Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peppered Moths and Natural Selection
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 350 (261654)
11-20-2005 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
11-20-2005 7:04 PM


If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selection?
1. First off, no the study does not rule out all the various factors that could have influenced whether lightly colored or darkly colored moths became more dominant as a result of soot. It could be something else entirely, perhaps another aspect of pollution, coincidence, etc,...
Do you deny that the single difference between the locations of predominantly dark moth populations and the ones with predominantly light moth populations is that one type was polluted and the other was not?
Yes or No (second time asked btw).
2. Secondly, birds have the ability to see in the UV spectrum and the ignorance of that basic fact renders moot any conclusions about what birds actually see in this instance.
Now demonstrate how this makes a difference to the conclusions based on the observed and recorded behavior of the birds? If there is no observed behavioral difference then this cannot be a significant factor eh?
So far the evidence is that UV vision does not play a factor in the natural selection of dark moths to survive better in dark areas and light moths to survive better in light areas.
3. Peppered moths are nocturnal and so releasing them in the day-time to draw conclusions about their behaviour also makes the study based on faulty data.
But the study was consistently "faulty" in doing this and still recorded data that showed a preferential selection of dark moths to survive in dark areas and light moths to survive in light areas.
The moths were not "swarmed" by hordes of hungry birds, but were able to dispurse in each type of area to find refuge\resting spots. Agreed they may not have been optimum spots, but the fact remains that they were treated the same in both areas.
If the study was "faulty" then how come the data is consistent?
birds are not even the primary predator of peppered moths, but rather bats are.
(1) Substantiate this. and when you do
(2) Show that bats would preferentially select light moths in dark areas and dark moths in light areas.
If bats are non-selective in their feeding habits then they do not contribute to the selection process that was observed, and that leaves the birds as the predator that the selection process reacted to. That makes bat predation irrelevant to the overall selection of dark moths to survive better in dark areas and light moths to survive in light areas.
I have heard but not verified that these same experiments were repeated elsewhere in the world with the opposite results.
False as already noted. It was repeated with the recovery of light moths after clear air acts were passed, and it was also repeated in the US (where lichen was not a factor). Of course if you actually tried to substantiate your positions you would probably have discovered that on your own.
I do find it amusing that RAZD is now quoting a creationist web-site as evidence
What the creationist website shows is that they also concur that natural selection occured.
What this shows is an open mind to look at information from a number of sources to see what is really the truth of the matter.
I noted that you claimed in another post that the peppered moths were "just flat out wrong" -- a point that you have failed to make in the slightest so far.
In fact you agreed that it was natural selection in Message 9 or are you equivocating on that answer now?
In order for this to be flat out wrong it has to fail as an example of natural selection. That is not the case.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 7:04 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 8:51 PM RAZD has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 17 of 350 (261655)
11-20-2005 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
11-20-2005 8:40 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selection?
RAZD, I am sorry but if at this point you cannot concede, yoy are beyond reason. The study has no relevance at all because it was not conducted relative to moths principal predators, nor do we know if industrial pollutants are the deciding factor because there are myriad other factors involved, and there is no reason to trust the methodologies involved either considering the error-ridden aspects of the study.
Your attempts to get around this are woefully weak. You cannot show that birds even are a significant enough predator to make a difference, and quoting a study that isn't even aware that peppered moths are nocturnal is hardly evidence of any standards of scientific rigor.
For example, are there any cases where birds actually do eat peppered moths that have been verified? What percentage of the peppered moths are eaten by birds?
What other factors could be involved to explain darker moths in one region and lighter ones in another? For example, are we to believe the 2 different regions and forests are absolutely equal? It could just be that something completely unrelated is involved, and that darker moths have some other differing trait along with that.
To make scientific claims based on a poorly done study as this, showing next to no knowledge of moths, birds, and bats, and then pass it off as science, is mere arrogance on your part and evolutionists' part in not wanting to admit the absurdities of your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 8:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:03 PM randman has replied
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 9:25 PM randman has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 350 (261659)
11-20-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
11-20-2005 8:51 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
RAZD, I am sorry but if at this point you cannot concede, yoy are beyond reason.
quote:
There are plenty of other groups that have similar attitudes to your's. They think none of their critics are reasonable. They all don't listen, etc,....I've seen it a lot, and it's evidence not that all the critics are wrong, but the insular group mentality is causing a problem with the individuals in the group. Imo, that's what is occurring with you here.
The study has no relevance at all because it was not conducted relative to moths principal predators, nor do we know if industrial pollutants are the deciding factor because there are myriad other factors involved, and there is no reason to trust the methodologies involved either considering the error-ridden aspects of the study.
you were asked a direct question.
were there more light colored moths before the industrial revolution? yes or no.
were there more dark colored moths after the industrial revolution? yes or no.
all of these other factors don't have a damned thing to do with anything. whether or not bird eat them, how birds see, whether or not bats eat them... none of it is important.
was dark-color selected for? yes or no.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 8:51 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 19 of 350 (261660)
11-20-2005 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mark24
11-20-2005 7:39 PM


