[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: "Random selection": an oxymoron.



In a message dated 1/27/99 9:31:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jkane@dcn.davis.ca.us writes:
>  Actually this was refuted in a recent volume of either Nature or Science.
>  The original study was seriously flawed and now being re-thought.I will se
>  if I can relocate the volume, they are routed to me at work.

Nature 396, 35 - 36 (1998) "Not black and white" 
A review by Jerry A. Coyne of:

_Melanism: Evolution in Action_
by Michael E. N. Majerus
Oxford University Press: 1998. 338 pp. £55, $105 (hbk), £23.95, $45 (pbk)

]Cautionary tale: the classic account of industrial melanism in the 
]peppered moth now looks flawed. From time to time, evolutionists 
]re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that 
]it is flawed or downright wrong. 
<snip>
]Majerus notes that the most serious problem is that B. betularia 
]probably does not rest on tree trunks -- exactly two moths have been 
]seen in such a position in more than 40 years of intensive search. 
<snip>
]Finally, the results of Kettlewell's behavioural experiments were not 
]replicated in later studies: moths have no tendency to choose matching
]backgrounds. 

Mary
mkirkaldy@aol.com