Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Guts · 08-12-2003, 08:02 PM

I don't know who is agnostic on the "list of fellows" why would you ask that?

pangloss · 08-12-2003, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guts
Answer my question first, is the Kettlewell experiment an experiment? When a textbook discusses such a thing, what are they discussing?

"...Pointing to the phenotypic differences between the different moths and how they came about (through the Kettlewell experiment) is showing it. "

The pictures have nothing to do with "how they came about." They are to show the differences in the color variation.

As described in the texts, it is a very good experiment.

But here is what you wrote:

"What is at stake is that the experiment shown in the textbooks is not really accurate. The moths are glued to the tree trunks, and Kettlewell released them during a non-natural time never during their natural time."

The moths are glued to tree trunks to take the friggin pictures. As described in the text, there is no gluing mentioned at all.

Did you have a point, or are you just engaging in your typical all-out ID hero protection?

pangloss · 08-12-2003, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guts
I don't know who is agnostic on the "list of fellows" why would you ask that?

Oh, I thought I had just read where you claimed that there are all sorts of folks - including agnostics - in the ID camp...

Guts · 08-12-2003, 08:08 PM

Pangloss wrote:

Quote:

The moths are glued to tree trunks to take the friggin pictures.

Why? Why were they taking pictures of glued moths?

pangloss · 08-12-2003, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by S2Focus
Name five agnostic supporters.

Also, name *one* non-religious organization that helps fund the ID movement, and tell us how much money it has contributed.

I see this already came up.....

pangloss · 08-12-2003, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guts
Pangloss wrote:

Why? Why were they taking pictures of glued moths?

Ummm... errrr... hmmmm...

Perhaps - now, this is just a guess - perhaps to show students what they are talkin' about? Maybe sumpthin like that?

Or do you really think that those pictures were part of the 'experiment'?

Guts · 08-12-2003, 08:13 PM

Pangloss, saying that there are all sorts of fellows, including agnostics, on the ID camp, is different from saying there all sorts of fellows, including agnostics, on a "list of fellows". You do get off on those little sleight of hands don't you?

Principia · 08-12-2003, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guts
Principia and PZ,

Being able to formulate a prediction and to pursue whether the prediction is correct or not, makes the hypothesis concerning the observation testable. This is simple.

If what lead Mike to predict that enolase functions as an adaptor because of the machine-like complexity of the degradosome, and that it is not a functionless vestige of co-option, then you can see how ID makes testable hypothesis.

Indeed, and when my peers go to the bar and return to the labs next day full of fresh ideas, you can see how drinking-with-buddies clearly results in testable hypothesis.

BioBeing · 08-12-2003, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guts
BioBeing wrote:

None of them are listed in Pubmed because it looks like citations for Journal of Mammalogy don't go past1980 Dr. Bohlin published a paper in this journal after 1980, so it doesn't show up in Pubmed.

Hmmm - doesn't seem to be listed at the Journal of Mammalogy site either...

http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/...sort=relevance

Do you have the correct citation?

Guts · 08-12-2003, 08:17 PM

Pangloss writes:

Quote:

Perhaps - now, this is just a guess - perhaps to show students what they are talkin' about? Maybe sumpthin like that?

Nope.

Quote:

Or do you really think that those pictures were part of the 'experiment'?

Yup:

Creed et al., �Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation�, J. animal ecology 44:67�83, 1975

This goes along with what Wells reported in The Scientist :

Quote:

Before the 1980s, most investigators shared Kettlewell's assumption, and many of them found it convenient to conduct predation experiments using dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks. Some biologists who used dead moths suspected, however, that the technique was unsatisfactory. For example, J.A. Bishop and L.M. Cook noted discrepancies in their results that "may indicate that we are not correctly assessing the true nature of the resting sites of living moths when we are conducting experiments with dead ones."

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1999/...in_990524.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-12-2003, 08:02 PM	#101
Guts Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York Posts: 90	I don't know who is agnostic on the "list of fellows" why would you ask that?

08-12-2003, 08:13 PM	#107
Guts Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York Posts: 90	Pangloss, saying that there are all sorts of fellows, including agnostics, on the ID camp, is different from saying there all sorts of fellows, including agnostics, on a "list of fellows". You do get off on those little sleight of hands don't you?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.