You just keep rattling the stick again the bars of the cage

5...4...3...2...1...

This doesn't really change much from what was said before: the experiment was flawed, but there's nothing to indicate it was a hoax.

Thank you for confirming it again.

You never wondered how he got down the chimney?

You talkin' to me?

Did you really just devote a rather lengthy post to demonstrate that you can't back up your hoax allegation? Wow.

Why is this article being posted 20 months after it was published? Didn't we chew this over back then?

Robert:

Harry, Jeff and creeper are now arguing that the experiment does show melanism, wasn't fradulent, and that the stories revealing it are the hoaxes.

Fake but accurate?

Faked, inaccurate and wouldn't have shown what theyt were intended to (or claimed to) if real.

(I agree OJ) - one of the only things I can remember from grade school biology are the pictures of those moths sitting on the black or white tree trunks. Also I have always associated them with chimneysweeps and Mary Poppins - I guess its all the talk of soot, etc. Think I'll pop in the DVD tonight.

Even peppered moth's are barely palatable.

Robert: "Why is this article being posted 20 months after it was published? Didn't we chew this over back then?"

Orrin: Harry, Jeff and creeper are now arguing that the experiment does show melanism, wasn't fradulent, and that the stories revealing it are the hoaxes.

Orrin,

the article you post above merely confirms what I said earlier about the experiment being flawed, but there being nothing to show that it was a hoax or fraudulent.

Fot the last time, "God did it with magic" is not going to replace evolutionary theory. Maybe YOU need to come to terms with Santa not being real.

creeper:

When you rig an experiment to get a desired result you've committed fraud.

"When you rig an experiment to get a desired result you've committed fraud."

Right, and while it's clear that Kettlewell's experiments were flawed, the above certainly doesn't show that it was rigged.

Then there was the problem of how Kettlewell did his experiment. He released far too many moths in a small area for natural population densities to be represented, making any feeding trial highly unnatural. The moths were also a mixture of laboratory-bred and wild- caught individuals, which he failed to distinguish: an important omission, as each might behave differently. He released his moths in daylight rather than during the night, when moths are normally active. Worse, he began to release more moths halfway through his experiment when he failed to recapture enough individuals to make his results valid. It is a cardinal error in science to change an experiment's design midway through.

Not only is it not scientific it would not show melanism.

OJ:

Jeff has argued nothing of the kind. You are egregiously misrepresenting what I have said.

It would be nice if you could figure out what you are talking about. The experiment did not show melanism--the change in melanism, correlated with industrial pollution, already existed, it was the mechanism underlying the change the experiment was trying to demonstrate.

When you make a charge that someone has intentionally rigged the experiment, as opposed to badly designing it, you are making a serious charge that someone has committed a crime, rather than a mistake.

As a point of honor, you need to do a much better job of substantiating your charge.

Otherwise, you have committed libel, which is perilously close to bearing false witness.

Or doesn't that matter to you?

While it's clear that Kettlewell's experiments were flawed, the above certainly doesn't show that it was rigged.

Jeff:

Your statement is false. There's no evidence of melanism. It is, however, precisely how the Darwinian hoax works. Propose a method by which things might conceivably be forced to change and then pretend it worked.

"There's no evidence of melanism."

So animals didn't change color in areas discolored by industrial soot? And didn't change back when the environment was cleaned up?

Bingo.

Orrin,

the mere fact that industrial melanism exists is generally not disputed, even by critics of Kettlewell.

Orrin, it's bad enough that you go around misrepresenting all day, but when you misrepresent egregiously that's doublebad and calls for a stern response.

Peter:

You'd think they'd at least know their own side of the story.

"You'd think they'd at least know their own side of the story."

Since you're claiming the phenomenon of industrial melanism doesn't even exist, maybe there are a couple of stories you could catch up on yourself.

the claim is based on the peppered moth and centers on Kettelwell's bogus "experiment".

I never comment on these evolution threads since I do know enough either way. However, I can read. It is simply ridiculous for Creeper and Jeff to argue that Kettlewell's "experiment" was not intentionally fraudulent. The staging of photos alone is sufficient to find fraud. Not to mention the reminder of his "mistakes".