mere unfounded claims
We know that light moths on dark backgrounds are more likely to be taken than the other way around (& vice versa), so it stands to reason that predation is the cause of the proliferation of the moth variants.
Really. You know, eh? Based on what. Please explain how color affects bats hunting for prey.
Ad hoc. Do you never tire of committing logical fallacies? If you have a non ad hoc explanation, we'd be delighted to hear it.
I am sorry, but it's not my fault you are so poorly educated that you cannot grasp the difference between 2 things occuring at the same time, and establishing causal relationships. It is not ad hoc to ask that any study show a causal relationship when it makes claims of something causing something, and part of that is ruling out other potential causes.
Where does the study rule out other potential causes?
Moreover, the study seems to focus on birds as predators of the moths, but fails to establish this because it erroneously tests for moths behaviour during the day-time, releasing them into the day-light in a manner that is not consistent with their normal behaviours. For example, if you drop someone into very cold water when they do not expect it, some people will drown that would otherwise live if they were prepared for the shock of entering cold water and could do so under their own, normal behavious patterns.
The fact the study seems blissfully ignorant of bats as predators calls into questions the basic level of knowledge and logic by those doing the study.
Given that birds pick off the light moths on dark backgrounds far easier than the other way around, & vice versa, I fail to see what your point is?
Have you ever been in a forest surrounding an area with a lot of soot and pollution? The study places great emphasis on the moths resting on tree trunks, but once again, the study assumes something that is not true, namely that moths typically rest on tree trunks. If you cannot see why basing conclusions on faulty assumptions makes the study erroneous, we have little to talk about.
I would still wager that there are plenty of lightly colored items such as leaves in a forest next to industrial soot pollution. The study, emphasizing only tree trunks, is just plain bad science.
Obviously the moths are not camouflaged when they are flying at night, but during the daytime when they are at rest. This is when the selective advantage is evident.
So don't you think that just maybe the moths typically hide on something colored more like them in the day-time and thus the fact tree trunks are darker is a moot point?
Also, is there any evidence that moths are primarily eaten during the day-time?
Irrelevant.
So you consider the fact moths are mainly eaten by bats to be irrevalent? Maybe one type of bat prefers the darker colored moths and another the lightly colored moths, and can distinquish them by their flying patterns, and thus differing bat populations are to explain differences in types of moths found?
That's not ad hoc by the way. That's asking for reasonable evidence to rule out other factors that are likely to be in play. To claim that bird predation is a significant factor without even mentioning bats shows the study is not comprehensive enough to be presented as conclusive.
You also ignore the fact that the patterns of increasing melanin are not consistent in many areas with more pollution.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 09:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 11-20-2005 7:39 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Nuggin, posted 11-20-2005 9:12 PM randman has replied
 Message 64 by mark24, posted 11-21-2005 3:59 AM randman has not replied
 Message 75 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 8:04 AM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 20 of 350 (261662)
11-20-2005 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by randman
11-20-2005 9:07 PM


Re: mere unfounded claims
Quicky, since I'm running out the door.
So you consider the fact moths are mainly eaten by bats to be irrevalent? Maybe one type of bat prefers the darker colored moths and another the lightly colored moths, and can distinquish them by their flying patterns, and thus differing bat populations are to explain differences in types of moths found?
If this were the case, it would also be an example of natural selection. An increase in bat population A results in a change in Moth population

