I'm sure you're all tired of me by now, but I was just putting some
"peppered moth" printouts of our discussions away and noticed the following:
Posted by Paul Nelson:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 1999 6:54 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Peppered Moths again
> Not quite sure where you're going with this. Jonathan was arguing that
> an a priori commitment to the role of selection in the peppered moth
> phenomenon has hindered investigators from considering other
> possibilities, and he sees this as another instance of the shackles
> of Darwinism on creative thinking in biology.
This is not my focus, I just want to say again - b******t. Quit whining and
just do the research. Furthermore, provide evidence that someone has
"hindered investigators" or drop it. (Pardon the commercial interruption.)
> However, your
> conception of the Darwinian paradigm is pretty capacious [the authors
> who want to look into induction, e.g., David Lambert, *****describe their
> ideas as challenging Darwinism*****; see Lambert et al., _Rivista di
> Biologia - Biology Forum 79 (1986): 11-49].
I said in my just posted modem-buster on peppered moths that there were more
curtains to pull. The *****emphasized***** (by me) statement by Paul
(above) is the key explaining why he and Wells are so interested in Sargent
et al. Note the full citation of authors below, i. e., sans "et al".
***Lambert***, D. M., C. D. ***Millar*** and T. J. Hughs. 1986. "On the
classic case of natural selection.", Rivista di Biologia - Biology Forum
Sargent, T. D., C. D. ***Millar*** and D. M. ***Lambert***. 1998. "The
'Classical' Explanation of Industrial Melanism", Evolutionary Biology,
Here's a good start on my first comment above. Someone provide evidence
that Lambert and Millar have been "hindered" for the last 12 years.