the end of Chapter Ten, however, it is difficult for one to find a way not to agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment oft-expressed by classmates that, as fascinating as detailed tangents are, Sachs could have and should have condensed and shortened his work. The book’s chapters average out at nearly thirty-two pages per chapter. Nearly as many, 29 pages are spent on Sachs’ self-described “Excursions”, which while not technically speaking chapters in the strictest sense of the term nevertheless average out at nearly six pages apiece. If each chapter could be consolidated down to even the length of the shortest among them: chapter Ten at seventeen pages; the book’s 345-page length could have easily been reduced by more than half with even a couple of pages to spare.

Sachs’ argument, especially in Chapter Nine, appears to be that modern-day environmentalism models itself too much on Muir conservationism later in his life and not enough on his earlier Humboldtian writings such as in his Cruise of the Corwin. Sachs seems to argue, quite convincingly, that environmentalism could benefit from Humboldtian unification universalism.

Book Review: Sachs, Aaron. “The Humboldt Current: Nineteenth Century and the Roots of American Environmentalism”. Viking Penguin. August 2006. Part I: East: Humboldt and the Influence of Europe. Chapters 2-3, Pages 41-108

•March 2, 2017 • Leave a Comment

Overview of the Book’s Themes and Purpose

In his September 1, 2006 review “Environmentalism for Outsiders” for the literary magazine American Scholar, University of Kansas Professor of American History Donald Worster writes that the “agenda” of Cornell University History Professor Aaron Sachs in writing his 2006 book The Humboldt Current is to “overthrow white Anglo-Saxon dominance, capitalism and imperialism”. In his review in the Summer 2006 Volume 34 Issue 4 of History: Reviews of New Books, University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point Department of History Associate Professor Gregory Summers writes that Sachs “argues persuasively that the course of the American empire was “many sided and intensely contested” [Sachs, Page 18], even by those whose explorations led the way.” [In the passage in question, in Chapter 1: The Chain of Connection Sachs writes about “the extent to which the “current objectives” of nineteenth –century American society might have been many-sided and intensely contested, rather than monolithic and preordained.” “American history of the 19th century is dominated by the Civil War, the expansion to the Pacific and the push to industrialization;” adds Publishers Weekly; “But it is worth recalling the prominent interest in natural history in the U.S.”

 

 

Brief Summary of the Key Points of the Chapters

Sachs opens Part I of his book at the beginning of Chapter 2: Personal Narrative of a Journey: Radical Romanticism on Page 42 with the then-32-year-old eponymous titular Prussian geographer Alexander Von Humboldt on his stomach on the edge of the caldera of active stratovolcano Rucu Pichincha near the Ecuadorian capital city of Quito in January 1802. Sachs closes Part I at the end of Chapter 3: Cosmos: Unification Ecology on page 105 with Humboldt’s death in Berlin on May 6, 1859 at the age of 89. In between, Chapter 1 ends on page 72 with Humboldt in Kazakhstan on his sixtieth birthday on September 14, 1829.

As such, Part I of Sachs’ book is written in approximately chronological order, with chapter two being named after Humboldt’s 1814 Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent and chapter three being named after Humboldt’s 1845 treatise Kosmos. There are exceptions to this, however, such as when on pages 59-60, when Sachs backtracks in time to Humboldt’s voyage to Venezuela in 1799-1800. Sachs also begins Chapter 3 on pages 73-75 with a lengthy discussion of the lifetime of 19th century American poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, ending on page 77 with a brief anecdote about Sachs’ own experience teaching ecology at a community college in the 1990’s.

As with Emerson, much of Part I of Sachs’ book is dedicated to the people for whom Humboldt served as inspiration, such as on pages 98-10 with his detailed discussion of 19th century American painter Frederic Church’s 1859 landscape The Heart of the Andes. On pages 97-98, Sachs follows up his story about Emerson with a discussion of Emerson’s contemporary, 19th century American naturalist Henry David Thoreau.

 

Evaluate the Book’s Overall Argument and Its Writing

In his March 2007 review for the magazine Bookforum, former University of Georgia Professor of the Humanities William McFeely writes that “Well-written”, the cliché used for history that is readable rather than turgid, won’t do for this luminous work.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson is famous, among many other reasons, as a renowned figure in Unitarian Universalism. In Part 1 Chapters 2-3 of his book, Sachs’ primary argument appears to be that the ideology of Unitarian Universalism, as well as that of 21st century ecology: namely, that of an interconnectedness between the Earth and all life, owes much to the contributions of Humboldt, as is strongly suggested by the subtitle to Chapter 3: “Unification Ecology”.

February 16-27 Part 3

•February 27, 2017 • Leave a Comment

That’s 174 research paper from the peer-reviewed scientific literature in 40 different disciplines of the biological, chemical, Earth, life and physical sciences, all on the subject of what you own source Gert Korthof calls the interdisciplinary “Evolutionary Synthesis” THAT is the sheer tonnage of the science that YOU are blindly and dogmatically disregarding and dismissing [in spite of the fact that you have proven yourself to have little or no knowledge, understanding or comprehension of any of the fields of science listed] in favor of your preferred book of Bronze Age fables, fairytales and mythologies about angels, demons, devils, dragons, ghosts, giants, gods, magic, satyrs, sea monsters, sorcerers, talking animals, unicorns, witches and wizards This is what makes you accusing me, @Helmut Christian Tomas, or anyone else for that matter of being, in your words “anti-science” laughably hypocritical in its transparent intellectual dishonesty as a textbook-perfect exemplar of the logical fallacy of referred to in psychology as “projection” [that is to say: taking the failing, faults and flaws that you recognize in yourself and falsely and fallaciously misattributing them onto other sto whom they categorically, definitively and demonstrably do not belong].

“we are doing science by consensus not by the facts and evidence”
WRONG
Each and every single thing that i have presented meets each and every single definition of both of those terms:
Fact, Noun:
1.) “Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed; Knowledge or information based on real occurrences”
-American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016
2.) “something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information”
-Cambridge University: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact
3.) “a truth verifiable from experience or observation; an event or thing known to have happened or existed”
-Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fact
4.) “a matter of objective reality; a thing whose actual occurrence or existence is to be determined by the evidence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality”: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
5.) “A thing that is known or proved to be true”
-Oxford University: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact
->”a thing that is known to be true, especially when it can be proved” -Oxford University: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/fact?q=fact
6.) “a concept whose truth can be proved; a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; an event known to have happened or something known to have existed”
-Princeton University: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fact
7.) “a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true; something known to exist or to have happened”
-Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2017.: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact

Evidence, Noun:
1.) “The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.”
-American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016
2.) “anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood”
-Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evidence
3.) “facts or physical signs that help to prove something”: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/evidence
4.) “The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid; Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts -Oxford University: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence
->”the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true”
-Oxford University: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/evidence_1?q=evidence
5.) “knowledge on which to base belief” -Princeton University: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=evidence

“None of the papers that you mentioned were able to reproduce the mutation that went form on species to another species”
FALSE
That is a bald-faced lie. The Process of Speciation is addressed in detail in papers 42, 64, 79, 80, 136 and 141 Plus this, which i posted not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES in my posts from 2 weeks ago:
“The most common way for species to split, especially in animal species (we will talk more about the origin of new plant species later), is when the population becomes geographically isolated into two populations…A single population (a) is fragmented by a barrier (b); geographical isolation leads to genetic divergence (c); when the barrier is removed, the two populations come back into contact with each other, and there is selection for increased reproductive isolation (d); if reproductive isolation is effective, speciation is complete (e)….Given time and selection, the two populations become two species…The real test of the biological species concept is when two populations, on the threshold of becoming two species, come back into contact. They may be so different that they do not even recognize one another as species. Often, though, species may come into contact when not yet fully reproductively isolated. In that event, natural selection should reinforce the reproductive barriers. Natural selection should reinforce reproductive isolation. Probably, species that are isolated only by post-zygotic barriers will subsequently evolve pre-zygotic barriers…Speciation results in the splitting of an ancestral species into two (or more) descendent species. This process, continued indefinitely, results in a sequence of speciation events extending over great expanses of time, resulting in a branching tree of historical relatedness…Given enough time and successive splittings, the processes that produce two species from one will result in the entire diversity of life.”: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html
and these:

1.) “Observing Evolution – How Evolution Has Been Observed” http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/ObservedEvolution.htm
2.) “Evolution Witnessed”: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090305150917.htm

 

4.) “Observing evolution in real time”: https://www.mpg.de/9804810/evolution-hiv-adaption

 

5.) “Watching evolution in REAL TIME”: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3471087/Watching-evolution-REAL-TIME-Scientists-observe-sticklebacks-breeding-separate-species-eyes.html

 

6.) “Watching New Species Evolve in Real Time”: http://blogs.plos.org/biologue/2016/03/31/understanding-images-watching-new-species-evolve-in-real-time/

 

7.) “Watching new species evolve in real time”: https://phys.org/news/2016-02-species-evolve-real.html

 

8.) “Witness Bacteria Evolve in Real Time”: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/bacteria-evolve/

 

9.) “Scientists Observe Wasps Evolving Into New Species”: https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404

 

10.) “Evolution in Real Time”: http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/pdfs/RevisedSAJMS.pdf

 

11.) “Evolution in real time”: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/

 

12.) “Evolution in Real Time”: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41309/title/Rapid-Evolution-in-Real-Time/

 

13.) “evolution in real time”: https://phys.org/news/2015-09-evolution-real.html

 

14.) “evolution in real time”: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6304/1109.18

 

15.) “Evolution Changes Species in Real Time”: http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane

 

16.) “Natural Selection in Real Time”: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session4/elaborate_b_pop1.html

 

17.) “Watching Speciation Occur”: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

 

18.) “Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists”: https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

 

19.) “Speciation in real time”: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

 

The process of speciation is addressed in detail in items 5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 18, and 19 on this list.

 

 

“Of all the papers that you reference not a single one had a non-light sensitive cell change to a light sensitive cell.”