Melanism may or not be real but the Kettlewell moth "experiment" just cannot be taken seriously.

"the claim is based on the peppered moth and centers on Kettelwell's bogus "experiment"."

Please define which 'claim' you're talking about here.

The phenomenon of industrial melanism predated Kettlewell's experiments by 100 years or so. Kettlewell's experiments were an attempt to show why the phenomenon occurred.

Not even Kettlewell's critics dispute the fact that industrial melanism took place.

Yet it didn't.

"The staging of photos alone is sufficient to find fraud."

Bob, the photos in question were there for the sake of illustrating what the different colored moths would look like on different colored backgrounds. Photos are staged for illustrative purposes like this all the time, and it does not amount to fraud.

Incidentally, the pictures were taken (and the experiments were conducted) in the 1950's. It wasn't known until the 1980's that peppered moths only rarely rest on tree trunks in the wild. Keep that in mind the next time you accuse Kettlewell of fraud, an act that requires a conscious motivation on his part.

"Not to mention the reminder of his "mistakes"."

The remainder of his mistakes were just that, mistakes. I don't think anyone will dispute that the experiments were flawed, but accusations of 'hoax' and 'fraud' are baseless.

"Yet it didn't."

You're basing this on what?

That the moths didn't change.

"That the moths didn't change."

The moth population changed its predominant color from light to dark and maintained that ratio for decades.

Then the moth population changed its predominant color back from dark to light and has maintained that ratio ever since.

That is known as the phenomenon of industrial melanism.

But it's merely assumed and you're using population, not successive generations.

"But it's merely assumed and you're using population, not successive generations."

No, industrial melanism was observed.

No, this was about successive generations.

OJ:

Your claim industrial melanism didn't occur is pure nonsense.

It did occur, it was widely noted, and was strongly correlated with the use of coal as a fuel in England.

And since it occurred over time, then it most certainly involves successive generations.

Bob:

There is a very good book out on how this all came about; perhaps you should read it.

Jeff:

"most certainly" assertions aren't actually science.

It is though the great weakness of Hooper's book that she doesn't question the threshhold assertion either. Look up industrial melanism though and you'll see that all the cites are to Kettlewell even though his experriment--assuming it hadn't been a hoax--couldn't have demonstrated it.

""most certainly" assertions aren't actually science."

Nor does a statement like that amount to a rebuttal.

How old do you think moths get to be? Are you suggesting these are the same moths, living for years and years and changing colors?

creeper:

Yes, I'm not pretending to science.

No, that they don't change colors.

"Yes, I'm not pretending to science."

Just some coherence would do, Orrin. When you come up with a statement like "it's merely assumed and you're using population, not successive generations", then surely you must mean something by that.

Incidentally, why do some people consider staged pictures of moths on tree trunks to be fraudulent when this is something that is also found in nature?

creeper:

Yes, I mean that there are no scientific studies to support your claim.

It doesn't occur in nature, just in the hoax and its Triumph of the Will..

Which claim? That industrial melanism is a real phenomenon?

Yes.

Jeff/creeper

Congratulations. The jury just came back and acquited Kettlewell of fraud. They said he was an idiot instead.

We'll never recover.

The argument does seem to be that he was too stupid or incompetent to be fraudulent. what that makes folks who believe him I'll leave up to you.

Orrin, if this is you:

This is rather close to your just-so story that Almighty God is not all that intelligent after all, on all those occasions whenever that assessment happens to suit the whole creationism argument.

To paraphrase: what that makes folks who believe in Him I'll leave up to you.

"The jury just came back and acquited Kettlewell of fraud. They said he was an idiot instead."

While 'idiot' and 'stupid' seem a bit harsh (what, you never made a mistake?), it's good to see this silly fraud thing finally off the table. Not that Orrin could ever present an argument for it anyway.

Then there was the problem of how Kettlewell did his experiment. He released far too many moths in a small area for natural population densities to be represented, making any feeding trial highly unnatural. The moths were also a mixture of laboratory-bred and wild- caught individuals, which he failed to distinguish: an important omission, as each might behave differently. He released his moths in daylight rather than during the night, when moths are normally active. Worse, he began to release more moths halfway through his experiment when he failed to recapture enough individuals to make his results valid. It is a cardinal error in science to change an experiment's design midway through.

