Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peppered Moths and Natural Selection
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 46 of 350 (261710)
11-20-2005 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
11-20-2005 11:12 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
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,...
Unless someone can show where all of the other potential factors have been ruled out, please don't respond until you (evos here) provide that.
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.
It appears one study indicates UV vision reverses things, but perhaps I am misreading that. If you want to get into this subtopic, I'll answer you in that regard.
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.
Please cite the studies that show statistics related to bird versus bat predation, day-light habits, etc....Releasing moths into the day-light where they are stunned by the change is not a valid approach.
4. In reality, birds are not even the primary predator of peppered moths, but rather bats are. Bats method of sensing prey is totally different, and relies on sound waves and thus bats tend to capture moths in flight rather than while they are resting. This fact further makes the claims of the study to be somewhat fantastic in nature and without solid scientific standing.
Please cite where bat predation factors are accounted for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 11:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 11:18 PM randman has replied
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 11:47 PM randman has replied

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


Message 47 of 350 (261712)
11-20-2005 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
11-20-2005 11:13 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
randman, for someone who dodges questions as much as you do, you sure get your panties in a bunch when you think that people have avoided yours.
(nevermind that four separate people replied to this post the FIRST time you posted it.)

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:30 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 81 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 8:51 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 48 of 350 (261713)
11-20-2005 11:18 PM


I WIN!
*plants his flag, declares victory, and runs away*

אָרַח

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


Message 49 of 350 (261715)
11-20-2005 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by arachnophilia
11-20-2005 11:18 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
Just list all the other potential factors that were considered, and how they were ruled out, or concede that attributing causality based on coorealation is faulty science. I particularly would like to see some analysis done on bat predation, considering bats are their primary predator, I believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 11:18 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 11:40 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 50 of 350 (261719)
11-20-2005 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by randman
11-20-2005 11:30 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
i already dodged that question before. weren't you paying attention?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:30 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 51 of 350 (261721)
11-20-2005 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
11-20-2005 10:41 PM


Re: my response, bad as it was the first time and worse for repetition.
I think I answered the fallacy of the study quite well,
In your usual way, no substantiation of your assertions but followed by repetition of them as if they were not challenged by the facts.
Petty demands of "yes, no" questions will be ignored because you are ignoring the points I raised.
Or in other words you won't answer them because either you answer in the affirmative and agree that this is an excelent example of natural selection or you answer in the negative, going against massive amounts of data from numerous studies that all validate a conclusion you are in denial of ... better to avoid that and equivocate and duck and dodge instead.
Each of your points has been answered already, and we shouldn't have to repeat ourselves everytime you bring up this information. You have failed to refute the answers so reposting this is just an admission that you have failed to make the case. This is just as dishonest as you claim textbooks are that show Haeckle's drawings or any of your other pet peeves.
Note in particular that your reference to bats is specious at best, and irrelevant to the selection process at worst.
For the record, again, once more: bat predation - by sound and at night - is color blind and thus does not contribute to the selection process. It would have no effect at all on which variety of moth was selected.
This means that bat predation plays no part in the change in populations, none, zero, nada, zip: it is irrelevant to the change in populations that was observed.
Thus even if it is the predominant predator, it is irrelevant to the selection process.
The selection process is confirmed by numerous studies as well as the fact of bird predation based on differential selection of the different colored moths. This makes the birds the dominant players in the selection process regardless of the relative predation by bats.
Denial of this is denial of the facts.
As far as birds seeing UV that too has been addressed, and still the predominant evidence is that birds preferentially {select\find\consume} dark moths in light areas and light moths in dark areas because they are easier to see.
I have heard but not verified that these same experiments were repeated elsewhere in the world with the opposite results. As such, since the experiment is not repeatable, it falls down on that merit as well.
This has been refuted by the citing of studies in other areas that validate the original study. Your failure to substantiate this claim (of anonymous authority fallacy btw) just shows that you do not take the time and effort to determine the facts.
There was a similar set of experiments done in the US with similar results.
And again, there have been numerous other studies of these moths, several of which were attempts to disprove the selection by birds, and others that tried to disprove the connection to pollution. The original study is still validated.
Again your repetition of this even though it has been falsified puts you on the same plane as your claim of Haeckle's drawings: you are intentionally repeating misinformation that has been falsified.
Enjoy your fantasy randman, but don't call it reason.

