DOCSLIB.ORG

Peppered Moths

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Peppered Moths Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education PEPPERED MOTHS HOW MANY MOTHS CAN DANCE ON THE TRUNK OF A TREE? THE STORY OF THE PEPPERED MOTH DISTRACTION BY IRRELEVANT DATA ndustrial melanism in peppered moths is ells disagrees with the results of the one of the most frequently used examples research on industrial melanism in Iof natural selection in action. This is large- Wthe peppered moth, and manipulates ly because of its pedagogical simplicity — it is the literature and the data to fit his views. He a straightforward example that is visual and points out that the “problem” of the peppered dynamic — and its copious documentation. moths is far from simple. His discussion cen- Industrial melanism refers to the darkening of ters on three points where he believes text- color that occurred in a number of species of books are in error, alleging that (1) the daytime insects following the Industrial Revolution. resting places of peppered moths invalidates This change appears to be related to the Kettlewell’s experimental results; (2) the pho- increase in pollutants in the environment. tos of the moths are “staged”; and (3) the Before the Industrial Revolution, individuals recovery patterns of populations dominated by of the moth species Biston betularia (com- light moths after the levels of pollution were monly called the “peppered moth”) were pre- reduced do not fit the “model,” although he is dominantly white with black speckles. By the unclear as to what the “model” is. All three of end of the 1800s, they were predominantly these objections are spurious. They are distrac- charcoal grey. This change was well docu- tions from the general accuracy of the story mented and led Tutt (1896) to hypothesize that and its value in showing the effects of natural this change was a result of pollution-stained selection on genetic variability in natural pop- trees’ affecting the camouflage potential of the ulations. moths. This change was termed “industrial First, Wells argues that the story is seriously melanism.” In the 1950s, Bernard Kettlewell flawed because “peppered moths in the wild decided to test the hypothesis that natural don’t even rest on tree trunks” (Wells, selection was working on the differential cam- 2000:138). He repeats this point throughout ouflage of the moths. In order to do this, he the chapter. However, it is both false and irrel- released marked light and dark moths into pol- evant, and only serves as a distraction to lead luted and non-polluted forests. He found that the reader away from the actual story of the birds appear to prey selectively on light moths moths. Contrary to Wells’s assertions, data in polluted forests and on dark moths in non- given by Majerus (1998:123) indicate that the polluted forests and so documented the idea of moths do indeed rest on the trunks of trees natural selection of these color patterns in 25% of the time. The rest of the time moths moths by birds. After anti-pollution laws took rest in branches (25%) or at branch-trunk junc- effect and the bark lightened, the moth popula- tions (50%). The facts have been pointed out tions in formerly polluted areas returned to repeatedly to Wells; his response has been previous color distributions. mostly to claim that moths don’t rest on “exposed” tree trunks (Wells, 2002 www.dis- covery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CR SC&command=view&id=1144). But this is not what he said in the text of Icons, which 52 Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education remains flatly wrong. Moths are found all over words, birds hunt the prey they can see and trees, which is not a surprise (Clarke et al., hunt it where it is, not where it isn’t. Therefore, 1994) and it is mentioned in the references that no matter where the moth rests in the tree, it is Wells cites. visible to predatory birds, and thus its differen- To clear up any confusion, no researcher tial camouflage is important. doubts that the peppered moth rests in trees The purpose of Wells’s distraction is to put (Clarke et al. 1994; Majerus 1998), which the actual experiments into question and make means that the resting substrate is bark. Entire it sound as if the textbook authors are either trees are stained by pollution — the leaves, mistaken, or intentionally trying to fool stu- twigs, branches, trunks, and the surrounding dents. The insinuation is that because ground (Kettlewell, 1973) — and so the colors Kettlewell released the moths during the