Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

115Re: NYTimes.com Article: 'Of Moths and Men': The Moth That Failed

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Edington
    Sep 26, 2002

      Thanks for clearing this matter up. Like I stated earlier my
      knowledge of Kettelewell's work is limited and thus am not really in
      a good position to judge its value.

      I don't think creationists have considered the fact that Kettlewell's
      work was independently verified by other researchers. If the
      experiment was repeated an the same results were achieved, then it is
      unlikely that Kettlewell's data could be fraudulent.

      Still it is annoying to hear these stories. Creationists make it
      sound as if evolutionary theory as a whole is crashing to the ground
      based on the results of this one experiment. Because people like
      Jones do not confirm thier data (when it supports thier views) the
      result is that confusion about what the true facts of the matter are.


      --- In IntelligentDesignUpdate@y..., "Tom Curtis" <tom_kbel@h...>
      > Hooper does come up with a few arguments that not even the
      creationists have proposed -- most importantly, that Kettlewell faked
      his results, or almost as bad, unconsciously mislead himself. This is
      despite the fact that the predation and mark-release-recapture
      experiments have been repeated by other researchers and have in the
      main confirmed his results (see the articles by Cook, Grant, and the
      books by Majerus 1998 and 2002 for detailed reviews). The most
      astounding passage in Of Moths and Men occurs when Hooper spends a
      paragraph "squinting" at the tables in Kettlewell's paper, and she
      notes that Kettlewell's moth recapture numbers increase suddenly on
      July 1, 1953. The implication is that Kettlewell fudged things
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic