Jonathan Wells live tonight on his new book “Zombie Science”

rvb8- What still no explanation of how you get from microbes to men based on the Peppered moth experiments , Could it be you don`t actually understand the implications of this experiment, that all it says is that something existed and under certain conditions it survives in greater numbers than others and at the end it still exists, well that deserves a Nobel prize. Be honest your faith is in the men of materialism, and you are afraid you might have to face the facts that materialism and atheism are bankrupt or maybe you have not got the confidence or desire to be your own man and weight the evidence for yourself. Marfin

rvb8- And this is one of evolution's best evidences ,can you not see that if this is the strongest evidences you have you are in serious trouble. Moths who already had the ability to be dark in colour survived in greater numbers when living in an area that was blackened by industrial pollution. Please tell me how this in any way explains the humongous leap from microbes to men. Marfin

Simple Marfin, when the overuse of coal polluted the environment, and darkened the trees, moths which have genes for colour, and randomly express that gene as dark, and are born dark, survive! Think longer time spans, and hugely varying environments. Or, think a desiger in the clouds, awaiting your happy company, for all eternity: Hmmm, one of these makes sense. rvb8

rvb8- Pepper moths you say, hmm,lets just look at the facts in regard to this icon of evolution.At the start of the experiment there were light and dark coloured moths , under certain conditions light coloured moths did better but under different conditions dark coloured moths did better and at the end there were light and dark coloured moths. So please tell me what great evolutionary conclusions you can draw from this. Once again I await some actual evidence. Marfin

Assuming far greater articulators will bring forward some link-heavy responses to rvb8, I do have two short answers. One, peppered moths study, just like finch beak study, only demonstrated selection of pre-programmed variation within a species. No new info, no mutation magic wands, just designed adaptive selection. In both studies, greater population reverts back to a distributed variability. No macro-evolutionary value whatsoever. No Gould-ish punctuated equilibrium springing forth any new and delineated species, no less a new bit of genetic info or seeds of a new body plan. Two, embryonic development simply does not demonstrate some macro-evolutionary chain-link progression, especially since advocates, like yourself and Haeckel, cannot point to either fossil evidence or genetic mutation in corroborated chronological sequence to which one might compare and confirm such an allegation. NO SPECIFICITY! Just like the cover of Wells' book indicates, all intermediary missing links are curiously absent from any actual evidence...just a fanciful miseducated piece of chicanery, just another icon with no scientific grounding whatsoever... Science is truly dying... mugwump3

Think of it as a sort of digital march for science that you can easily participate in.

That's hardly a ringing endorsement, given your negative attitude towards marching for science. Bob O'H

Outside ID and Anne Coulter's world, the long standing Peppered moth study is accepted good science. Anne's silly argument (Wells's is the same?), was that the scientists glued the moth to a tree to show the camouflage did not work; hence the gluing falsified the principle. The principle is that easy to see prey are predated and do not pass on their camouflage genes, thus changing the look of future generations; thus selection through environmental pressure, a key Darwinian prediction; proved! Haeckle's embryos? Considered defunct, yet important, as, "Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed.' The moth follows a evolutionary law, and embryos do reflect evolutionary paths. Wells wrote his first pulp fiction in 2000, seventeen years later he follows up? With the same examples? Does he in fact know that in the intervening years science has done a little more than 'recapitulate' old redundent arguments. This book as Hitchens notes, is another addition to, 'the history of piffel.' I predict half price sales, giveaways, and 'buy one get one free' sales, very soon. rvb8