FALSE

That, too, is a bald-faced lie. The “light sensitive cells” to which you refer are called photoreceptors. Here is a helpfully numbered list of all eighteen papers i cited:

 

“Evolution of vertebrate rod and cone phototransduction genes”, Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, Volume 364, issue 1531, October 12 2009:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/364/1531/2867.full.pdf

 

  1. “The evolution of phototransduction from an ancestral cyclic nucleotide gated pathway”, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Volume 277, March 10, 2010:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/early/2010/03/02/rspb.2009.1797.full.pdf https://labs.eemb.ucsb.edu/oakley/todd/publications/106

 

  1. Arendt, D. “Evolution of eyes and photoreceptor cell types”. International Journal of Developmental Biology, February 2003:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.460.6560&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14756332

 

  1. Arendt, D., Collin, Shaun and Lamb, Trevor. “The evolution of phototransduction and eyes”, Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, Volume 364, issue 1531, October 12 2009:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/364/1531/2791.full.pdf http://sites.oxy.edu/clint/physio/article/Theevolutionofphototransductionandeyes.pdf

 

  1. Collin, Shaun and Chuah, A. et al. “Evolution of Vertebrate Phototransduction: Cascade Activation” Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 33 Issue 8. August 2016:

https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/mbe/33/8/10.1093_molbev_msw095/2/msw095.pdf?Expires=1488177949&Signature=Bf~SOGCgAqM7jRWE88T55oKiydLW1vGeL9wxbKDY1VGAKb2coALjgwtaEwZjfFs9bNK40mcSDIcV2GPGVbiYEKOGKOT6-dYtUHb9RJdEXC0NZ7Tr4jx9k2EahMAWjFpM9LEKENaNP8QK332SH8Ykf7SjeOBNWFqBuIWO1ovBTS9ISFdkx2GcVymYM68RQeFFZAUuiXmrhHgHvmG3s68MI4VxiZtCSfofeIiJ8PTVWND7fIp06Jr78MsP6yZmtTwfCpzMzXrz-YOTP2zRtvhN2SpKXSRvs4h0enh~PNZsn-5IbJ15yE9De1fw7bYI66SfwA3ISaDRT2XAOxnp~~ownw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q

 

  1. Collin, Shaun and Davies, Wayne, Hart, Nathan and Hunt, David. “The evolution of early vertebrate photoreceptors”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Volume 364. Oct 12, 2009:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/364/1531/2925.full.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781863/pdf/rstb20090099.pdf

 

  1. Collin, Shaun and Hunt, David. “The Evolution of Photoreceptors and Visual Photopigments in Vertebrates”. Vision Research. Volume 4. September 6, 2014. Pp. 163-217:

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-4355-1_6#page-1

 

  1. Collin, Shaun and Lamb, Trevor. “Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup”. Nature, Volume 8. December 2007:

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v8/n12/pdf/nrn2283.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/pdf/nihms309801.pdf

 

  1. Eakin, Richard, University of California–Berkeley Department of Zoology. “Evolution of Photoreceptors”. Evolutionary Biology pp 194-242:

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4684-8094-8_5#page-1 http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/30/363.full.pdf+html

 

  1. Fain, Gordon, et. al. “Phototransduction and the Evolution of Photoreceptors”. Current Biology. Volume 20, Issue 3. February 9, 2010. Pages R114–R124:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(09)02125-3.pdf http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0960982209021253/1-s2.0-S0960982209021253-main.pdf?_tid=a3b9a696-f992-11e6-ad1f-00000aab0f01&acdnat=1487832068_be688d86a2dd0243f13c55d471af149b https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2898276/pdf/nihms213721.pdf http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC2898276/pdf/nihms213721.pdf

 

  1. Gehring, W. “New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors”. Journal of Heredity. Volume 96, Issue 3. May/June 2005:

https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jhered/96/3/10.1093/jhered/esi027/2/esi027.pdf?Expires=1488177801&Signature=a5ZR96WKi6vChqla0qoEnBxOpLV1uWWMqihbghCdRCcRkQsrE1BAl~gWUJ6EskRy2IbN2zbI9SkgcYPfR7~8GQ9hsjsA85ePAC3sk~9Xt0ipKrb-snwGRpOMDu7J57yUYI85PpQxzb2g6~OJ2KYAJnetavpqJnd4GOXj3J7m8b4NYb0MfLJnYKmJHrxkJys6ZpEboAIX9waZ5QNmjS833FUcdLgCncvF0rG4g9C1Z~4U91gc6TOQhjRlGoKCKcLGynQbsymki7H-xn6yhtPFfx-IvYh1RlBUNqnimuoB5DkvYS~4UH1X4HKLgRXWKap6TFwI-PCOjVzx0CUplhIrrQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q

 

  1. Koyanagi, Mitsumasa, Kyoto University School of Science Department of Biophysics and Kaoru Kubokawa, University of Tokyo Ocean Research Institute Center for Advanced Marine Research. “Cephalochordate Melanopsin: Evolutionary Linkage between Invertebrate Visual Cells and Vertebrate Photosensitive Retinal Ganglion Cells”. Current Biology. Volume 15, Issue 11. June 7, 2005. Pages 1065–1069:

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0960982205005129/1-s2.0-S0960982205005129-main.pdf?_tid=afb0dcb0-f994-11e6-a78b-00000aab0f02&acdnat=1487832948_595c4a46cef7e0a43fee304aee286144

  1. Lamb, Trevor. “Evolution of vertebrate retinal photoreception”, Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, Volume 364, issue 1531, October 12 2009:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/364/1531/2911.full.pdf

 

  1. Lamb, Trevor, Australian National University John Curtin School of Medical Research Department of Neuroscience ARC Centre of Excellence in Vision Science. “Evolution of Phototransduction, Vertebrate Photoreceptors and Retina”. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. Volume 36. September 2013. Pages 52–119:

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1350946213000402/1-s2.0-S1350946213000402-main.pdf?_tid=c1dffb6c-f991-11e6-b251-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1487831690_55fe21998335f9e4f74b65905844ee62 http://webvision.med.utah.edu/2013/05/new-webvision-chapter-evolution-of-phototransduction-vertebrate-photoreceptors-and-retina/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK153508/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK153508.pdf http://retina.umh.es/webvision/Evolution.%20PART%20V.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23792002

 

  1. Matsuyama, Take and Shichida, Yoshinori, Kyoto University School of Science Department of Biophysics “Evolution of opsins and phototransduction”, Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, Volume 364, issue 1531, October 12 2009:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/364/1531/2881.full.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781858/pdf/rstb20090051.pdf

 

  1. Warrant, Eric. “Nuclear Architecture of Rod Photoreceptor Cells Adapts to Vision in Mammalian Evolution”. Cell. Volume 137, Issue 2. April 17, 2009. Pages 356–368:

http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(09)00137-8.pdf http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0092867409001378/1-s2.0-S0092867409001378-main.pdf?_tid=29d6e19e-f993-11e6-a34c-00000aacb361&acdnat=1487832294_6dae8f0b5e66f58b0642dd790f0fed80

 

  1. Warrant, Eric. “Photoreceptor Evolution: Ancient ‘Cones’ Turn Out to Be Rods”. Current Biology. Volume 25, Issue 4, February 16, 2015:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)00006-8.pdf

 

  1. Yokoyama, Ruth and Shozo, Syracuse University Department of Biology. “Adaptive evolution of photoreceptors and visual pigments in vertebrates”. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Volume 27. 1996. pp. 543-567:

http://annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.543

 

The evolution of photoreceptor cells is addressed in detail in papers 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18.

 

 

“non-reproducible mutations ” WRONG Mutation has been directly observed and empirically verified over and over again and again time after time many, Many, MANY times: “Scientists Observe New Genes Evolving from Mutated Copies”, Scientific American, October 23, 2012: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gene-genesis-scientists/ “Evolution in Action: The Power of Mutation in E. coli”, University of Buffalo: http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/files/citrate.pdf “A Vivid Demonstration of Bacteria Adapting to Antibiotics via Mutations and Selection”: https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2016/09/12/a-vivid-demonstration-of-bacteria-adapting-to-antibiotics-via-mutation-and-selection/ “Position-specific expected and observed mutation distributions at CBSs in 198 MSS CRCs”, Nature: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n7/fig_tab/ng.3335_SF4.html “Isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation is frequently observed in giant cell tumor of bone.”, United States Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24898068 “Novel SCARB2 mutation in action myoclonus-renal failure syndrome and evaluation of SCARB2 mutations in isolated AMRF features”, United States Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/778/art%253A10.1186%252F1471-2377-11-134.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fbmcneurol.biomedcentral.com%2Farticle%2F10.1186%2F1471-2377-11-134&token2=exp=1488005663~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F778%2Fart%25253A10.1186%25252F1471-2377-11-134.pdf~hmac=a574dd9b92db66c586c0129e2ec162ba19b184df414ecf274c32ffb4257057ef https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22032306 “Spontaneous Mutation: Real-Time in Living Cells”, Cell, Volume 20, Issue 18, 28 September 2010, Pages R810–R811: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0960982210009334/1-s2.0-S0960982210009334-main.pdf?_tid=03a45c78-fb27-11e6-b94a-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1488005746_e745ab507fcbe65626b8930dbbeb1642 “A new method for detection of pfmdr1 mutations in Plasmodium falciparum DNA using real-time PCR”, National Center for Biotechnology Information: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/194/art%253A10.1186%252F1475-2875-3-9.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fmalariajournal.biomedcentral.com%2Farticle%2F10.1186%2F1475-2875-3-9&token2=exp=1488006143~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F194%2Fart%25253A10.1186%25252F1475-2875-3-9.pdf~hmac=a3e3d279b7d08c655b0a836637eca75dd207b7b0231f3d6595ffcb839e48cf30 “Method validation for detection of factor v leiden mutation by real time PCR and RFLP analysis”, International Journal of Life Sceinces, Biotechnology, and Pharma Research, Vol. 1, No. 4, October 2012: http://www.ijlbpr.com/uploadfile/2015/0414/20150414051612908.pdf “Mutation Detection by Real-Time PCR”, Public Library of Science: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004584&type=printable https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2642996/pdf/pone.0004584.pdf “Detection of an activating c-kit mutation by real-time PCR in patients with anaphylaxis”, United States Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15790486 “Rapid Detection of the Factor V Leiden Mutation by Real-Time PCR with TaqMan Minor Groove Binder Probes”, Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 50, Issue 4, April 2004: http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/clinchem/50/4/787.full.pdf “Real-Time PCR Assay for Rapid and Accurate Detection of Point Mutations Conferring Resistance to Clarithromycin in Helicobacter pylori”, National Center for Biotechnology Information: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC149634/pdf/1149.pdf “Rapid and sensitive detection of calreticulin type 1 and 2 mutations by real-time quantitative PCR.”, National Center for Biotechnology Information: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26294037 “Detection of Five Common CFTR Mutations by Rapid-Cycle Real-Time Amplification Refractory Mutation System PCR”, Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 50, Issue 4, April 2004: http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/clinchem/50/4/773.full.pdf “Real time PCR assays to detect common mutations in the biotinidase gene and application of mutational analysis to newborn screening for biotinidase deficiency”, United States Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12618081 “Coamplification at Lower Denaturation Temperature-PCR Increases Mutation-Detection Selectivity of TaqMan-Based Real-Time PCR”, Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 55, Issue 4, April 2009: http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/55/4/748 “Multiplex Fluorescence Melting Curve Analysis for Mutation Detection with Dual-Labeled, Self-Quenched Probes”, Public Library of Science: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019206&type=printable

 

 

 

 

“one of the pillars of the Darwinist religion”

As i have REPEATEDLY explained to you over and over again and again time after time many, Many, MANY times before in language so plain and simple that even a very young intellectually-retarded eight-year-old second grade child would have absolutely positively no difficulty of any kind at all whatsoever comprehending [yet evidently you yourself somehow DO], the scientifically-proven fact that is the theory of the Descent with Modification through Mutation, Adaptation, Natural Selection and Speciation DOES NOT now, never has and never will meet any known definition of the term “religion” found in any dictionary of the English language ever published anywhere in the English-speaking world.