day, of the moths are relevant no matter where on they did not find “normal” resting places. the tree they rest — trunks, trunk-branch junc- Whether or not this is so, the release and cap- tions, branches, twigs, and even the leaves. ture experiments took place over a number of Wells’s argument implies that predatory birds days, so the moths were able to take up posi- can only see moths that are on exposed trunks. tions of their choosing, even if the first day By making this argument, however, Wells was not perfectly “natural” (Kettlewell, 1955, shows an apparent ignorance of the ecology of 1956, 1973). Kettlewell’s experiments were birds and woodland ecosystems. If you walk not perfect — few field experiments are — and into any forest, you can see that the birds fly they may have magnified the degree of selec- from tree to tree, branch to branch, and hunt at tion, but all serious researchers in the field all levels of the forest. Woodland species of agree that they were certainly not so flawed as birds that prey on moths and other insects live to invalidate his conclusion. and hunt in the canopy (the leafy part of the In his second objection, Wells ties the trees). These birds are not hunting from out- Kettlewell experiments to textbooks by con- side, soaring above the trees like hawks, as stantly repeating the statement that the illustra- Wells’s argument would require. tive photos were “staged” (Wells, 2000:150); In the scientific literature, there is extensive the important issue here is not how the photos discussion of the hunting behavior of birds, were made, but rather their intent. Wells including those that hunt peppered moths. implies that the photos purport to show a “life- Ornithologists have shown the woodland like” condition to prove that moths rest on ecosystem to be vertically stratified by compe- trunks. This is not the case. The photos are tition between different bird species. This meant to demonstrate the visibility of the dif- zonation means that there are skilled predators ferent forms of the moth on polluted and patrolling all levels of the forest: the trunks, unpolluted trees. It is absurd to expect a pho- trunk-branch joints, branches, and higher tographer to just sit around and wait until two canopy (Colquhoun and Morley, 1943; differently colored moths happen to alight side Hartley, 1953). Further, birds learn to distin- by side. Further, how the photos were pro- guish their prey against various backgrounds duced does not change the actual data. Birds and preferentially hunt prey in locations where eat moths and they eat the ones that they see they have found it in the past and that birds more easily first. The textbook photos never selectively prey on the more visible moths claim to depict a real-life situation, and it is (Pietrewitz and Kamil, 1977, 1981). In other improper to imply otherwise. 53 Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education The third criticism, and the only scientific GREY AREA GRADES one that Wells levels, deals with the recovery ike the grading schemes for the other of the light form of the moth following the “icons,” this one is stacked against the institution of pollution control laws. The main textbooks as well. Even books that have thrust of his argument is that because the L more extensive discussions of the problems recovery of light-colored lichens does not cor- and details (such as Miller and Levine) can at relate with the recovery of the light form of the best earn a D. Like the grading schemes for moths, the entire story is incorrect. Wells Miller-Urey and Haeckel’s embryos, it is based exploits the fact that the original researchers largely on the presence or absence of pictures thought that the camouflage of the light moths (Figure 15). Explaining the peppered moth depended on the presence of lichen. However, story without photos (as in Biggs et al.), gar- the light forms recovered before the lichens ners a peculiar X grade. In order to get an A or did; therefore, Wells concludes, natural selec- B, a book must contain pictures of moths in tion has nothing to do with the story. Although “natural” resting places. Given Wells’s expla- it is true that the moths are well-camouflaged nation that these are unknown, presenting against lichens, and lichens are destroyed by those would be impossible. How can textbooks pollution, nevertheless the camouflage of the be expected to do that? A C would be awarded moths ultimately depends upon the color of the to a textbook that (1) used “misleading” pic- trees, which reflect the amount of soot staining tures, but (2) referred to them as “staged,” and the trees. Although lichens play a role in cam- (3) stated that the results of the experiment are ouflage, they are not necessary.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Why Darwin Matters Matters Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer
    Evo Edu Outreach DOI 10.1007/s12052-008-0109-9 BOOK REVIEW Why Why Darwin Matters Matters Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer. New York: Henry Holt, 2006. Pp. xxii + 199. S/b $14.00 Tania Lombrozo # The Author(s) 2008. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com The first decade of the twenty-first century will be a curious a brief but lucid overview of key evolutionary ideas. He chapter in the future history of evolutionary thought. In emphasizes that the source of resistance to evolution is rarely 2005, resistance to evolution manifested in the highly the scientific details but rather the perceived consequences of publicized trial of Dover, Pennsylvania over teaching evolution: atheism, ethical nihilism, and a lack of meaning. Intelligent Design in public schools. Only four years later, What people care about “is whether teaching evolution will in 2009, universities, museums, and individuals across the make their kids reject God, allow criminals and sinners to globe celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of blame their genes for their actions, and generally cause society Darwin’s Origin of Species. Released in the interlude, to fall apart” (p. 25). But according to Shermer, an even Michael Shermer’s Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against greater threat to the theory of evolution is misunderstanding. Intelligent Design takes on the challenge these landmark A large proportion of the public not only misunderstands dates represent: how a thoroughly vetted and accepted evolutionary theory but also aspects of science and the scientific theory can be the source of so much cultural scientific process—for example, that calling evolution a conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution a Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused by Dr
    Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution A Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused By Dr. Mike Webster, Dept. of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University ([email protected]); February 2010 The current debate over evolution and “intelligent design” (ID) is being driven by a relatively small group of individuals who object to the theory of evolution for religious reasons. The debate is fueled, though, by misunderstandings on the part of the American public about what evolutionary biology is and what it says. These misunderstandings are exploited by proponents of ID, intentionally or not, and are often echoed in the media. In this booklet I briefly outline and explain 10 of the most common (and serious) misunderstandings. It is impossible to treat each point thoroughly in this limited space; I encourage you to read further on these topics and also by visiting the websites given on the resource sheet. In addition, I am happy to send a somewhat expanded version of this booklet to anybody who is interested – just send me an email to ask for one! What are the misunderstandings? 1. Evolution is progressive improvement of species Evolution, particularly human evolution, is often pictured in textbooks as a string of organisms marching in single file from “simple” organisms (usually a single celled organism or a monkey) on one side of the page and advancing to “complex” organisms on the opposite side of the page (almost invariably a human being). We have all seen this enduring image and likely have some version of it burned into our brains.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • "Critical Analysis of Evolution"; Innovative Lesson Plan Or
    THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION L10H23 “CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EVOLUTION”; INNOVATIVE LESSON PLAN OR STEALTHY ADVOCACY TOOL? Robert Day, The Ohio State University. Presented at the National Association of Researchers of Science Teaching (NARST) annual conference, San Francisco, CA. April 2006. Abstract: This paper will discuss the ongoing controversy surrounding a particular Ohio Department of Education tenth grade lesson plan titled “Critical Analysis of Evolution” (Ohio Department of Education identification L10H23). The lesson professes to encourage students to “critically examine” evidences for and against evolution and invites them to