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 42 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 10:41 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:45 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 52 of 350 (261722)
11-20-2005 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
11-20-2005 11:42 PM


Re: my response, bad as it was the first time and worse for repetition.
Please list all the other potential factors and show why they are not considered causal.
Dismissing asking for this as ad hoc doesn't work. You have to show you considered all potential causes, and you have not.
Please do so.
Also, you claim studies exist but refuse to cite them. Please back up your claims. The fact is all the studies do not agree with the initial claims such as the studies cited below.
When biologists looked beyond Birmingham and Dorset, where Kettlewell had conducted his experiments, they found discrepancies between Kettlewell's theory and the actual geographical distribution of melanic moths. For example, if melanic moths in polluted woodlands enjoyed as much of a selective advantage as Kettlewell's experiments seemed to indicate, then they should have completely replaced typicals in heavily polluted areas such as Manchester (Bishop and Cook 1980, Mani 1990). This never happened, however, indicating that factors other than selective predation must be affecting melanic frequencies. Some investigators attributed the discrepancy to heterozygote advantage (Clarke and Sheppard 1966, Lees and Creed 1975), but it has since been established that there is no evidence for this (Creed et al. 1980, Lees 1981, Mani 1982, Cook et al. 1986).
...
Some other distribution features were inconsistent with Kettlewell's explanation, as well. In rural Wales, the frequency of melanics was higher than expected, leading Bishop to conclude that "as yet unknown factors" were involved (Bishop 1972, p. 240). In rural East Anglia, where there was little industrial pollution and typicals seemed better camouflaged, melanics reached a frequency of 80%, prompting Lees and Creed to write: "We conclude therefore that either the predation experiments and tests of conspicuousness to humans are misleading, or some factors or factors in addition to selective predation are responsible for maintaining the high melanic frequencies" (Lees and Creed 1975, pp. 75-76).
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm
Why did darker moths increase wildly in population to 80% of the moth population in areas with no substantial industrial pollution?
Please explain that.
What role did bats and bat populations play during this period?
What are the differences besides coloring of these different moths? Do some moths fly differently, are quicker, etc,...?
This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 11:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 11:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2005 12:05 AM randman has replied
 Message 107 by Belfry, posted 11-22-2005 6:51 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 53 of 350 (261723)
11-20-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
11-20-2005 11:13 PM


Repeated claims do not make em more valid,
I've already answered this several times. Repeating this serves no additional purpose other than to appear to yourself that you are debating the issue instead of dodging it.
Enjoy your fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:54 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 8:55 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 54 of 350 (261726)
11-20-2005 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by RAZD
11-20-2005 11:47 PM


Re: Repeated claims do not make em more valid,
More.
In the United States, the first melanic peppered moth was reported in Philadelphia in 1906, and melanism increased until by 1959 it was over 90% in some areas (Owen 1962). Yet the geographical distribution did not fit the classical story any better than it did in the U.K. (Figure 3). In the 1970’s, the frequency of melanics in a seemingly unspoiled forest in southwestern Virginia was more than double the frequency at polluted Blacksburg, 18 km away. The difference was not related to lichen cover, and could not be explained by pollution levels or gene flow (West 1977). In a low-pollution area in central eastern Pennsylvania, melanics remained at about 52% from 1971 to 1978 (Manley 1981), and in western and central Massachusetts melanics persisted at low frequencies even though the trees there were neither devoid of lichens nor blackened by soot (Sargent 1974, Treat 1979). In southeastern Michigan, the frequency of melanics was over 90% in the early 1960's, then dropped to less than 20% by 1995 (Grant et al. 1995), thus paralleling the decline of melanism in the U.K. Yet the decline in Michigan "occurred in the absence of perceptible changes in local lichen floras" (Grant et al. 1996, p. 351).
Recently, Grant and his colleagues reported a good correlation between sulfur dioxide levels and melanic frequencies in southwestern Virginia, central eastern Pennsylvania, and southeastern Michigan. In fact, the decline of melanism in both the U.S. and the U.K. appears to be "correlated primarily with reductions in atmospheric sulfur dioxide" (Grant et al. 1998, p. 465). The lack of correlation between between melanic frequencies and lichen cover, however, is a serious problem for the theory that industrial melanism is due to cryptic coloration and selective predation. This aspect of the story warrants a closer look.
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm
How do you explain more increases in darker moths in areas with less pollution? That's the opposite of what the original claim was, and yet there are numerous studies verifying this.
Talkorigins, I note, dismisses this with the claim, well, the fact is continent wide darker moths increased with more pollution, but isn't that simplistic?
If non-polluted areas where trees are not darkened saw a greater increase in darker moths than sooted areas, isn't that data that contradicts the claims that soot on trees is the causal factor?
Can you answer any of these questions without just saying you think they are ad hoc or some other nonsense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 11:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 55 of 350 (261727)
11-21-2005 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
11-20-2005 11:45 PM