 

Religion, Noun

 

“the belief in and worship of a god or gods”: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/religion

 

“Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshiping in a building such as a church or temple; A religion is a particular system of belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this system”

-Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/religion

 

“a belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods.”

-Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary © 2006

 

“the belief in and worship of God or gods; the belief in a god or in a group of gods; an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods; the service and worship of God or the supernatural”: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

 

“The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due”: http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Religion

 

“The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.”: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion

 

“the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them; one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the existence of a particular god or gods”: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/religion

 

“Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods”: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship”: http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/161944

 

There does not now, never has and never will exist any such a thing as a Darwinian “religion”

 

Please STOP mindlessly repeating this bald-faced lie.

 

 

“we are doing science by consensus not by the facts”

WRONG

The theory of evolution IS a scientifically-proven fact. THAT is what there is consensus on:

 

  1. “Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.”

-National Academies of Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, “Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences”, National Academies Press, 1999: http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/1

 

  1. “In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact.”

-National Academies of Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, “Science, Evolution, and Creationism”, National Academies Press, 2008: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

  1. “Natural Selection…is not a theory but a fact. But does it…suffice to account for the whole spectacle of Evolution?…There we come to speculative matter, to theories.” But he concludes that “the broad positions of Darwinism re-emerge from a scrutiny of the most exacting sort essentially unchanged.”

-Sir Julian Huxley, Professor of Zoology, University of London and H.G. Wells [B.S., Zoology, University of London], “The Science of Life”, 1929: https://lccn.loc.gov/31003561

 

  1. “One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity’s sake, let’s stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.”

-Richard Dawkins [MA, Ph.D., Zoology, University of Oxford], Professor of Zoology, University of California–Berkeley, “The Illusion of Design”, Natural History Magazine, November 2005: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/1105/1105_feature1.html

 

  1. “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…evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.”

-Stephen Gould, [B.A., Geology and Philosophy, Antioch College; Ph.D, Columbia University], Professor of Geology and Zoology, Harvard University Museum of Comparative Zoology, “Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes”, Discover Magazine, May 1981: https://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution%20as%20Fact%20and%20Theory%20Gould%201981.pdf

 

  1. “Evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science.”

–Kenneth Miller [D.Sc, Biology, Brown University; Ph.D, Biology, University of Colorado], Professor of Biology, Brown University, “Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution”, 1999: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/nave-html/faithpathh/Miller.html

 

  1. “Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.”

-Richard Lenski [B.A., Oberlin College; Ph.D., University of North Carolina], Professor of Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, “Evolution: Fact and Theory”, American Institute for Biological Sciences, September 2000: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

 

  1. “It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is fact, not theory.”

-Richard Lewontin [B.S., Biology, Harvard College; Ph.d, Zoology, Columbia University], Professor of Biology and Zoology, Harvard University, “Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth”, Bioscience, Volume 31, Issue 8: http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/8/559.full.pdfhttp://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/8/559.extract

 

  1. “The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact. How else except by the word evolution can we designate the sequence of faunas and floras in precisely dated geological strata? And evolutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the content of gene pools from generation to generation.”

-Ernst Mayer [Ph.D., Ornithology, University of Berlin], Professor of Zoology, Harvard University Museum of Comparative Zoology, “Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist”, 1988: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674896666&content=reviews

 

  1. “So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words…There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.”

-Hermann Muller [B.A., Columbia University; Ph.D., Rice University], Professor of Zoology, Indiana University, “One Hundred Years Without Darwinism Are Enough”, School of Science and Mathematics, Volume 59, Issue 4, April 1959: http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/100pcnts.htm

 

  1. “The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth’s revolution about the sun.”

-Douglas Futuyma [B.S., Cornell University; Ph.D, Zoology, University of Michigan], Professor, Stony Brook University Department of Ecology, “Evolutionary Biology”, 1998: https://lccn.loc.gov/97037947

 

  1. “Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves… it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.”

-Neil Campbell [M.S., Zoology, University of California–Los Angeles; Ph.D., Biology, University of California–Riverside], “Biology”, 1990: https://lccn.loc.gov/89017952

 

  1. “Biologists rarely make reference to ‘the theory of evolution,’ referring instead simply to ‘evolution’ (i.e., the fact of descent with modification) or ‘evolutionary theory’ (i.e., the increasingly sophisticated body of explanations for the fact of evolution). That evolution is a theory in the proper scientific sense means that there is both a fact of evolution to be explained and a well-supported mechanistic framework to account for it.”

-Ryan Gregory [B.Sc., McMaster University; Ph.D., Evolutionary Biology and Zoology, University of Guelph], Professor, University of Guelph Department of Integrative Biology Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, “Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path”, Evolution: Education and Outreach, Volume 1, Issue 1, January 2008: http://www.iuma.ulpgc.es/users/nunez/mastertecnologiastelecomunicacion/Tema1Metodos/hipo-thesis-fact-law.pdf

 

  1. “Darwin… finally and definitely established evolution as a fact.”

-George Simpson [B.A., Ph.D., Yale University], Professor of Zoology, Columbia University, January 1982: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm

 

 

 

 

“arguments based on facts, hard evidence, history, repeatable results, direct measurements, logic and reason don’t work on you”

WTF, in the wide world of all things sane and rational, are you talking about? Out of the two of us, i am the ONLY one who has ever presented ANYTHING that in any way, shape or form meets ANY known definition of the term “evidence found in any dictionary of the English language ever published anywhere in the English-speaking world. And in terms of “direct measurements” and “repeatable results” please see the above-listed 174 peer-reviewed research papers.

 

 

“you admit the immaculate conception of the light sensitive cell in your word photoreceptors”

WRONG

The papers i cited specifically address the EVOLUTION of photo receptors.

 

  1. Arendt, D. “Evolution of eyes and photoreceptor cell types”. International Journal of Developmental Biology, February 2003:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.460.6560&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14756332

 

  1. Collin, Shaun and Davies, Wayne, Hart, Nathan and Hunt, David. “The evolution of early vertebrate photoreceptors”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Volume 364. Oct 12, 2009:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/364/1531/2925.full.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781863/pdf/rstb20090099.pdf

 

  1. Collin, Shaun and Hunt, David. “The Evolution of Photoreceptors and Visual Photopigments in Vertebrates”. Vision Research. Volume 4. September 6, 2014. Pp. 163-217: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-4355-1_6#page-1

 

  1. Eakin, Richard, University of California–Berkeley Department of Zoology. “Evolution of Photoreceptors”. Evolutionary Biology pp 194-242:

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4684-8094-8_5#page-1 http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/30/363.full.pdf+html

 

  1. Fain, Gordon, et. al. “Phototransduction and the Evolution of Photoreceptors”. Current Biology. Volume 20, Issue 3. February 9, 2010. Pages R114–R124:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(09)02125-3.pdf http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0960982209021253/1-s2.0-S0960982209021253-main.pdf?_tid=a3b9a696-f992-11e6-ad1f-00000aab0f01&acdnat=1487832068_be688d86a2dd0243f13c55d471af149b https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2898276/pdf/nihms213721.pdf http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC2898276/pdf/nihms213721.pdf

 

  1. Lamb, Trevor. “Evolution of vertebrate retinal photoreception”, Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, Volume 364, issue 1531, October 12 2009: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/364/1531/2911.full.pdf

 

  1. 17. Warrant, Eric. “Photoreceptor Evolution: Ancient ‘Cones’ Turn Out to Be Rods”. Current Biology. Volume 25, Issue 4, February 16, 2015: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)00006-8.pdf

 

  1. Yokoyama, Ruth and Shozo, Syracuse University Department of Biology. “Adaptive evolution of photoreceptors and visual pigments in vertebrates”. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Volume 27. 1996. pp. 543-567: http://annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.543

 

There is nothing “immaculate” about it.

 

“there is no biological reason to have a photoreceptr ”

Please stop mindlessly repeating this bald-faced lie. I explained the reason why light-sensitive cells provided organisms with an evolutionary advantage in my post for TWO DAYS AGO, and again in my post from Yesterday, but i will repeat it again here:

 

The evolution from photoreceptor cells to eyes served a very practical purpose hundreds of millions of years ago. In the beginning, as is the case with flatworms today, the first eyes were merely light-sensitive photoreceptor cells. Back then, both before, during and after the Cambrian Explosion, all animal life on Earth was entirely aquatic. Being submerged in liquid dihydrogen monoxide is effectively functionally practically similar to being in outer space, in that water has the effect of negating the force exerted by a gravitational field such as that of the Earth’s gravitational well. While these cells could sense light [https://askabiologist.asu.edu/rods-and-cones] and even tell the difference between light and darkness, they could not determine the direction wherefrom the light was coming. The solution was to place these cells at the bottom Of a depression on the top of the head. As this depression deepened, This limited the amount of light that reached the cells to only light coming from certain directions, and thus helped the organism to determine the direction the light was coming from. Many aquatic species such as krill are diurnal, meaning that they spend the daytime in the deep water where it is safe from predators, but rise at night into the shallow water to feed. The ability to tell day from night is crucial in this life cycle [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130206190630.htm]. Krill that did not descend to deeper water during the day were vulnerable to predation. Krill that did not rise to shallow water at night starved. While photoreceptor cells were capable of sensing light and distinguishing light from darkness, a crucial trait for the diurnal lifestyle of many aquatic animals in their ability to distinguish night from day, it was only when these photoreceptor cells were placed at the bottom of a depression [or “eye socket”] with a relatively narrow pinhole opening [or aperture: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12590758/] that these animals gained the capability to determine from which direction light was coming. This is important in the near-weightless environment underwater because, like in outer space, without gravity, there for all practical intents and purposes exists no “up” or “down”. Needless to say, hundreds of millions of years before the invention of electricity, the only source of illumination on the Earth’s surface was sunlight. As such, at least during the day when the sun was directly overhead shining down on the water, for the animals in the water, the direction the sunlight was coming from was “up”. This became especially important later, first with the evolution of aquatic reptiles such as ichthyosaurs and later with the evolution of aquatic mammals such as cetaceans [dolphins and whales] due to their need to breathe air and their tendency to give birth to their live young underwater. But even for primitive aquatic animals such as the aforementioned krill, the ability to determine the direction of the sun [or moon] was a vitally important survival trait.