discuss definitions of some common evolutionary terms and concepts. Proponents insist that this lesson is a thought-provoking exercise in critical thinking and scientific objectively. Critics claim that the lesson is at best, unscientific and at worst, a thinly-veiled attempt to introduce creationist ideas into the classroom in accordance with the so-called “wedge” strategy of certain pro-creationist organizations. A complicating factor is that this lesson plan has been used as the subject of graduate level research on the effect of teaching “the evolution controversy” to Ohio students, and subsequently, this research has been used to support similar initiatives in state hearings outside of Ohio. We will present the findings from a series of surveys conducted with life-science high school teachers, college faculty, and graduate students intended to establish whether or not practicing scientists and science educators agree with the Ohio Board of Education’s assessment that “there is no ID [intelligent design] there”. We will look for trends in the opinions of different sub-populations, identify key differences of opinions between participants and Ohio Board of Education members and suggest possible reasons for any apparent conflicts of opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong/By Jonathan Wells
    ON SCIENCE OR MYTH? Whymuch of what we teach about evolution is wrong Icons ofEvolution About the Author Jonathan Wells is no stranger to controversy. After spending two years in the U.S. Ar my from 1964 to 1966, he entered the University of California at Berkeley to become a science teacher. When the Army called him back from reser ve status in 1968, he chose to go to prison rather than continue to serve during the Vietnam War. He subsequently earned a Ph.D. in religious studies at Yale University, where he wrote a book about the nineteenth­ century Darwinian controversies. In 1989 he returned to Berkeley to earn a second Ph.D., this time in molecular and cell biology. He is now a senior fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (www.discovery.org/ crsc) in Seattle, where he lives with his wife, two children, and mother. He still hopes to become a science teacher. Icons ofEvolution Science or Myth? Why Much oJWhat We TeachAbout Evolution Is Wrong JONATHAN WELLS ILLUSTRATED BY JODY F. SJOGREN IIIIDIDIREGNERY 11MPUBLISHING, INC. An EaglePublishing Company • Washington, IX Copyright © 2000 by Jonathan Wells All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or trans­ mitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including pho­ tocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in connection with a review written for inclusion in a magazine, newspaper, or broadcast.
    [Show full text]
  • Peppered Moths and the Industrial Revolution: Barking up the Wrong Tree? by Avril M
    NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN SCIENCE Peppered Moths and the Industrial Revolution: Barking up the Wrong Tree? by Avril M. Harder1, Janna R. Willoughby1,2, Jaqueline M. Doyle3 Part I – Hypotheses and Predictions The story of how Britain’s Industrial Revolution led to changes in peppered moth coloration is a classic, textbook ex- ample of evolution in action. You might even already be familiar with the plot and the findings of the main researcher of the phenomenon, H.B.D. Kettlewell. Although the peppered moth story has been told and re-told in thousands of biology classrooms, most narratives leave out an important bit of history: after Kettlewell published his results that described changes in morph population frequencies over time, many of his peers questioned the validity of his data. Your first task in this case study will be to put yourself in the place of one of Kettlewell’s contemporaries, evaluate his experimental methods, and decide whether his data support his assertions. Background Biston betularia is a medium-sized, nocturnal moth. Al- though the peppered moth is found across the world, some of the first research on this species was conducted in Great Britain. Before the Industrial Revolution, tree trunks in unpolluted areas were covered with lichens, and peppered moths with light colored wings were well camouflaged against this background (Figure 1). In this environment, light morphs vastly outnumbered dark morphs. During the Industrial Revolution, increasing air pollution led to the formation of acid rain and inhospitable conditions for the lichens. The death of the lichens combined with soot deposition on tree trunks led to an important environmen- tal shift for the moths.