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:17 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 21 of 350 (261663)
11-20-2005 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Nuggin
11-20-2005 9:12 PM


Re: mere unfounded claims
And of course, natural selection is neither here nor there since this is presented as evidence for evolution, not just natural selection. In fact, trying to pass off natural selection as some sort of magical thing to create evolution is inherently dishonest, imo.
Of course, species change, die off, etc,....but that doesn't on it's own even show speciation, much less macro-evolution.
Truthfully, everything that ever happens can be considered natural selection, but that still is not some sort of real evidence for ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Nuggin, posted 11-20-2005 9:12 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:20 PM randman has not replied
 Message 61 by Modulous, posted 11-21-2005 3:16 AM randman has replied
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 11-21-2005 4:14 AM randman has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 22 of 350 (261664)
11-20-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
11-20-2005 9:17 PM


evolution 101
And of course, natural selection is neither here nor there since this is presented as evidence for evolution, not just natural selection.
quote:
Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
In fact, trying to pass off natural selection as some sort of magical thing to create evolution is inherently dishonest, imo.
the full title of darwin's book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-20-2005 09:21 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:17 PM randman has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6486 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 23 of 350 (261665)
11-20-2005 9:21 PM


Bat's, no bats, same difference
Bat's may be a predator at NIGHT. That's when both bats and moths are active. During the day however, the moths rest. They need to conceal themselves from day predators. Namely birds.
The bats issue is thus rendered moot.

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 24 of 350 (261666)
11-20-2005 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia
11-20-2005 9:03 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
Your snide tone is to be expected, totally dishonest in it's connotations I might add.
Clearly, I answered the direct question here in as much as I can.
First off, no the study does not rule out all the various factors that could have influenced whether lightly colored or darkly colored moths became more dominant as a result of soot. It could be something else entirely, perhaps another aspect of pollution, coincidence, etc,...
I am not actually positive, but taking evo's word, increases in melanin during this period appear to have occured. From what I have read, the increases occurred in non-polluting areas as well. So I think it is fair to say, along with the other factors I mentioned, that the fact moths overall grew darker during this period could be attributed to any number of things.
I realize you and others in your simplicity, think the fact something occurs during a particular period establishes causality, but that's not a scientific approach.
For example, does the study detail the nature of the predators at that time overall. It could well be that what occurred is the species that prefers to eat black moths went extinct for some reason, and the increase had nothing to do with industrial pollutants.
The truth is you guys would slam this study all day long if it was a creationist study because it is so faulty, but you defend it because you are not being honest and want to defend the practices of evolutionists.
The simple fact more dark colored moths emerged during the industrial revolution, assuming that is true, means absolutely nothing in terms of attributing industrial pollution to the cause of more darker colored moths, and in reality, it is a superstitious approach sort of like a coach thinking he has a lucky jacket.
The reason is the relationships between darker tree trunks, bird predation, and darker moths has not been well-established due to serious flaws in the study.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 09:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:03 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:34 PM randman has replied
 Message 76 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 8:07 AM randman has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 350 (261667)
11-20-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
11-20-2005 8:51 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
This is not about ONE study but a whole bunch of studies, not just by Kettlewell but others that followed - and which are still continuing.
You are the one ignoring the followup studies of those same areas as the pollution was abated and they returned to their pre-pollution status and the light moths once again became the predominant form. That takes care of "other factors" as these are the same areas both before during and after the pollution effect was observed.
These followup studies were done without the problems of glued moths and daytime releases, but which still validated the results of the initial study.
You have failed to show that (1) this is NOT natural selection in action (and actually admit that it was) NOR (2) that the cause of the selection was the sooty pollution that favored first the dark moths as the pollution became the predominant factor and then the light moths when it abated.
Your absolute failure to do this shows that your statement as recorded in Message 4 (copied from another thread) was a false and misleading statement.
What we see here is that once again you make superficial assertions and when challenged, fail to substantiate them with any actual facts, choosing instead to make more ad hoc assumptions without establishing their validity.
The fact remains that not only are the peppered moths an example of natural selection in action, but they are a good example of this factor of evolution in action, demonstrated both during the increase in sooty pollution and again during the abatement of it with clean air legislation actions.
Do you deny natural selection occured? (you've already concede this one)
Do you deny that it was a result of industrial pollution changing the environment (from clean to sooty and back to clean)?
Do you deny that the selection was due to predation of the more visible moths?
Do you deny that no other dominant predators of the moths have been identified in those areas other than the birds by the people doing the studies?
These are yes or no questions and do not require a paragraph to explain. What do you concede and what do you deny?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 8:51 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:33 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 28 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:39 PM RAZD has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 350 (261668)
11-20-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
11-20-2005 9:25 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
These followup studies were done without the problems of glued moths and daytime releases, but which still validated the results of the initial study.
They cannot validate the study's conclusions without considering all of the potential causes of darker moth coloration, such as bats, weather patterns affecting predator populations, etc, etc,...
You have not shown even an awareness that these other factors need to be seriously considered, much less provided any data showing these factors were ruled out. In fact, you throw out ad hoc arguments saying, well, bird predation on tree trunks is significant, but show nothing to prove that.
Do lightly colored moths normally rest on tree trunks? How often? Do they know to rest on more similar colored areas?
How about at the caterpillar stage? Are there differences between light and darker moths that can affect their survivability?
For example, have they shown whether one breed of moths are more susceptible to diseases than the other?
I see none of the basic requirements necessary to make a solid conclusion, and moreover, you gloss over the fact that darker colored moths also increased in areas with very little pollution?
How do you explain that? That suggests something besides air pollution was the determining factor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 9:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 10:39 PM randman has replied
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 11-21-2005 4:06 AM randman has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 27 of 350 (261669)
11-20-2005 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by randman
11-20-2005 9:24 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
Your snide tone is to be expected
my snide tone? those were your words. it's not my fault you're inconsistent. and turnabout IS fairplay.
I realize you and others in your simplicity, think the fact something occurs during a particular period establishes causality, but that's not a scientific approach.
this is the problem. i didn't ask you about causality, did i? i asked you about correlation.
were there more light colored moths before the i.r.?
were there more dark colored moths after?
yes. or. no.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:24 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:43 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 350 (261670)
11-20-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
11-20-2005 9:25 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
Do you deny natural selection occured? (you've already concede this one)
Natural selection always occurs. It's part of reproduction, but that means very little as far as claiming this as evidence for evolution. No speciation occured.
Do you deny no speciation occured?
Additionally, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude bird predation has anything at all to do with more darker moths.
Do you deny that it was a result of industrial pollution changing the environment (from clean to sooty and back to clean)?
Yes, in the sense that there is no conclusive evidence of this.
Do you deny that the selection was due to predation of the more visible moths?
Once again, there is no conclusive evidence of this. It is a totally unproven hypothesis.
Do you deny that no other dominant predators of the moths have been identified in those areas other than the birds by the people doing the studies?
No, I don't deny it. Heck, I admit the studies seem to be blissfully ignorant of moth predators. The fact they are unaware that bats are a more signicant predator is actually a point in my favor, not your's.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 09:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 9:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:43 PM randman has replied
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 10:11 PM randman has replied
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 11-21-2005 8:30 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 350 (261671)
11-20-2005 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by arachnophilia
11-20-2005 9:34 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
The were reported more darker moths emerging during the Industrial revolution, sure.
But that is coorelation not causality, which is the subject of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:34 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:45 PM randman has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 30 of 350 (261672)
11-20-2005 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
11-20-2005 9:39 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
Natural selection always occurs. It's part of reproduction, but that means very little as far as claiming this as evidence for evolution. No speciation occured.
evolution > speciation.
evolution = speciation + natural selection + some other factors.
evidence that natural selection occurs is evidence for part of evolution. like i said about, the word's "natural selection" were in the title of darwin's book -- it's the method he proposed for speciation.
since natural selection was a predicted result of the hypothesis, evidence towards the validity of the theory. darwin said it would happen, it did.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:39 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024