When you fleece prospectors it's called salting the mine. When you dupe Darwinists it's called the iconic study.

I think the judge just set aside the jury's verdict. Here are the "mistakes" mentioned in the article:

“Peppered moths do not usually rest during the day on the trunks of trees - where Kettlewell released them in the bird predation experiment - preferring higher branches tucked out of sight”

“He released far too many moths in a small area for natural population densities to be represented, making any feeding trial highly unnatural.”

“The moths were also a mixture of laboratory-bred and wild- caught individuals, which he failed to distinguish: an important omission, as each might behave differently.”

“He released his moths in daylight rather than during the night, when moths are normally active.”

“Worse, he began to release more moths halfway through his experiment when he failed to recapture enough individuals to make his results valid”

Sure, no fraud here. Just a "mistake" at every stage of his experiment.

creeper:

You have that analogy exactly right.

"You have that analogy exactly right."

Now you see God as a fraud?

Bob,

The first one, as I pointed out earlier, wasn't even known about until 30 years later, so I don't really see the point to assign Kettlewell nefarious motives on the basis of this.

Do the second, third and fourth skew the results in ways that made it predictable to Kettlewell at the time? Would, for example, releasing a mixture of laboratory-bred and wild-caught moths bring about a predictable result? In the absence of such, an accusation of 'fraud' simply makes no sense.

Creeper: What makes no sense is your insistence that no fraud was involved. My reading is that Kettlewell had a theory and was going to prove it in any way he could. You damage your position on the merits by insisting that it was all innocent.

But let's assume you are right, it was merely gross negligence. You really damage your position on the merits by defending the "experiment" in any way. Whether fraud or merely gross incompetence, it is not a valid study.

creeper:

It's a novel argument at least when you claim Kettlewell's complete ignorance of the moths habits in his favor.

merits?

Not in his favor per se, but certainly against accusations of willful fraud.

Bob,

"You really damage your position on the merits by defending the "experiment" in any way."

I have acknowledged those flaws on this and other threads. What I am defending the experiment against is Orrin's baseless accusation of intentional fraud. Seeing as this accusation itself has not been substantiated, I don't see how my pointing this out damages much of anything.

"You damage your position on the merits by insisting that it was all innocent."

I have not yet seen any indication that intentional fraud was involved. If the actions you cite in your previous comment do not lead to what would have been predictable results to Kettlewell, then how could he have chosen to engage in them to commit fraud?

Sloppiness yes, hoax no... at least not as far as I've seen, though I'm sure Orrin is looking.

Then there was the problem of how Kettlewell did his experiment. He released far too many moths in a small area for natural population densities to be represented, making any feeding trial highly unnatural. The moths were also a mixture of laboratory-bred and wild- caught individuals, which he failed to distinguish: an important omission, as each might behave differently. He released his moths in daylight rather than during the night, when moths are normally active. Worse, he began to release more moths halfway through his experiment when he failed to recapture enough individuals to make his results valid. It is a cardinal error in science to change an experiment's design midway through.

Yes, Orrin, we've been through those. None of them indicate intentional fraud.

The entire experiment was cooked. He knew it was cooked and when it still wasn't working he started fiddling the numbers. His intent may not have been to fool you in particular, but it was to arrive at a pre-determined result regardless of the facts.

You're ascribing intentions to Kettlewell that you're unable to substantiate. Why?

Creeper:

Because OJ has no respect for the meaning of words.

Bob:

There is less there than meets the eye. First, and most important, it is not the least certain that anything Kettlewell did resulted in a false outcome.

It might be that lab v. wild bred made a difference, but maybe not. It might be that releasing the moths during the day made a differenc, but maybe not. Similarly for unnaturally high densities. And contrary to the author's contention, I don't see it as a "cardinal error" to start releasing more moths, so long as the numbers are properly accomodated in the results.

To maintain that position, one is effectively asserting that an experiment never before performed must be performed perfectly the first time, and that unforeseen problems in the experiments execution may never be addressed.

None of this is anything like fraud, and are the kind of mistakes anyone who is not an experienced experimentalist--which Kettlewell certainly was not--could easily make.