    [Show full text]
  • Garden Moth Scheme Report 2017
    Garden Moth Scheme Report 2017 Heather Young – April 2018 1 GMS Report 2017 CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 2 Top 30 Species 2017 3 Scientific Publications 4 Abundant and Widespread Species 8 Common or Garden Moths 11 Winter GMS 2017-18 15 Coordination Changes 16 GMS Annual Conference 16 GMS Sponsors 17 Links & Acknowledgements 18 Cover photograph: Peppered Moth (H. Young) Introduction The Garden Moth Scheme (GMS) welcomes participants from all parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland, and in 2017 received 360 completed recording forms, an increase of over 5% on 2016 (341). We have consistently received records from over 300 sites across the UK and Ireland since 2010, and now have almost 1 ½ million records in the GMS database. Several scientific papers using the GMS data have now been published in peer- reviewed journals, and these are listed in this report, with the relevant abstracts, to illustrate how the GMS records are used for research. The GMS is divided into 12 regions, monitoring 233 species of moth in every part of the UK and Ireland (the ‘Core Species’), along with a variable number of ‘Regional Species’. A selection of core species whose name suggests they should be found commonly, or in our gardens, is highlighted in this report. There is a round-up of the 2017-18 Winter Garden Moth Scheme, which attracted a surprisingly high number of recorders (102) despite the poor weather, a summary of the changes taking place in the GMS coordination team for 2018, and a short report on the 2018 Annual Conference, but we begin as usual with the Top 30 for GMS 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • How Is the Peppered Moth Evidence of Natural Selection Over a Short Period of Time? Lab # ______
    Name: _______________________________ Date: ________________ How is the peppered moth evidence of natural selection over a short period of time? Lab # ______ Step 1- Background information: Charles Darwin collected a large amount of facts to create the theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin described natural selection as the “process by which the organisms that are best adapted to a specific environment survive and produce more offspring than organisms that are not as well adapted”. One of his difficulties in proving the theory, however, was the lack of an example of evolution over a short period of time, which could be observed during ones lifetime. Although Darwin was unaware of it, remarkable examples of evolution, which might have helped to persuade people of his theory, were in the countryside of his native England. One such example is the evolution of the peppered moth, Biston betularia. 1) Describe Darwin’s theory of natural selection in your own words. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2) What was one difficulty Darwin had supporting his theory, even though he had tremendous (large) amounts of evidence? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3) Why was his theory so
    [Show full text]
  • Zombie Science
    Zombie Science More Icons of Evolution JONATHAN WELLS Seattle Discovery Institute Press 2017 Description In 2000, biologist Jonathan Wells took the science world by storm with Icons of Evolution, a book showing how biology textbooks routinely promote Darwinism using bogus evidence—icons of evolution like Ernst Haeckel’s faked embryo drawings and peppered moths glued to tree trunks. Critics of the book complained that Wells had merely gathered up a handful of innocent textbook errors and blown them out of proportion. Now, in Zombie Science, Wells asks a simple question: If the icons of evolution were just innocent textbook errors, why do so many of them still persist? Science has enriched our lives and led to countless discoveries, but now, Wells argues, it’s being corrupted. Empirical science is devolving into zombie science, shuffling along unfazed by opposing evidence. Discredited icons of evolution rise from the dead while more icons—equally bogus—join their ranks. Like a B horror movie, they just keep coming! Zombies are make- believe, but zombie science is real—and it threatens not just science, but our whole culture. Is there a solution? Wells is sure of it, and points the way. Copyright Notice Copyright © 2017 by Discovery Institute. All Rights Reserved. Library Cataloging Data Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells Illustrations (unless otherwise noted) by Brian Gage and Anca Sandu 238 pages, 6 x 9 x 0.5 in. & 0.72 lb, 229 x 152 x 13 mm & x 325 g Library of Congress Control Number: 2017936551 SCI027000 SCIENCE / Life Sciences / Evolution SCI008000 SCIENCE / Life Sciences / Biology SCI075000 SCIENCE / Philosophy & Social Aspects ISBN-13: 978-1-936599-44-8 (paperback), 978-1-936599-46-2 (Kindle), 978-1-936599-45-5 (EPUB) Publisher Information Discovery Institute Press, 208 Columbia Street, Seattle, WA 98104 Internet: http://www.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Is the Story of the Peppered Moth So Famous and Important?