 

Please do not repeat your claim that this explanation does not exist ever again.

 

 

” If a mouse trap is missing just one of its parts it catches no mice and it dies out. ”

This claim has already been repeatedly disproved.

 

John H. McDonald, “A reducibly complex mousetrap”, University of Delaware Department of Biological Sciences: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

 

Please STOP mindlessly repeating it. It makes you look less than intelligent.

 

 

“In order for just one of these systems to successfully come into being by random mutation would be like hitting the Powerball every night for 10million years.”

FALSE

This bald-faced lie, too, has been repeatedly disproved, with reference that molecular biochemistry DOES NOT now, never has, and never will operate according to probability. It operates according to the laws of biology and chemistry. Please STOP LYING

 

 

” Do I believe in adaptation? Of course! Do I believe things can evolve over time? Surly! …Variation is science, no one disagrees with…seeing change over time, called variation or adaptation, and claiming it is microbe to man evolution…extrapolating variation into evolution is religious dogma masquerading as science” WTF? You just contradicted yourself. First you deride evolution as “religious dogma masquerading as science” Then you contradict this by stating that you DO, as a matter of actual fact, accept that organisms DO, in fact, evolve. So which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

 

 

Do I believe science can be co-opted to be quasi-religious and used to promote a political agenda? Absolutely!” I agree wholeheartedly. You yourself have cited three perfect examples: Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, William Dembski and Michael Behe. None of them have ever actually practiced any real science. None of them have ever displayed any interest in their results being scientifically accurate, or even ever proving any of their anti-scientific counterfactual claims using any credible, well-designed objective scientific experiments in reasonable unbiased laboratory conditions. But all of them have used their scientific credentials to pass off the pseudoscience they practice as a scientific theory. And all three have bald-faced lied repeatedly about the current state of scientific knowledge in order to promote their political agendas of having their pseudoscience officially instituted at the state and national government level to replace the well-established, proven scientific knowledge of their time.

 

 

“If science is done by facts and evidence why is there so much push back from the discovery of soft organic tissue in the allegedly 65 million year old dinosaur bones” There isn’t. What there is “push back” from is non-scientists with no credentials or degrees in any field of science claiming that the ONLY explanation for the presence of soft tissue in otherwise fossilized bones is that an imperceptible, immaterial, extra-dimensional, supernatural ghost in the sky must have magically spoken life, the universe and everything into existence from nothing using magical spells and incantations in the fourth millennium BCE, around the same time as the construction of the Great Pyramids at Giza in Ancient Egypt and more than four thousand years after the beginning of the known written recorded history of civilization as we know it. . WHY? Because not only is this NOT a scientific explanation, but it is WRONG in very nearly each and every way, shape and form humanly imaginable according to very nearly EVERYTHING that anyone who has ever lived anywhere has ever known or been able to prove about anything at all [SEE: the above-listed 174 research papers from forty different fields of science]. Instead of claiming that the presence of soft tissue in fossilized bones “proves” that the planet Earth is younger than the oldest known living tree, REAL scientists perform experiments in order to find a SCIENTIFIC explanation for this phenomenon that fits with what is known about the Natural and Physical sciences. As it turns out, as i explained to you [or rather, i should say, TRIED to explain to you, evidently in vain] these experiments DID, as a matter of actual facts, provide scientists with a known scientific explanation for the preservation of soft tissue through millions of years that did NOT involve any extra-dimensional ghost that no one who has ever lived has ever been able to see, hear, feel, touch, taste or smell in any way, shape or form violating the First LAw of Thermodynamics and “creating” the planet in the midst of several thriving human civilizations.

 

 

“you are missing the basic question of a NON light sensitive cell that changed into a light sensitive cell ”

FALSE

That is a bald-faced lie. The “light sensitive cells” to which you refer are called photoreceptors.

 

  1. Collin, Shaun and Hunt, David. “The EVOLUTION OF PHOTORECEPTORS and Visual Photopigments in Vertebrates”. Vision Research. Volume 4. September 6, 2014. Pp. 163-217: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-4355-1_6#page-1

 

“photoreceptors have an evolutionary origin from ciliary cells…These changes can be related in many cases to differential expression during development or to evolutionary changes in lifestyle and the light environment.”

 

  1. Eakin, Richard, University of California–Berkeley Department of Zoology. “EVOLUTION OF PHOTORECEPTORS”. Evolutionary Biology pp 194-242: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4684-8094-8_5#page-1 http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/30/363.full.pdf+html

 

“organelles adapted for activation by photons arose very early, perhaps not long after the evolution of the cell itself. These first photoreceptors, which made possible a new way of life, autotrophism, were probably elaborations of the cell membrane, similar perhaps to the vesicles or stacks of lamellae, rich in bacteriochlorophyll…Nature’s first photoreceptor was presumably a photosynthetic apparatus, at first it might have been macromolecules or granules containing chlorophyll, then vesicles and lamellae coated with the photopigment similar to the chromophores of purple bacteria which are bacteriochlorophyll-containing vesicles or stacks of saccules from the plasma membrane. From such photosynthetic membranes there evolved fully differentiated chloroplasts with lamellar systems. The significance of arrays of membranes, characteristic also of most if not all subsequent photoreceptors, seems clear: to ensure an ordered and piano-arrangement of the molecules of photopigment for the most effective absorption of radiant energy.”

 

  1. Fain, Gordon, et. al. “Phototransduction and the EVOLUTION OF PHOTORECEPTORS”. Current Biology. Volume 20, Issue 3. February 9, 2010. Pages R114–R124: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(09)02125-3.pdf http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0960982209021253/1-s2.0-S0960982209021253-main.pdf?_tid=a3b9a696-f992-11e6-ad1f-00000aab0f01&acdnat=1487832068_be688d86a2dd0243f13c55d471af149b https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2898276/pdf/nihms213721.pdf http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC2898276/pdf/nihms213721.pdf

 

“microvillar photoreceptors became predominant in most invertebrate species because of their single-photon sensitivity, high temporal resolution, and large dynamic range…receptor types probably emerged from a single precursor were present very early in the evolution of metazoans and have been described in nearly every phylum…This separation of photoreceptor types and families of opsins is very old, likely present before the emergence of the bilateria…At some point prior to the cnidarian-bilaterian split, the r-opsin family and associated microvillar photoreceptors emerged… in most invertebrate taxa, microvillar photoreceptors were preferred to invertebrate ciliary photoreceptors like those in jellyfish because of their defining characteristic: the microvilli, along with specific features of the PLC signaling cascade…The versatility of the microvillar photoreceptor allowed emerging bilaterian species to occupy mid and deep water as well as the ocean surface, and ultimately most terrestrial and aerial habitats…this was due primarily to the invention of the high sensitivity rod, which supplemented the low sensitivity cone-like photoreceptors of invertebrates and allowed the principal eyes of chordates to cover the full intensity range, from starlight to daylight, by deploying two kinds of ciliary photoreceptors…For this reason, the majority of vertebrates adopted a duplex retina with slow, high sensitivity rods for efficient scotopic vision in dim light, and lower sensitivity cones for fast and accurate photopic vision in bright light…Primitive metazoans and bilaterians appear to have utilized two basic types of photoreceptor: a ciliary receptor of low sensitivity for diurnal vision and shadow detection similar to the one in cnidarians and some molluscs; and a microvillar photoreceptor of much greater sensitivity that could adapt to bright light and function in both dim and bright illumination. The principal eyes of emerging invertebrates used one type of receptor or the other, or sometimes both…In the image-forming eyes of most invertebrate taxa, the microvillar photoreceptors were preferred because of their greater sensitivity and versatility, but ciliary receptors continued to be used by some species, including primitive chordates. At some point in the evolution of vertebrates, rod photoreceptors emerged with a morphology and an array of transduction proteins different from those of the less sensitive cones…the particular configuration of outer segment disks and distinctive forms of pigments, enzymes, and channels gave rods sufficient gain to signal reliably a single photon of light. The sensitivity of rod vision was improved further by the appearance of the bipolar cell, whose synapses filter out much of the background noise of rod vision. The invention of the rod permitted the emergence of a duplex retina, which combined the high sensitivity of rods with the ability of cones to adapt to bright illumination, thus providing an attractive alternative to microvillar-based retinae… because of its lower cost, a duplex retina with ciliary receptors was preferred by the image-forming eyes of emerging chordates.”

 

  1. Warrant, Eric. “PHOTORECEPTOR EVOLUTION: Ancient ‘Cones’ Turn Out to Be Rods”. Current Biology. Volume 25, Issue 4, February 16, 2015: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)00006-8.pdf

 

  1. Yokoyama, Ruth and Shozo, Syracuse University Department of Biology. “Adaptive EVOLUTION OF PHOTORECEPTORS and visual pigments in vertebrates”. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Volume 27. 1996. pp. 543-567: http://annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.543

 

 

 

 

 

“I can see how the people that exposed the fake of Piltdown man had it so hard from the Darwinsts” Can you really? Because as recently as 2 weeks ago, you claimed [Falsely and Repeatedly] that Piltdown Man was “central to the theory to prove evolution”. And as recently as a week ago you claimed [again, Falsely and Repeatedly] that “Darwinists supported Piltdown man”. Have you changed you mind since then, and do you now accept the fact that, as has been repeatedly explained to you over and over again and again time after time, many, Many, MANY times, Piltdown Man was proved to be a fraud by University of London Professor of Anatomy David Waterston less than eleven months after “Eoanthropus dawsoni” was unveiled at the Geological Society?