Kettlewell may in fact have demonstrated environmentally driven changes in the moth population. Unfortunately, he made enought errors so that it is impossible to distinguish his results from the null hypothesis.

So that is not fraud--unless one has absolutely no respect for the meaning of the word, nor possesses enough integrity to avoid baselessly slinging it around.

It is certainly farther from fraud than claiming with certainty--based upon absolutely nothing--the effect Kettlewell claimed to have demonstrated does not exist.

OJ:

An observation is not science. Or didn't you know that?

creeper:

His intent was to arrive at a pre-determined result, that's not in question. Why he engaged in fraud is a fraught psychological question beyond our ken.

Jeff:

Bingo!

"His intent was to arrive at a pre-determined result, that's not in question."

1. You can't read his mind.

2. Kettlewell would have had to be able to predict that his actions would lead to his desired goal.

As Jeff said earlier:

"It might be that lab v. wild bred made a difference, but maybe not. It might be that releasing the moths during the day made a differenc, but maybe not. Similarly for unnaturally high densities. And contrary to the author's contention, I don't see it as a "cardinal error" to start releasing more moths, so long as the numbers are properly accomodated in the results."

Do we know that lab v. wild bred moths would have made a difference and, more importantly, do we know that Kettlewell would have known such a thing, and that he would have known that doing so would result in a predictable outcome?

Do we know that releasing the moths during daytime would have made a difference and, more importantly, do we know that Kettlewell would have known such a thing, and that he would have known that doing so would result in a predictable outcome?

Do we know that releasing the moths in unnaturally high densities would have made a difference and, more importantly, do we know that Kettlewell would have known such a thing, and that he would have known that doing so would result in a predictable outcome?

You would have to be able to say 'yes' to these questions before you can come to the conclusion of intentional fraud. Otherwise you're simply engaging in baseless ad hominem attacks.

creeper:

You'll note that he just kept fiddling his methods so he might get the desired results and when he still didn't get them he fiddled his books. For instance, after being criticized about his low recapture rates on the released moths--rates that were so low as to yield no statistical signifigance--his rates spiked so high as to indicate that he was simply making up numbers.

"For instance, after being criticized about his low recapture rates on the released moths--rates that were so low as to yield no statistical signifigance--his rates spiked so high as to indicate that he was simply making up numbers."

AFAIK, that was debunked, Orrin. He upped the release rates before the criticism.

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. Ford's letter commiserated with Kettlewell for the low recapture rates but suggested that the data would be worthwhile anyway. The letter is unremarkable, and two facts militate against a finding of fraud. First, Kettlewell finished collecting data in the wee hours of the morning and therefore could not have received the letter before collecting his data on 1 July. He markedly increased the number of moths he released on 30 June, the day before the letter was mailed, not 1 July. Additionally, as Hooper admits, he continued to release more moths after 30 June. Not surprisingly, he also captured more moths: more moths released, more captured.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/moonshine.htm

More recaptures demanded, more recorded.

More releases, then a letter expressing concern about recaptures. The releases took place before the letter, hence can not be a consequence of them.

Recorded,. not recaptured.

You pointed out yourself how utterly ignorant he was of their behavior in the wild even after supposedly spending all this time studying them. There's almost no possibility he was finding them when and where he was looking, based on his own ignorance.

The notion of melanism seems amply disproved though by the fact they were raising the things in labs.

"when he still didn't get them he fiddled his books"

And you're basing this on what exactly?

The phony numbers following the reprimand.

"Recorded,. not recaptured."

And on what are you basing this assertion? If anything?

"The notion of melanism seems amply disproved though by the fact they were raising the things in labs."

Kettlewell was investigating something more specific, though related to industrial melanism, namely the Bird Predation Theory. Using lab-bred moths for this purpose does not draw the well-observed phenomenon (documented for a hundred years previously) of industrial melanism into question.

Creeper:

OJ doesn't in the least mind slinging libelous assertions, yet seems wholly unaware of the dripping irony involved with calling someone else a fraud.

Yes and it's on the basis of his fradulent experiment that it is simply assumed that melanism occurred, a particularly sharply drawn instance of how Darwinism reasons backwards--unlike a science--and relies on hoaxes.