Re: my response, bad as it was the first time and worse for repetition.
LOL
Dismissing asking for this as ad hoc doesn't work. You have to show you considered all potential causes, and you have not.
I did not dismiss it ad hoc but in detail. You have not responded how bats figure into the equation when they act as a colorblind predator.
looks like you finally did some homework. I will look at this tommorrow when I have more time.
This is my last post tonight, as I do actually work on work days. I would appreciate you not taking this thread into the hundreds in the interim with repeatitious claims.
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 52 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:45 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 12:29 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 56 of 350 (261731)
11-21-2005 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
11-21-2005 12:05 AM


Re: my response, bad as it was the first time and worse for repetition.
finally did some homework...?
I am sorry, but that's pathetic. You made claims that were not backed up. I knew they were not backed up, but rather than honestly back up your points, you refused to do so and insist I back up mine.
Pretty much, I would expect a full retraction and apology, but frankly, I don't think you have the integrity within you to do so, and yes, I am more than a little ticked off. It's just flat out wrong, the whole way you proceed to present something unsubstantiated and then demand someone like me do YOUR HOMEWORK, wasting my time and your's rather than when I bring up a point in response to your OP, you dig into it and support it.
Take the bat issue. It's not up to me to figure out the role of bats and birds. It's your OP. You should do more than lightly dismiss the fact that the major predators are not mentioned in your studies.
You need to dig into the issue, and respond to these points and try to figure out whether the issue is relevant or not. Heck, for all we know, bats prefer dark colored moths more for taste or whatever and there was a decline in bat population that caused all this.
We don't know because your sources make unfounded claims that don't tell us. So do some real research and come back and tell us where these issues are addressed.
I hope I am surprised tomorrow but I won't hold my breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2005 12:05 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 11-21-2005 12:49 AM randman has replied
 Message 83 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 9:00 AM randman has not replied
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2005 8:06 PM randman has replied

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


Message 57 of 350 (261737)
11-21-2005 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
11-21-2005 12:29 AM


Re: my response, bad as it was the first time and worse for repetition.
You made claims that were not backed up.
that op was one of the most backed up posts i've ever seen on this board. what do you want?
Pretty much, I would expect a full retraction and apology,
did someone get their feelings hurt?
Take the bat issue. It's not up to me to figure out the role of bats and birds.
it's been explain to you multiple times that it is a non-issue. color of prey has not effect on bats, because they do not hunt by vision. they would eat dark and light moths indescriminately.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 12:29 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 2:31 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 58 of 350 (261774)
11-21-2005 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by arachnophilia
11-21-2005 12:49 AM


Re: my response, bad as it was the first time and worse for repetition.
And? You say the primary predator is of no consequence? How do you know that?
Don't you have to offer real evidence for that?
For example, maybe some bats preferred the lighter moths and could distinquish them by their flying patterns, or maybe they craved the melatin or whatever made the darker moths dark, and there was a reduction in the bat population and so the darker moths were not eaten as much by bats?
How can you claim this is valid science without ruling out all the various potential causes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 11-21-2005 12:49 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 11-21-2005 2:41 AM randman has replied
 Message 71 by Nuggin, posted 11-21-2005 4:47 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 59 of 350 (261778)
11-21-2005 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
11-21-2005 2:31 AM


Re: my response, bad as it was the first time and worse for repetition.
And? You say the primary predator is of no consequence? How do you know that?
do bats hunt based on vision? does a moth's color affect its likeyhood of being eaten? if they are an indescriminate killer, they're not influential on selection. period.
For example, maybe some bats preferred the lighter moths and could distinquish them by their flying patterns, or maybe they craved the melatin or whatever made the darker moths dark, and there was a reduction in the bat population and so the darker moths were not eaten as much by bats?
maybe the invisible ninjas protect the dark colored moths because they are strongly political and believe in affirmitive actions.
ad hoc. you have been asked to substantiate a claim that bats have a preference. maybe light and dark moths fly differently. maybe the bats can tell the difference. maybe they have a preference. maybe this makes a significant impact. how many maybe's is that? can you substantiate a single one of these claims? because maybe doesn't cut it.
How can you claim this is valid science without ruling out all the various potential causes?
because, for the fifth time, i'm not talking about causation.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-21-2005 02:44 AM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 2:31 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 3:06 AM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 60 of 350 (261782)
11-21-2005 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by arachnophilia
11-21-2005 2:41 AM


Re: my response, bad as it was the first time and worse for repetition.
does a moth's color affect its likeyhood of being eaten?
I don't know. Do you? Presumably there is a chemical that makes some moths darker. Have the studies ruled out whether or not some bats or other predators crave darker moths based on whatever makes the moth dark.
Also, it's not up to me to come up with data here. These are your claims. Where do the studies show they considered other possibilities?
Isn't that what you have to do to make a scientific claim?
because, for the fifth time, i'm not talking about causation.
Then what are you doing arguing on a thread discussing causation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 11-21-2005 2:41 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024