 

 

“science text books still have proven frauds and hoaxes in them today: the Great Britain Peppered Moth study ”

FALSE

That is a bald-faced lie. This claim has already been disproved. In my post from 2 weeks ago, i referred you to two studies, from 1998 and 2009, by Michael E.N. Majerus proving the results of the 1952 study on Peppered moths by Henry Kettlewell of Oxford University to be accurate:

 

“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.” “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, Majerus found that 37% of peppered moths were found on trunks.”

 

1.) Majerus, Michael. “Melanism: Evolution in Action.” Oxford University Press. Oxford (1998)

 

2.) 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

Please do not repeat this bald-faced lie ever again.

 

 

“The science text books still have proven frauds and hoaxes in them today: Haekel’s embryonic drawings”

FALSE

I am not aware of any biology textbook written by any Professor at any University used in any biology classroom at either the middle school, high school or college level that contains Ernst Haeckel’s original sketches of embryos from the 1800’s. When i took biology in high school, and again when i took science classes here at the University, my textbooks contained the 21st century PHOTOGRAPHS of embryos that CONFIRMED that, as i explained to you [or rather, i should say, TRIED to explain to you, evidently in vain] in great detail in my post from 2 weeks ago, Ernst Haeckel was RIGHT about ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny:

 

Alberch, Pere and Shubin, Neil, et. al. “The Shape of the Vertebrate Limb in Ontogeny and Phylogeny”. Society for the Study of Evolution. Volume 42. September 1988. pp. 862-884: http://nature.berkeley.edu/osterlab/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/EvoDevo1.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2408905.pdf

 

Casella, George, et. al. “Molecular Dissection of Allometry, Ontogeny, and Plasticity: A Genomic View of Developmental Biology”. American Institution for the Biological Sciences: https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/bioscience/53/11/10.1641_0006-3568(2003)053[1041_MDOAOA]2.0.CO;2/3/53-11-1041.pdf?Expires=1488433712&Signature=RNEFTr~dONoDZASr5HUw66zyTVwt~JVG33qD7JEJzETeE6vPXEHiA5BAwn47qNRswO17oQZD89CQ3HFb5zgHRncUgLmbiM2F-zjma289SW3Ty0s1d2dwuQ1R3bNTC0u3keBdu5ryJmacm3OtufOEATpRpP1WyZnciH6aWGwJKg2U-0qTTSEw-0nmfbhdN4Au~Vytj5Yc9whRlw7WcAunn~DutZQKOCyYPdpo14a8NxpfYpqiV61tlFizSauiFpfvulK6Ua4d~v13NN5Wba0mx4EQLVO2tzpuUaDNDOinSt1f-SKb8d~tDXZMh3Jax1YvfYTjTmD5MgTtHYBertjvzA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q

 

Coates. Michael. “New Palaeontological Contributions to Limb Ontogeny and Phylogeny”. Developmental Patterning of the Vertebrate Limb. Volume 205. pp 325-337: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-3310-8_43

 

Fink, William. “The Conceptual Relationship Between Ontogeny and Phylogeny”. Paleobiology, Volume 8, Issue 3. July 1982, pp. 254-264: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2400410.pdf

 

Gould, Stephen. “Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny”. Biological Reviews, Volume 41, Issue 4. November 1966. Pages 587–638: https://cbs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/PDFS/Gould1966.pdf

 

Gould, Stephen, et. al. “Size and Shape in Ontogeny and Phylogeny”. Paleobiology, Volume 5, Issue 3. Summer 1979. pp. 296-317: https://bsp.berkeley.edu/labs/wake/1979_Paleobiology_SizShapOnt.pdf

 

Harvey, Paul and Martin. R. “Brain Size Allometry Ontogeny and Phylogeny”. Advances in Primatology.January 1985. pp 147-173: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4899-3647-9_8

 

Korochkin, L. “The Relationship between Ontogeny and Phylogeny in the Light of Genetics”. Russian Journal of Genetics, Volume 38, Issue 6. June 2002. pp 602–611: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/836/art%253A10.1023%252FA%253A1016079515033.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1023%2FA%3A1016079515033&token2=exp=1488089079~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F836%2Fart%25253A10.1023%25252FA%25253A1016079515033.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1023%252FA%253A1016079515033*~hmac=cb24a9034bc935b19453a29ece40ba59318901208e5eec5ea178e063f5839c84

 

Northcutt, R. “Ontogeny and Phylogeny: A Re-Evaluation of Conceptual Relationships and Some Applications”. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, Volume 36. 1990: http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/115302

 

Rieppel, Olivier. “The Conceptual Relationship of Ontogeny, Phylogeny, and Classification”. Evolutionary Biology, Volume 27. pp 1-32: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-2878-4_1

 

 

 

 

“immaculate conception of photoreceptors”

WRONG

Please stop using [or rather, i should say, MISusing] the word “immaculate”. It is obvious that you don’t have the slightest clue what it means. Photoreceptors are defined in the papers i cited as cells capable of phototransduction. The evolution of the process of phototransduction is addressed in detail in papers 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 14, and 15 on the numbered list of the eighteen papers i cited that i posted 22 hours ago.

 

  1. “The evolution of phototransduction from an ancestral cyclic nucleotide gated pathway”, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Volume 277, March 10, 2010: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/early/2010/03/02/rspb.2009.1797.full.pdf

 

  1. Arendt, D., Collin, Shaun and Lamb, Trevor. “The evolution of phototransduction and eyes”, Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, Volume 364, issue 1531, October 12 2009: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/364/1531/2791.full.pdf http://sites.oxy.edu/clint/physio/article/Theevolutionofphototransductionandeyes.pdf

 

  1. Lamb, Trevor, Australian National University John Curtin School of Medical Research Department of Neuroscience ARC Centre of Excellence in Vision Science. “Evolution of Phototransduction, Vertebrate Photoreceptors and Retina”. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. Volume 36. September 2013. Pages 52–119: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1350946213000402/1-s2.0-S1350946213000402-main.pdf?_tid=c1dffb6c-f991-11e6-b251-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1487831690_55fe21998335f9e4f74b65905844ee62 http://webvision.med.utah.edu/2013/05/new-webvision-chapter-evolution-of-phototransduction-vertebrate-photoreceptors-and-retina/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK153508/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK153508.pdf http://retina.umh.es/webvision/Evolution.%20PART%20V.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23792002

 

 

 

 

“The fraudulent pepper moth study in Great Britain is another fraud ”

Please stop using [or rather, i should say, MISusing] the terms “fraud” and “fraudulent”, as it is obvious you don’t have the slightest clue what they mean.

 

Fraud, Noun:

 

“A deception practiced in order to induce another to give up possession of property or surrender a right.”

-American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 “the crime of obtaining money or property by deceiving people:”:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fraud

 

“Fraud is the crime of gaining money or financial benefits by a trick or by lying; intentional deception to cause a person to give up property or some lawful right; A fraud is something or someone that deceives people in a way that is illegal or dishonest; deliberate deception, trickery, or cheating intended to gain an advantage”

-Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fraud

 

“the crime of obtaining money from someone by tricking them; someone who pretends to be an official or professional person in order to trick people; the action of producing false documents or information in order to get what you want”: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fraud

 

” intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right; the crime of using dishonest methods to take something valuable from another person; a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby; any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage”: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

 

“Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain; A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities”: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fraud

 

“the crime of cheating somebody in order to get money or goods illegally; a person who pretends to have qualities, abilities, etc. that they do not really have in order to cheat other people”: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/fraud?q=fraud

 

” intentional deception resulting in injury to another person; something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage”:

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fraud&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=0000000000

 

“deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage”

-Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2017: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fraud

 

Fraudulent, Adjective:

 

“intended to deceive people for the purpose of obtaining money or property”: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fraudulent

 

“A fraudulent activity is deliberately deceitful, dishonest, or untrue.”

-Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fraudulent

 

“made with the intention of tricking someone, especially illegally”: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fraudulent

 

“done to trick someone for the purpose of getting something valuable”: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraudulent

 

“Unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities; Obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception”: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fraudulent

 

“intended to cheat somebody, usually in order to make money illegally”: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/fraudulent?q=fraudulent

 

“characterized by, involving, or proceeding from fraud, as actions, enterprise, methods, or gains”

-Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2017: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fraudulent

 

As I have explained to you [or rather, i should say, TRIED to explain to you, evidently in vain] not once but TWICE now, the results of the 1952 study on Peppered moths by Henry Kettlewell of Oxford University were CONFIRMED by not one, but TWO studies by Michael E.N. Majerus in 1998 and 2009.

“These moths would never be in such a place”

Except they ARE found in such places. Quoting again from my post from 2 weeks ago:

 

“In a later six-year study, 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…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).”

-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

 

“Of the forty-seven moths one researcher found in the wild, twelve were on trunks and twenty were on trunk/branch joints. (The other fifteen were on branches). The numbers and proportion on trunks near light traps were even higher.”

-Majerus, Michael. “Melanism: Evolution in Action.” Oxford University Press. Oxford (1998)

 

 

“the dark colored moth normally sleep or rest on the underside of leaves and are nocturnal.” This is not a valid critique of Kettlewell’s study. “Even though Kettlewell released his moths in daylight when a night release would have been more true to nature, he used the same procedure in areas that differed only in the amount of industrial pollution, showing conclusively that industrial pollution was a factor responsible for the difference in predation between color varieties.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html

 

 

“The famous photos of the peppered moths were staged” Even if this were true [which of course it ISN’T] it is not a valid critique of the results of Kettlewell’s experiments:

 

“Direct observation (Kettlewell, H. B. D. (1955). “Selection Experiments on Industrial Melanism in the Lepidoptera,” Heredity 9: 323-342.) and filming (Kettlewell, H. B. D. (1956). “Further Selection Experiments on Industrial Melanism in the Lepidoptera,” Heredity 10 (Part 3): 287-301.). Kettlewell and others observed birds eating moths directly off trunks of trees.” http://www.talkreason.org/articles/moonshine.cfm#exper “Bernard [Kettlewell] was a first rate entomologist and scientist. His experiments were meticulous and generally well designed. In my opinion, many of his experiments were among the best that have been conducted on melanism and bird predation. The ‘design flaws’ in some of the experiments, if you want to call them that were primarily a result of practical expediency because Kettlewell wanted to be able to see birds taking moths, and to film them.”

–Majerus, Michael. “Melanism: Evolution in Action.” Oxford University Press. Oxford (1998)

“I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill,)* pgs. 416, 1181:II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill)* pg. 1229:III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer) pg. 653:IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth) pg. 317:V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003) pg. 100:VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life(Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003) pg. 315:VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall,), pg. 583: VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall) pg. 372:IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall) pg. 223:X. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall) pg. 283:”

WOW

I don’t think i have ever seen such a shamelessly lazy plagiarizing copy-and-paste in my life You didn’t even notice, apparently, that the first two and the last two on the list are the same book repeated twice, the latter two of which are not even accurate according to the authors of the textbooks themselves:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

 

 

“the peppered moth study faked, ie used glue a staples to place dead moths in locations that they would never have done in a natural state”

FALSE

Please stop mindlessly repeating this bald-faced lie. I have already shown you numerous studies which indicate that they DO occur there naturally. There are the two studies from Majerus, which i have referred you to not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES, and which have made absolutely no attempt of any kind at all whatsoever to refute in any way, shape or form.

 

“Work by H. B. D. Kettlewell suggested that selective predation was the main determining factor in B. betularia, and probably in a wide range of other examples as well. His evidence consisted of surveys which put the correlation between melanic frequencies and urbanization on a quantitative basis (Kettlewell, 1958, 1965), demonstration that wild birds would eat the moths if they found them (Kettlewell, 1955), and the now famous demonstration that birds discovered most readily the forms least like the daytime backgrounds on which they rested (Kettlewell, 1973; Rudge, 1999). Kettlewell (1955, 1956, 1959) showed that the melanic form of the moth predominated primarily because of predation by birds. Colour of resting background and heterogeneity due to epiphyte cover, appeared to affect relative visibility. Selective predation became the accepted explanation for the rise in morph frequency (Majerus, 1998) Direct observation (1955, 1956) and filming (1956). Kettlewell and others observed birds eating moths directly off trunks of trees. Camouflage. Kettlewell visually ranked the effectiveness of camouflage of moths on different backgrounds and compared the effectiveness of camouflage with predation rates both in an aviary and in the field. He did not know that birds had ultraviolet vision, which his observers lacked, but got nevertheless a good correlation between camouflage and predation. Later research has shown that the moths are camouflaged in the ultraviolet as well as in the visible (Musgrave 2004).”

Majerus, M. E. N. (2000). “A bird’s eye view of the peppered moth.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 13: 155-159. Majerus, M.E.N. (2002). Moths. London: HarperCollins. Chapter 9. Link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0002201429/

 

“First, it is important to emphasize that, in my view, the huge wealth of additional data obtained since Kettlewell’s initial predation papers (Kettlewell 1955a, 1956) does not undermine the basic qualitative deductions from that work. Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence of the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth”

-Majerus, M.E.N.(1998). Melanism: Evolution in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 6. pp. xiii, 338. Link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198549822

 

“In the wild, 32 peppered moths were found on exposed trunks, unexposed trunks, and trunk/branch joints, while 15 were found on branches alone. In the vicinity of light traps, another 135 were found associated with trunks, and 20 with branches alone, for totals of 168 associated with trunks, and 35 with branches alone”

“Majerus has found moths over his 34 years of looking for them. Of the 47 moths he located away from moth traps, 12 were on trunks (that’s >25%). Of the 203 he found in the vicinities of traps, 70 were on trunks (that’s 34%). Based on his observations, Majerus argued that the most common resting site appears to be at the trunk/branch juncture. What is clear from his data is that they sit all over the trees, INCLUDING the trunks. So what? Kettlewell’s complementary experiments in polluted and unpolluted woods compared the relative success of different colored moths on the same parts of trees in different areas, not different parts of trees in the same area. It is true that the photos showing the moths on trunks are posed (just like practically all wildlife pictures of insects are) but they are not fakes. No one who reads Kettlewell’s paper in which the original photos appeared would get the impression from the text that these were anything but posed pictures. He was attempting to compare the differences in conspicuousness of the pale and dark moths on different backgrounds. Nobody thought he encountered those moths like that in the wild. At their normal densities, you’d be hard pressed ever to find two together unless they were copulating. I have always made a point of stating in photo captions that the moths are posed, and I think textbook writers have been careless about this. But they are not frauds.”

-Bruce Grant, Professor of Biology, College of William & Mary. February 2001:

Grant, B. S. (1999). “Fine tuning the peppered moth paradigm.” Evolution, 53(3): 980-984.

Grant, B. S. and Clarke, C. A. (2000). “Industrial Melanism.” Encyclopedia of Life Sciences.

Grant, B. S., Owen, D. F. and Clarke, C. A. (1996). “Parallel Rise and Fall of Melanic Peppered Moths in America and Britain.” Journal of Heredity, V87(N5): 351-357.

Grant, B. S., Cook, A. D., Clarke, C. A. and Owen, D. F. (1998). “Geographic and temporal variation in the incidence of melanism in peppered moth populations in America and Britain.” Journal of Heredity, V89: 465-471.

“The results of a pilot selection experiment, while agreeing qualitatively with Kettlewell’s results, suggest that fitness estimates that assume trunk-resting are quantitatively incorrect. It is suggested that visual selective coefficients based on a true assessment of the resting behaviour of the moths may considerably improve the fit between computer predictions and observed frequency distributions.” (p. 31) “We question the visual selection coefficients obtained from predation experiments which assume that the moths habitually rest in exposed positions on tree trunks. We note the poorness of fit between observed frequencies and models using selective coefficients based on independent experiments.” (p. 32) “Mikkola’s observations of the moths in experimental cages may help to explain the discrepancies between model-predicted and observed morph frequencies.” (p. 36) “Although Clarke et al question the importance of aspects of the microenvironment, they do not appear to doubt that the moths habitually rest on tree trunks.” (p. 37) “Although there can be no doubt that the species does occasionally rest on tree trunks in exposed positions, the few observations of resting B. betularia that one

of us has made in 20 years of moth hunting lead us to believe that exposed tree trunks are not the primary resting site for this species.” (p. 37) “Our findings and those of Mikkola are not original. Kettlewell (1958b) makes the most remarkable statement ‘… whilst undertaking large-scale releases of both forms (of B. betularia) in the wild at early dawn, I have on many occasions been able to watch this species taking up its normal resting position which is beneath the larger boughs of trees, less commonly on the trunks.’ Although we do not know whether Kettlewell was watching moths take up ‘normal resting positions’ we feel it pertinent to note that Kettlewell recognized trunks as a less commonly used resting site.”

-HOWLETT & MAJERUS 1987

–Grant & Howlett, 1988

“American biologist Theodore Sargent and colleagues in 1998 contended in Evolutionary Biology “that there is little persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observations, to support this explanation at the present time.””

FALSE

That is a bald-faced lie. Sargent actually states exactly the opposite:

 

“The Underwing Moths (Noctuidae, genus Catocala provide some of the best examples of cryptic coloration. These large and beautiful moths are named for their spectacular hindwings, which presumably serve as startle devices. But it is the forewings that provide their initial line of defense, enabling the moths to become nearly invisible on the backgrounds (tree trunks) upon which they rest. In one study with these moths, I captured specimens at bate (sugary solution applied to trees) during the night, and then held them overnight in a refrigerator. The next morning the moths were color-marked with a paint daub on one forewing (in order that they might be more easily found later), and then released into a local woodlot. When this moth was released, it flew about rather eratically at first, and then its behavior suddenly changed. It seemed to select an appropriate tree, a paper birch (Betula papyrifera) which its forewings would normally match. But it landed on a large black patch.”

http://bcrc.bio.umass.edu/kunkel/Moths/relicta_story.html

 

 

” The cage consisted of a one meter high plastic cylinder, about the size of a 50 gallon trash can. Two 5″ diameter trunks reached from floor to ceiling with six smaller horizontal “branches” attached to each at right angles. The wood was spray-painted light and dark on opposite sides for behavior experiments. This was hung at about waist level from a tree. Moths were released into the cage about 16 per day for resting position observations. Please note Mikkola’s own complaints about the design of the cage, and unexpected behavior of the moths: “The cage was originally designed to provide data about the choice by Biston of horizontal and vertical pieces of wood. However, this partly failed because the trunks touched, or were too close to, the roof and the floor of the cage. Many Peppered Moths simply walked up the trunks from the floor or settled at the top of them, apparently without performing any particular background choice. Most attention was therefore paid to the moths resting on the horizontal branches, the majority of which certainly had alighted from flight (see below) and supposedly showed the proper resting behaviour.” (p. 412) Mikkola’s data table totals were: Branches:77 [40%]; Trunks:51 [27%]; Other (elsewhere in the cage): 63 [33%]; Total:191 [100%]. His conclusion, set off in a one sentence paragraph (and excluded the “Other” category), is: “In spite of the walking of the moths to the trunks, the branches collected arithmetically more moths: 51 [40%] and 77 [60%] respectively.” (p. 414, [percents mine]). Mikkola’s conclusions are based on a 60% branch/40% trunk split, with all the problems noted here by the author. “Their preference for horizontal branches over vertical trunks was also evident but could not be statistically shown because of the design of the experimental cage. It seems clear that the normal resting place of the Peppered Moth is beneath small, more or less horizontal branches (but not narrow twigs), probably high up in the canopies, and the species probably only exceptionally rests on tree trunks.” (p. 416)”

-Mikkola, 1979, 1984

“Our observations support Mikkola’s earlier conclusion from cage experiments with male moths that the species rests predominantly on branches and shows an appropriately specialized resting attitude, demonstrated here in a series of photographs.” (Abstract; p. 129) “Overall, our observations of pairings and females moths suggest a more varied choice of resting position that proposed by Mikkola (1984). Some will rest on main branches or trunks (see Howlett and Majerus, 1987).” (p. 145, emphasis mine) “We agree with Makkola’s critique of field experiments to estimate the relative fitness of the phenotypes of B. betularia by using moths exposed on tree trunks. Such predation experiments must take into account the full range of the moth’s resting sites in more, or less exposed positions.” (p. 145)

-Liebert & Brakefield, 1987

 

“In industrial melanism of Biston betularia, both the original increase and recent decline in frequency of melanics are striking examples of natural genetic change closely related to change in the environment. They must have a selective basis. The experiments demonstrate selective removal. There is a general correspondence of morph frequency and appearance of backgrounds likely to be adult resting sites. None of this is in doubt.”

-Cook, L. M. (2000). “Changing views on melanic moths.” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 69: 431-441. Cook, Laurence M. (2003). “The Rise and Fall of the Carbonaria Form of the Peppered Moth,” The Quarterly Review of Biology 78(4):1–19.