    Connects with SciGen Unit L4 Teacher Tune-up Quick Content Refresher for Busy Professionals Why is the story of the peppered moth so famous and important? The story of Biston betularia, the peppered moth, is a staple of many textbooks on evolution. Briefly stated, some mostly light-colored moths got mostly dark colored over many generations; then they got light-colored again. So what’s the big deal? Why is the peppered moth such an evolutionary celebrity? Before 1800, most peppered moths were white, with a sprinkling of dark spots that give the moth its name. They were well camouflaged against lichens that grew on trees with light bark, which helped them avoid predatory birds. Throughout the nineteenth century, England’s industrial revolution saw the rise of steam power. Trains and steam-powered factories (the “dark Satanic Mills” of an 1808 poem by William Blake) burned coal and belched tons of soot into the environment. The black soot killed lichen and settled on the trees where the peppered moths rested. And generation by generation, the moths began to change. In 1811, someone found the first dark, nearly black, peppered moth. By the middle of the century, the frequency of melanism (dark coloration) in the peppered moths had risen dramatically. And by the end of the century, in large areas of England that were coated in dark industrial filth, nearly all peppered moths were dark. Along with changing landscapes and moths, another change was afoot. Naturalists had begun to speculate about something called evolution, based largely on evidence of ancient events: sequences in the fossil record, similarities among different species, vestigial structures in many organisms—that sort of thing.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit List
    EXHIBIT LIST Reference No: HOL/00521 Petitioner: Ms Sarah Green on behalf of Arthur Daily Trips (Canal Boat Company) Published to Collaboration Area: Wednesday 23-Nov-2016 Page 1 of 163 No Exhibit Name Page 1 A728 Exhibits List.pdf (A728) 3 2 A729 Exhibit 1 route map google.pdf (A729) 4 3 A730 Exhibit 2 water environment water courses.pdf (A730) 5 4 A731 Exhibit 3 cultural heritage.pdf (A731) 6 - 7 5 A732 Exhibit 4 metropolitan Open Land.pdf (A732) 8 - 9 6 A733 Exhibit 5 dragonflies.pdf (A733) 10 - 15 7 A734 Exhibit 6 quality of water.pdf (A734) 16 8 A735 Exhibit 7 Customer activities.pdf (A735) 17 9 A736 Exhibit 8 pylons.pdf (A736) 18 - 24 10 A737 Exhibit 9 Species-List.pdf (A737) 25 - 84 11 A738 Exhibit 10 magic maps.pdf (A738) 85 - 86 12 A739 Exhibit 11 Leisure and tourism Destination.pdf (A739) 87 13 A740 Exhibit 12 continuity through time.pdf (A740) 88 - 91 14 A741 Exhibit 13 The Plans for Denham Country Park.pdf (A741) 92 - 93 15 A742 Exhibit 14 Enabling Works.pdf (A742) 94 - 95 16 A743 Exhibit 15 Water Framework Directive.pdf (A743) 96 - 97 17 A744 Exhibit 16 Ecological_baseline_data_Mammals.pdf (A744) 98 - 108 18 A745 Exhibit 17 Wetlands_Programmes of measures_170907.pdf (A745) 109 - 117 19 A746 Exhibit 18 Guidance_protection animal species.pdf (A746) 118 - 136 20 A747 Exhibit 19 ODPM Circular 06_2005.pdf (A747) 137 - 151 HOL/00521/0001 EXHIBIT LIST Reference No: HOL/00521 Petitioner: Ms Sarah Green on behalf of Arthur Daily Trips (Canal Boat Company) Published to Collaboration Area: Wednesday 23-Nov-2016 Page 2 of 163 No Exhibit
    [Show full text]
  • Did Kettlewell Commit Fraud? Re-Examining The
    www.ssoar.info Did Kettlewell commit fraud? Re-examining the evidence Rudge, David Wÿss Postprint / Postprint Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: www.peerproject.eu Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Rudge, D. W. (2005). Did Kettlewell commit fraud? Re-examining the evidence. Public Understanding of Science, 14(3), 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662505052890 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter dem "PEER Licence Agreement zur This document is made available under the "PEER Licence Verfügung" gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zum PEER-Projekt finden Agreement ". For more Information regarding the PEER-project Sie hier: http://www.peerproject.eu Gewährt wird ein nicht see: http://www.peerproject.eu This document is solely intended exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes for your personal, non-commercial use.All of the copies of Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument this documents must retain all copyright information and other ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses or otherwise use the document in public. Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke conditions of use. vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an.
    [Show full text]