 

 

“release them in the when the sun is up, they would already be under leaves or similar places. These moths will not act in their normal behavior.” This has already been debunked as a critique of Kettlewell’s findings: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html

Please do not repeat it again.

 

 

“releasing them in to a foreign environment that does not match their natural coloration habitat ” This, too, is not a valid critique of Kettlewell’s work either:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_2.html

 

“The maps show a before-after comparison of the geographic distribution of melanic phenotypes in peppered moth populations in Britain based on Kettlewell’s 1956 survey (left map) and that conducted 40-years later (1996) by my colleagues and me (right map). The black segments of the pie charts indicate the percentage of melanics at the various locations. Clearly melanism has declined everywhere it was once common…Of course migration is important. Majerus actually reviews this point fairly well by comparing the smoothness of clines in melanism between species that are highly mobile (as is Biston), and species that are relatively sedentary. Instead of showing his meaningless map of the UK (Fig. 7-2) to illustrate what he regards as anomalies in the distribution of melanism and lichens, why doesn’t he show the before and after comparison from the national surveys by Kettlewell in 1956, and the survey by Grant et al. in 1996.”

-Bruce Grant, Professor of Biology, College of William & Mary. February 2001

“They got caught just like Piltdown man was a proven fake” The comparison is invalid. Bernard Kettlewell of Oxford University, who performed the Peppered moth study in 1952, was a scientist Charles Dawson, who perpetrated the Piltdown Man fraud in 1912, was not. David Waterston of the University of London, who exposed Dawson’s Piltdown Man fraud, was a scientist. “Cupera1″, the person [baselessly and FALSELY] accusing Kettlewell’s Peppered moth study of fraud, is not.

 

 

American biologist Theodore Sargent and colleagues in 1998 contended in Evolutionary Biology “that there is little persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observations, to support this explanation at the present time.””

FALLACY: Appeal to irrelevant authority.

 

“Most of Sargent’s work appears to be on moth species other than peppered moths, such as the genus Catocala. In genera such as Catocala the situation regarding industrial melanism and selection appears to be different. Regarding the Sargent et al. paper, which is the major source for those proclaiming the downfall of the classical peppered moth story, an under-realized fact is that it is formally a review of industrial melanism in moths in general, and in many species other than the peppered moth (Biston betularia) the evidence is indeed poor that the “classical explanation” (selective predation against backgrounds changing due to pollution) applies. However, the peppered moth experts are unimpressed, just as they were unimpressed by a 1986 paper by some of the same authors (Lambert, Millar, and Hughes (1986), “On the classic case of natural selection”, Rivista di Biologia, 79:11-49.)… the convincing evidence for the classical explanation comes not just from the field experiments, but on the background natural history evidence from over 70 moth species, and in multiple geographic areas (Lees 1981, Clarke et al. 1985, Cook et al. 1986, Grant et al. 1998, Majerus 1998)”

-Cook, L. M. (2000). “Changing views on melanic moths.” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 69: 431-441.

-Mallet, Jim (2002) .”The Peppered Moth: A Black and White Story after All,” Genetical Society Newsletter,

 

 

“The first red flag over Kettlewell’s experiment was raised in 1975 by D. R. Lees and E. R. Creed when they repeated the experiment. After performing the experiment, Lee and Creed were drawn to conclude, “ some factor or factors in addition to selective predation are responsible for maintaining the high melanic frequencies.” The evidence is clear. Kettlewell had fraudulently engineered his study original study.”

FALSE

The “evidence” you have presented indicates nothing of the sort, since at no point did Kettlewell claim that predation alone was solely responsible for the changes he observed:

 

“Kettlewell (1955, 1956, 1959) showed that the melanic form of the moth predominated primarily because of predation by birds. He did not think that predation was the only cause of industrial melanism and in fact speculated as to the relative strengths of other causes…Kettlewell’s conclusion — that predation by birds was a major factor in promoting industrial melanism — was based on at least 4 lines of inquiry, as detailed above. It did not rely on the release-recapture experiments alone. It is also supported by at least 30 studies of different moth species that also developed melanic forms (Grant,1999). In other words, an enormous body of evidence supports Kettlewell’s conclusion. Even if Kettlewell’s release-recapture experiments were ruled out, we would still be forced to conclude that industrial melanism is the result of natural selection due to bird predation, possibly among other causes.”: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/moonshine.cfm#exper

“As tree bark color changed due to differential lichen growth in different conditions of air quality due to industrial pollution, so apparently the relative proportions of darker to lighter moths altered. This apparently proved evolution. Except that no evolution has taken place. Unless you define evolution in such a way that this evidence supports evolution as defined in your definition”

WRONG

How you, i, or anyone else define “evolution” is of supreme irrelevance. All that matters is how “evolution” is defined in SCIENCE. I provided you with the scientific definition of the term “evolution more the TWO WEEKS AGO

 

Evolution, Noun

 

1.) “Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.”

-American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016

->”Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.”

-The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007

->”A theory first proposed in the nineteenth century by Charles Darwin, according to which the Earth ‘s species have changed and diversified through time under the influence of natural selection. Life on Earth is thought to have evolved in three stages. First came chemical evolution, in which organic molecules were formed. This was followed by the development of single cells capable of reproducing themselves. This stage led to the development of complex organisms capable of sexual reproduction. Evolution is generally accepted as fact by scientists today, although debates continue over the precise mechanisms involved in the process.”

-The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Copyright © 2005

->”The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection. The modern understanding of the origins of species is based on the theories of Charles Darwin combined with a modern knowledge of genetics based on the work of Gregor Mendel. Darwin observed there is a certain amount of variation of traits or characteristics among the different individuals belonging to a population. Some of these traits confer fitness—they allow the individual organism that possesses them to survive in their environment better than other individuals who do not possess them and to leave more offspring. The offspring then inherit the beneficial traits, and over time the adaptive trait spreads through the population. In twentieth century, the development of the science of genetics helped explain the origin of the variation of the traits between individual organisms and the way in which they are passed from generation to generation. This basic model of evolution has since been further

refined, and the role of genetic drift and sexual selection in the evolution of populations has been recognized. See also natural selection, sexual selection.”

-The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2002

->”The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.”

-The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2002

->”The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over a long period of time through natural selection. The genetic makeup of populations of organisms can be traced using fossils and recent advances in DNA technology to determine the relationships between members of a given species.”

-The American Heritage® Student Science Dictionary, Second Edition. Copyright © 2014

 

2.) “Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear.”

-Cambridge University: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/evolution

 

3.) “an explanation of the way in which present-day organisms have been produced, involving changes taking place in the genetic make-up of populations that have been passed on to successive generations. According to DARWINISM, evolutionary MUTATIONS have given rise to changes that have, through NATURAL SELECTION, either survived in better adapted organisms (see ADAPTATION, GENETIC), or died out. Evolution is now generally accepted as the means which gives rise to new species (as opposed to SPECIAL CREATION) but there is still debate about exactly how it has taken place and how rapidly changes can take place.”

-Collins Dictionary of Biology, 3rd ed. © W. G. Hale, V. A. Saunders, J. P. Margham 2005

->”The theory that all living organisms have developed in complexity, from a simple life form. Evolution occurs by the natural selection of those who, by the fortune of spontaneous random changes (mutations), happen to be best suited to their contemporary environment, to survive and reproduce. It does not occur by the passing on to offspring of characteristics acquired during the lifetime of an individual. Characteristics are passed on by the transmission of DNA from parents to offspring and, unless mutation has occurred, this DNA is an identical copy of the DNA of preceding generations.”

-Collins Dictionary of Medicine © Robert M. Youngson 2004, 2005

->”Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics; a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them; the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny”

–Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evolution

4.) “descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations; also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization); a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations”: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

 

5.) “The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.”

-Oxford University: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evolution

->”the gradual development of plants, animals, etc. over many years as they adapt to changes in their environment”

-Oxford University: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/evolution?q=evolution

 

6.) “the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms” -Princeton University: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=evolution

7.) “change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.”: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evolution Kettlewell’s study of Peppered Moths meets each and every single one oof these definitions.

“all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done – dead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary”

FALLACY: Appeal to Irrelevant Authority

 

1.) NOVA premiered on March 3, 1974…22 years AFTER Bernard Kittlewell’s 1952 study on Peppered Moths

2.) There has never been an episode of Nova on Peppered Moths. So Sargent was bald-faced lying.

 

 

“The staging of the photos was first raised as an issue by intelligent-design advocate Jonathan Wells in his 2000 work Icons of Evolution” CORRECTION The “staging” was ALLEGED by Wells…utterly without evidence whatsoever.

 

“to see unstaged photos of peppered moths, look up Majerus’ Melanism: Evolution in Action. Majerus’ 1998 book contains pictures of moths resting on tree trunks of their own accord, directly contrary to Wells’ claim above that ‘all’ such photographs have been staged. Majerus says that all of the peppered moth photos taken by him in the book are unstaged [“I would point out that none of the photographs of live peppered moths taken by myself, which appear in the book were staged.” -Mike Majerus]…These photos look no different than ‘staged’ photos of moths on tree-trunks. Majerus himself has taken unstaged photos of peppered moths on matching tree trunk backgrounds, and these are not significantly different than staged photos. The differences between staged and unstaged photos are minimal [several (four) of these unstaged photos have some (minor but noticeable) degree of blurring (e.g., part of the moth will be out of focus)]…The most ‘staged’ aspect about a ‘staged’ photo is that two differing moth forms are shown side-by-side, but Majerus’ first two photos from Plate 3 indicate that even this is not impossible. The discussion thus far has shown that Wells’s “most serious objection” to the peppered moth story is completely baseless. The entire photo issue is a mountain made of a molehill…this eviscerates whatever vestige of a point Wells thinks that he has.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#mothphoto

 

“Insects in the wild do annoying things like move and fly away, and are often encountered in poor-light conditions, resulting in less-than-perfect photos. As scientific documentation of observations this is unimportant, but flawed photographs are exactly the kind of thing that are avoided in textbooks, and this is precisely why staging insect photos is a common practice for textbooks (as well as things like nature shows). All of us would prefer completely natural images, but you are naive if you think nature photographers to not commonly stage photographs, particularly of small specimens like insects. The reasons I accept that most photographs are staged are these: 1) It is far more efficient for a nature photographer to set up situations that resemble actual ones for comparisons than to stumble on them, you could find separate individuals commonly and yet not find the comparison you want in years of search, 2) Consider the fact that

Majerus’s collection averages about 1.5 moths per year. This shows that finding two specimens in the same year are common, but two moths at the same time, on the same tree, of both forms, close enough to photograph together is vanishingly small.”

http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199904/0100.html

“the controversy reached a more mainstream audience in 2002 when science writer Judith Hopper discussed it in her popular account of the science of the peppered moth, Of Moths and Men” There was never any “controversy” and “journalist” Judith HOOPER is a fraudster.

 

“What did Kettlewell do, and why does Hooper think he fudged his data? Hooper tells us that the weather was stable and could not have accounted for the increase in the number of recaptures (though her description suggests somewhat variable winds). Hooper has noted that the number of recaptures increased sharply on 1 July, the same day that E.B. Ford sent a letter to Kettlewell. Additionally, as Hooper admits, he continued to release more moths after 30 June. Instead of asking why Kettlewell’s recapture rate was high on 1 July and thereafter, Hooper should have asked why it was so low on 30 June and before. Kettlewell recaptured more moths after July 1 because he was releasing more moths then. The number of moths he collected is not significantly different from the collections one would expect on the basis of the number of moths released in the two prior days (Young 2004). This meager fact, combined with the anecdotal evidence of Ford’s letter,is all that led Hooper (2003) to infer that Kettlewell cheated. In reality, the timing of Ford’s letter belies Hooper’s inference, and Kettlewell’s data are completely consistent with normal experimental variation. Kettlewell would not have received Ford’s letter before the increase in his recapture rate had already begun. The collection of July 1 was completed by the early morning. Since Ford’s letter would have arrived after, it could not have been a factor. Kettlewell’s data are completely consistent with normal experimental variation, and Hooper’s insinuations are groundless. Kettlewell’s conclusions were based not only on his recapture experiment but also on three other investigations. The same conclusions were found by many other experiments on peppered and other moths by other researchers (Grant 1999).:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_4.html

 

“Hooper’s claims are moonshine; they are based on a lack of understanding of Kettlewell’s experiments in particular and experimental science in general. Shapiro (2002), in his review of Hooper’s book, suggests that moonlight interferes with moth trapping, a possibility that Hooper and her informant, biologist Ted Sargent, should have investigated. Hooper and Sargent should have performed a careful analysis before Hooper presumptuously insinuated fraud. Hooper evidently did not consider the most likely cause of the changes she saw, exposure to moonlight, let alone realize that the change in recapture numbers began before Kettlewell could have read the letter that supposedly triggered this change. “:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/moonshine.cfm

 

 

“you can duplicate Kettlewell’s experiment ” I don’t need to. As has been REPEATEDLY explained to you over and over again and again as second grade reading level, Michael Majerus already did that…TWICE…nearly two decades ago

“birds see more in the UV range than people do, so what looks camouflaged to us may not look so to a bird. Given this, how did Kettlewell achieve his suspiciously perfect results?” This question has already been answered:

 

“He did not know that birds had ultraviolet vision, which his observers lacked, but got nevertheless a good correlation between camouflage and predation. Later research has shown that the moths are camouflaged in the ultraviolet as well as in the visible (Musgrave, Ian (2004). “Paint It Black: The Peppered Moth Story,”).”:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/moonshine.cfm

 

“It’s not just that there is no evidence for thermal melanism in peppered moths, there is evidence AGAINST thermal melanism based on the geographic incidence of melanism in the UK, the USA, and Europe. There are no latitudinal clines, and no altitudinal clines as one might expect with thermal melanism.”:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#mothphoto

“their main predators are bats, not birds…Bats also ate moths, and since bats use echolocation to navigate, the coloration of the moths would not have made a difference.”

WRONG

 

“During flight, they are subject to predation by bats.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth

 

“Following correspondence with Hooper he added an experiment to find if bats, not birds, could be the main predators. He observed a number of species of bird actually preying on the moths, and that differential bird predation was a major factor responsible for the decline in carbonaria frequency compared to typica.”

-Majerus, Michael E. N. (August 2007). “The Peppered Moth: The Proof of Darwinian Evolution ”

 

Majerus died before he could complete the writing up of his experiments, so the work was carried on by Cook, Grant, Saccheri and Mallet, and published on 8 February 2012 as “Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus.”

[Matzke, Nick (8 February 2012). “Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus”: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/selective-bird.html]

The experiment became the largest ever in the study of industrial melanism, involving 4,864 individuals in a six-year investigation, and it confirmed that melanism in moths is a genuine example of natural selection involving camouflage and predation. Their concluding remark runs:

 

“These data provide the most direct evidence yet to implicate camouflage and bird predation as the overriding explanation for the rise and fall of melanism in moths.”

-Cook LM, Grant BS, Saccheri IJ, Mallet J. (2012). “Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus”. Biology Letters. August 23, 2012 Volume 8, issue 4. 609–612:

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roybiolett/8/4/609.full.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3391436/pdf/rsbl20111136.pdf

 

 

“American lepidopterist, a specialist in butterflies and moths, Ted Sargent and others biologist pointed out that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks” We have established Sargent to be a bald-faced liar [by virtue of having claimed to have worked on a NOVA documentary that was never made more than two decades before NOVA first premiered. And here we see him lying once again. Kettlewell’s studies on peppered moths proved that moths do indeed rest on tree trunks more than four decades before Sargent, and Majerus’s studies on peppered moths confirmed that the results of Kettlewell’s studies were, in fact, accurate more than a decade after Sargent. Sargent himself never did a single study on peppered moths in his life:

“Regarding the Sargent et al. paper, which is the major source for those proclaiming the downfall of the classical peppered moth story, an under-realized fact is that it is formally a review of industrial melanism in moths in general..most of Sargent’s work appears to be on moth species other than peppered moths, such as the genus Catocala”: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#mothphoto

 

“To me, a geneticist working on Lepidoptera, the convincing evidence for the classical explanation comes not just from the field experiments, but on the background natural history evidence from over 70 moth species, and in multiple geographic areas (Lees 1981, Clarke et al. 1985, Cook et al. 1986, Grant et al. 1998, Majerus 1998).”

  • Jim Mallet, University College London Dept. of Biology [Mallet, Jim (2002) .”The Peppered Moth: A Black and White Story after All,” Genetical Society Newsletter]

 

 

” did die of a self induced drug overdose” That’s not ENTIRELY accurate.

 

“Consequent of vigorous field research, Kettlewell, a hypochondriac, increasingly began to suffer from real diseases: recurring bouts of bronchitis, pneumonia, pleurisy and flu, along with heart problems. He fell off a birch tree in 1978 while conducting field collection and fractured two vertebrae in his back. He never recovered. Kettlewell died on May 11, 1979, the Dictionary of Scientific Biography [Dictionary of Scientific Biography vol. 17, suppl. II, pp. 469–471 by J.R.G. Turner] says “apparently” of an accidental overdose of painkiller”: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/books/the-moth-that-failed.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

 

For the record, the only one ALLEGING that the was NOT accidental overdose is Judith Hooper, whom we have already established beyond a reasonable doubt to be a charlatan and a fraudster.

 

 

“Those are two facts that you can try to deflect but these are are documented.”

FLASE

That is a bald-faced lie. Neither of the two things you presented meet any known definition of the term “fact” found in any dictionary of the english language ever published anywhere in the english-speaking world And, needless to say, neither has ever been “documented” Both are unsubstantiated allegations, at least one of which is demonstrably false to the point of being quite tangibly detached from reality.

“When other lepidopterist, specialists in moths and butterflies try and duplicate the experiment they fail every time.” This claim has not only been repeatedly proved to be a bald-faced, blatant, and flagrant LIE over and over again and again many, many, MANY times in quite literally DOZENS of my posts to you for more than TWO WEEKS now, but it is so completely wrong in every conceivable way as to be tangibly detached from reality to the point of certifiable insanity.

“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. 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, Majerus found that 37% of peppered moths were found on trunks.”

1.) Majerus, M.E.N.(1998). Melanism: Evolution in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 6. pp. xiii, 338. Link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198549822

2.) 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 has found moths over his 34 years of looking for them. Of the 47 moths he located away from moth traps, 12 were on trunks (that’s >25%). Of the 203 he found in the vicinities of traps, 70 were on trunks (that’s 34%).”

-Bruce Grant, Professor of Biology, College of William & Mary. February 2001:

Grant, B. S. (1999). “Fine tuning the peppered moth paradigm.” Evolution, 53(3): 980-984. Grant, B. S. and Clarke, C. A. (2000). “Industrial Melanism.” Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Grant, B. S., Owen, D. F. and Clarke, C. A. (1996). “Parallel Rise and Fall of Melanic Peppered Moths in America and Britain.” Journal of Heredity, V87(N5): 351-357. Grant, B. S., Cook, A. D., Clarke, C. A. and Owen, D. F. (1998). “Geographic and

temporal variation in the incidence of melanism in peppered moth populations in America and Britain.” Journal of Heredity, V89: 465-471.

 

“Mikkola’s data table totals were: Branches:77 [40%]; Trunks:51 [27%]; Other (elsewhere in the cage): 63 [33%]; Total:191 [100%]. His conclusion, set off in a one sentence paragraph (and excluded the “Other” category), is: “In spite of the walking of the moths to the trunks, the branches collected arithmetically more moths: 51 [40%] and 77 [60%] respectively.” (p. 414, [percents mine]). Mikkola’s conclusions are based on a 60% branch/40% trunk split”

-Mikkola, 1979, 1984

“to see unstaged photos of peppered moths, look up Majerus’ Melanism: Evolution in Action. Majerus’ 1998 book contains pictures of moths resting on tree trunks of their own accord, directly contrary to Wells’ claim above that ‘all’ such photographs have been staged. Majerus says that all of the peppered moth photos taken by him in the book are unstaged [“I would point out that none of the photographs of live peppered moths taken by myself, which appear in the book were staged.” -Mike Majerus]…These photos look no different than ‘staged’ photos of moths on tree-trunks. Majerus himself has taken unstaged photos of peppered moths on matching tree trunk backgrounds, and these are not significantly different than staged photos. The differences between staged and unstaged photos are minimal [several (four) of these unstaged photos have some (minor but noticeable) degree of blurring (e.g., part of the moth will be out of focus)]… Consider the fact that Majerus’s collection averages about 1.5 moths per year. This shows that finding two specimens in the same year are common, but two moths at the same time, on the same tree, of both forms, close enough to photograph together is vanishingly small…The most ‘staged’ aspect about a ‘staged’ photo is that two differing moth forms are shown side-by-side, but Majerus’ first two photos from Plate 3 indicate that even this is not impossible.” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#mothphoto

 

 
%d bloggers like this: