Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 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
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 61 of 350 (261783)
11-21-2005 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
11-20-2005 9:17 PM


Natural selection
And of course, natural selection is neither here nor there since this is presented as evidence for evolution, not just natural selection.
Where is this presented? Natural selection is a falsification test for evolution, if Natural Selection doesn't occur, then evolution cannot occur.
From this site
quote:
White and black peppered moths are a classic example of natural selection in action
Indeed, I'm having difficulty finding much reference to the moth story on the old 'web, but the references I have found all discuss it as an example of natural selection, sometimes as a subset of a 'evidence' section, but never a stand alone piece of evidence. I've only seen references over and over again to a practical example of natural selection, or of population variance changing due to environmental change.
Randman, you accept that natural selection occurs,
randman writes:
It's natural selection of existing traits.
and that the peppered moth example is natural selection. You accept that the mechanism of evolution requires natural selection.
Do you have a specific example of the peppered moths scenario being presented as anything other than as an example of natural selection? It would be useful to see what you consider inappropriate use, so we can discuss that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:17 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 3:36 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 63 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 3:41 AM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 62 of 350 (261785)
11-21-2005 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Modulous
11-21-2005 3:16 AM


Re: Natural selection
Here's some quotes on what evolutionists were saying about peppered moths.
A huge shift in the population’s average colour had taken place, from light to dark, within a few decades. Kettlewell called this “the most striking evolutionary change ever witnessed by man” (Kettlewell 48).
Many other evolutionists have made similarly enthusiastic comments:
The peppered moth story is “the single best-known evolution watch in history” (Weiner 271).
“The peppered moth, Biston betularia, is rightly regarded as a striking example of adaptive change through natural selection and as one of the foundation stones for the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory” (Brakefield 376).
“Typical [light], intermediate and melanic [dark] forms of the Peppered moth Biston betularia . . . furnish one of the best known examples of evolution taking place before our eyes” (Blaney 137).
“One of the most intensively studied examples of cryptic coloration [i.e., camouflage] is that of the peppered moth Biston betularia. . . . This is perhaps the most frequently quoted example of evolution in action” (Rowland-Entwistle 76).
“Organisms can adapt to moderate amounts of certain forms of pollution: the spread of industrial melanism [darkening] in peppered moths and other insects, and of heavy metal tolerance . . . in certain plants, have provided some of the most convincing evidence for evolution by natural selection” (Skelton 954).
http://www3.telus.net/csabc/PepperedMoth.html
So evos claimed this was "evolution in action"? Well, was it? Did even speciation occur?
The answer is no, it did not.
Also, check this out where prominent evolutionists admit the studies are inaccurate and do not show natural selection.
It now turns out, however, that Kettlewell’s experiments may not have even demonstrated natural selection. In the mid-1980s, biologists discovered that peppered moths only rarely rest on tree trunks in the wild. These night-flying moths are now thought to rest during the day beneath small branches high up in the trees, where they can’t be seen. Since Kettlewell released moths during the day onto exposed tree trunks, where the dazed insects froze in place and became easy targets for birds, his results may have had little bearing on what happens under natural conditions.
Hooper’s book lists many other flaws in the classic story, as well. For example, the major predators of peppered moths are probably not day-flying birds, but night-flying bats. Furthermore, Kettlewell measured camouflage by his own eye, even though research has shown that bird vision is quite different from human vision. He and Ford also disregarded the possibility that selection might have operated--not on adult moths-- but on caterpillars, through differences in their ability to withstand pollution.[3]
For these reasons (among others), a growing number of biologists have become critics of the classic peppered moth story. In 1998, University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore D. Sargent and two colleagues wrote in the journal Evolutionary Biology that although the camouflage-predation explanation “may be true, in whole or in part,” there is “little persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observations and experiments, to support this explanation at the present time.” The same year, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry A. Coyne wrote in Nature that the fact that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks “alone invalidates Kettlewell’s release-and-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks.” Coyne concluded that this “prize horse in our stable of examples” of evolution “is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention.”[4]
Desperately Defending The Peppered Myth | Discovery Institute
When I say I agree natural selection exists, that really isn't that the changing moth population has anything to do with soot. It's just that by definition, all changes can be considered natural selection. It's a little dishonest therefore to try to take that concession as some sort of agreement with evolution, and that's the problem with you evos here.
You are not being honest in your approach. If you define evolution as mere change, then automatically evolution is proven, and all change has some cause and so since there is a cause, you can call all change natural selection in a loose sense.
But when we debate "evolution", we are talking specific models of ToE, and so the fact you can define evolution or natural selection as any change does not mean that just because we accept change occurs, which is obvious by daily life not being identical, then it is dishonest to claim somehow evolution being verified in the sense of any change means evolution meaning ToE is somehow supported.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 03:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Modulous, posted 11-21-2005 3:16 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Nuggin, posted 11-21-2005 4:52 AM randman has not replied
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 11-21-2005 6:55 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 63 of 350 (261786)
11-21-2005 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Modulous
11-21-2005 3:16 AM


like learning santa claus isn't real
So where do they spend the day? British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote:
But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time . . In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.11
The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car hood.12
And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done”dead moths were glued to the tree.13 University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ”a lot of fraudulent photographs.’14
Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones”the opposite of textbook predictions!15
The University of Chicago’s Jerry Coyne said that such painful revelations about the moth story (”the prize horse in our stable’) was like finding out that Santa Claus was not real.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/appendix1.asp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Modulous, posted 11-21-2005 3:16 AM Modulous has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 64 of 350 (261792)
11-21-2005 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by randman
11-20-2005 9:07 PM


Re: mere unfounded claims
randman,
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.
We know because there are at least two studies showing it, obviously. Kettlewells, & Howlett and Majerus The Understanding of Industrial Melanism in the Peppered Moth, published in 1987.
quote:
Moths in Polluted (dark) Woodland
Dotted Whitish Form: (30/50) x 100 = 60% Melanic Form: (20/50) x 100 = 40%
60% - 40% = 20% The Dotted Whitish form is predated on 20% more than the melanic form in the polluted woodland.
Moths in Non-polluted (pale) Woodland
Dotted Whitish Form: (15/50) x 100 = 30% Melanic Form: approx. (30/50) x 100 = 60%
60% - 30% = 30% The Melanic form is predated on 30% more than the dotted whitish form in the nonpolluted woodland.
Colour DOESN't affect bats hunting for prey, quoting myself from my last post:
mark writes:
Irrelevant. The camouflage works during the day when the moths are at rest, what eats then during the night is neither here nor there.
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.
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.
I am quite happy to accept that there may be other factors involved, but a causal link has already been established, it is unecessary to establish more in order to conclude that the phenotypes of the variants results in differential predation in different environments & that this leads to natural selection.
Your response is both ad hoc & a red herring. It's not my fault you are too poorly schooled in logic to understand this.
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.
Can't you read??
Bats can only pick moths on the wing when they are not camouflaged, ergo the selective advantage of camouflage at night, on the wing is a big fat ZERO. Got it? Therefore bat predation cannot be cause of the differential predation of the phenotypes.
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.
The conclusion is that light phenotypes on dark surfaces are predated more than the other way around, & vice versa. They could have been pinned to cardboard of different colours, or lichen, or rock, or any other part of the environment affected by pollution, it matters not a jot. What's your beef? The conclusion is valid.
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.
Who cares what you'd wager. Ad hoc.
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?
No, you assume that 1/ they can tell, & 2/ that it is commonly available.
Also, is there any evidence that moths are primarily eaten during the day-time?
? I have to repeat myself again? I'm sure most moths are eaten during the night, but the selective advantage of flying around & being uncamouflaged offers a zero selective advantage. The only way one phenotype is going to be selected over another is in daylight, what happens at night is irrelevan. Please learn to read.
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?
*snicker* You do realise you are invoking natural selection to counter an experiment in natural selection? Even your ad hoc, unsupported "what-ifs" conclude natural selection.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:07 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 9:04 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 65 of 350 (261793)
11-21-2005 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
11-20-2005 9:33 PM


Slow down everyone
Once again, we're getting into minutia about the study. I couldn't care less about the study. I want to make this simple, so I'm going to state the facts as I see them.
1) We are all familiar with the common story of the moths, it's in a lot of text books.
2) The events in the study may not be as clear cut as they appear in textbooks. The textbooks often minimize the study to a paragraph written for 6th comprehension. This minimizing necessarily deletes some information which could have a great deal of importance.
Randman is objecting to the study being presented in it's simplistic form. He feels that leaving out the various factors he's proposing makes the study less than scientific. And, in regards to textbooks, he's right.
Others are pointing to additional studies which correct the problems Randman sees in the initial study. I don't have time to go through them all, but I'm willing to accept that when taken as a whole, these studies likely answer most if not all of Randman's questions.
So - could textbooks say more? Yeah. Could Randman devote hours and hours daily to reading every study published on the subject? Yeah. Is either of these things likely to happen - no.
To my mind, there are really just two issues which this topic brings up:
First, is this an effective tool for teaching the theory of natural selection?
I say, yes. Despite the problems Randman is bringing up, this study effectively illustrates to a casual reader/beginning student of the field (be it 5th grade biology or college level bio 101) the mechanics behind natural selection.
Are there other studies which could be used? Sure. Do the other studies convey the concept? Probably. But this is one that's in common use.
Second, and more importantly for our discussion here, assuming that everything about the moth study is completely false, is anyone here (Randman or otherwise) trying to argue that natural selection does not take place?
If Randman isn't arguing against natural selection, I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
His continuing point that text books, even today, often contain misleading or factually wrong information is a solid one. Does a mistake in a textbook negate all other studies of evolution - of course not.
Personally, I think Randman is overlooking the numerous factors involved in writing, editting, publishing, and selling textbooks. If the industry was education driven more than market driven, I think a lot of these concerns would be easier to address.
But, let's not let the wheels fly off the cart. We can have a discussion rather than a shouting match.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:33 PM randman has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 66 of 350 (261794)
11-21-2005 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
11-20-2005 9:17 PM


Good Grief, Charlie Brown
randman,
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.
Natural selection is evolution, as it results in change over time. So if the experiment shows natural selection, it also shows evolution.
Nobody said the experiments demonstrated macroevolution, speciation, genetic drift etc., just plain ol' vanilla natural selection, but nevertheless, evolution.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:17 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 4:24 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 67 of 350 (261795)
11-21-2005 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
11-20-2005 10:36 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
The logical fallacy here is to claim demonstrating natural selection alone is demonstrating evolution
I don't think that that's what he's trying to do. Or, more accurately, I don't think he should be trying to that if he is.
You may be right that there are textbooks which use the moths as "examples of evolution" when they should be saying "example of natural selection".
Clearly natural selection is happening with the moths.
And, understanding natural selection is crucial to understanding evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 10:36 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 4:29 AM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 68 of 350 (261796)
11-21-2005 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by mark24
11-21-2005 4:14 AM


Re: Good Grief, Charlie Brown
Natural selection is evolution, as it results in change over time. So if the experiment shows natural selection, it also shows evolution.
Can you not see why this smacks of deception to me? Your stance is the evo stance, but honestly, science textbooks are not about evolution in this sense.
Under that definition, Young Earth Creationists are evolutionists.
To interchange a loose term "evolution" with a definite term for a specific scientific theory also called "evolution" all jumbled up together is something we critics object to and think is dishonest and misleading.
What is under debate is ToE, which is universal common descent modeled based on evolutionary models. It's not "evolution" in the sense of just "change." No one has ever claimed the world doesn't change.
So if there is no speciation, and really no macroevolution, then the peppered moth story is not "evolution in action" as evolutionists claim, and moreover, the premise is shown to be faulty.
We all were taught the tree trunk story, and now we know that was wrong. Wrong too are a whole host of claims in the scenario. For example, studies also show that in some places with no pollution, the increase in darker moths was more prevalent.
But getting back to your post, switching between the theory of evolution and then the theory that change happens since evolution is mere change, is inherently deceptive and just plain wrong.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 04:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 11-21-2005 4:14 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 11-21-2005 9:19 AM randman has not replied
 Message 93 by mark24, posted 11-21-2005 11:13 AM randman has not replied
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 11-21-2005 11:26 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 69 of 350 (261798)
11-21-2005 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Nuggin
11-21-2005 4:19 AM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
Clearly natural selection is happening with the moths.
What is not clear is what is causing the natural selection. There really isn't evidence it was soot on tree trunks. Sometimes, there were more increases in darker moths where there was little pollution and no soot. The moths also did not rest on tree trunks.
All we have solid evidence for is that the moth population changed, something that is not that unusual and is not specific evidence for evolutionary theories anymore than any other theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Nuggin, posted 11-21-2005 4:19 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 11-21-2005 9:52 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 70 of 350 (261800)
11-21-2005 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
11-20-2005 10:41 PM


Re: my response
Well, I won't be listing studies but I'll be approaching your points with reasoning.
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,...
Yes, it may be a result of something other than predation. It could be that the moths themselves are being colored by the soot. However, I would suspect that all moths exposed would be effected the same in - just like when there is an oil spill, all the sea gulls that land in it get oil on them.
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.
The study that was posted a few messages back indicated that under UV the moths blended in better with the lichens. So, yeah, I think you were misreading it. (Or I am misreading it)
The other problem with the statement here is this - Birds have the ability to see in the UV spectrum, but they don't see exclusively in the UV spectrum, nor do all birds species see the same amount in the UV spectrum. So, even if darker moths were no different than light moths under UV light, they'd still have the edge given that the birds aren't seeing exclusively UV.
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.
Yes, the moths are nocturnal - meaning they are active at night and presumably flying at that time. Conversely, it means they are sitting still during the day. Even if the moths perfer to be high up in the tree, the branches up there are covered in soot as well.
The situation here is all about percentages. If being darker is slightly better than being lighter - weither high in the canopy or down on the trunks, it's going to be selected for. (or rather less selected against).
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.
While bats are the primary predator, the color shading is presumably not protective against radar. As a result, the group of moths as a whole - both light and dark - are subject to the same degree of predation from the bats. However, during the day, the dark moths fare slightly better than their light winged brothers. And that gives them the edge they need to outreproduce the competition.
5. 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.
I can't really respond to this since it is, by your own admission, somethng that you heard but haven't verified. I would suspect that these experiments, if they do exist, suffer from the same problems you pose in your criticism of the initial experiment. If you can find one or more of these, I invite you to post them - but please treat them to the same skeptical eye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 10:41 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 71 of 350 (261802)
11-21-2005 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
11-21-2005 2:31 AM


Acting Batty
Whoa, Randman, you're on tilt here.
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?
Here's how we know, and yes I am generalizing.
Bats hunt by sonar. There has been no evidence presented that the white moths or the dark moths are any different in size. Size is the primary, if not only factor, in sonar detection of these moths in flight. As such, bats are going to be equally likely to feed on light and dark moths.
Natural selection works on multiple fronts at once. So all moths, light and dark, which are able to avoid bats are selected for. However, during the day, just the dark moths are selected for. The difference in pressure on these two groups resulted in the difference in population densities.
On the second part of your quote, you seem to be suggesting that the dark moths fly differently than the light moths, etc. Are you trying to say that they are in fact a different species and that speciation has occured here. I find it hard to believe that the behavior of the two months would change so radically based on just color.
It may just be that you are tired, or that you've been harassed to a frazzled point, but this post is a bit out there compaired to the other points you are making.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 2:31 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 72 of 350 (261803)
11-21-2005 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by randman
11-21-2005 3:36 AM


Evolution means...
Good quotes.
Here's the problem, I think.
"evolution" can mean different things. It could mean "speciation". In which case, the moths is not a good example of it.
But, it could also mean "becoming better adapted to your environment" in which case the moths are a good example.
Personally, I think that the micro-evolution stuff leads to the macro-evolution stuff. But that's for another discussion.
The quotes you listed, if read as the definition I posted, really aren't that outrageous at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 3:36 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 5:34 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 73 of 350 (261809)
11-21-2005 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Nuggin
11-21-2005 4:52 AM


Re: Evolution means...
Indeed anyone with any familiarity with the literature would realise that given the common definition of evolution as a change in allele frequency in a population over generations any example of natural selection operating to shift allele frequencies is an example of evolution. It is the anti-evolutionary side which primarily seeks to ambiguate the definition of evolution and make it synonymous with speciation or higher level character changes.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 11-21-2005 10:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Nuggin, posted 11-21-2005 4:52 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 74 of 350 (261815)
11-21-2005 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by randman
11-21-2005 3:36 AM


Re: Natural selection
So evos claimed this was "evolution in action"? Well, was it? Did even speciation occur?
Do evos claim this is 'speciation in action'? Does speciation have to occur for alelle frequencies to change? Why do you insist that a speciation event had to occur? This is not a study about reproductive isolation, or population genetics which are seperate details of evolutionary theory. This is a real life, practical example of natural selection. One (very major) detail of evolutionary theory.
Also, check this out where prominent evolutionists admit the studies are inaccurate and do not show natural selection...
Irrelevant to the sub-discussion we are having. Others have discussed repeated experiments, and the habits of moths using science papers rather than quote mining a popular press book. Perhaps you can raise this issue with them?
When I say I agree natural selection exists, that really isn't that the changing moth population has anything to do with soot
OK, so natural selection exists. That's a start. Maybe it isn't, there could be some other factor at play, and science in its tentativity is open to that. However, the correlation does exist which leads many to accept that this is an example of natural selection. That is how it is presented.
It's a little dishonest therefore to try to take that concession as some sort of agreement with evolution, and that's the problem with you evos here.
The problem with you, randman, is that you seem to be fanatically paranoid. I've never taken your concession that natural selection exists as an agreement with evolution. All I am saying is that the moth population changed in areas with heavy pollution. The correlation is strong and it suggests that the change was caused by natural selection. The vector for this selection is generally credited as birds preying on resting moths.
All that is being said is that the peppered moth is a great example of natural selection, if you accept that, we can move on to discuss whether or not the confirmation of the existence of natural selection causing population change is evidence for evolution or not.
You are not being honest in your approach.
How dare you question my integrity! All I have done, randman, is try to find the areas we agree on, and the areas we disagree on. You have accused me of dishonesty, which is extremely bad manners. I ask you politely for an apology.
How can somebody be dishonest when their post comprises of
a) A question
b) A statement that natural selection is a possible falsification of ToE
c) My difficulty finding any references to peppered moth that says anything other than it being an example of natural selection.
d) My stating you accept natural selection and that you accept ToE requires natural selection
e) Finally, a request you post an example usage that you find problematic.
What on earth is dishonest about ANY of that???
it is dishonest to claim somehow evolution being verified in the sense of any change means evolution meaning ToE is somehow supported.
Not claiming that. I am claiming that if natural selection did not exist then that would falsify ToE. I will claim now that any time a theory passes a falsification test, it grows in strength, but I never stated anything about support for ToE in my original post. If anyone's honesty should be in question, randman, I don't think it is me.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 21-November-2005 11:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 3:36 AM randman has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 75 of 350 (261821)
11-21-2005 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by randman
11-20-2005 9:07 PM


Forum Guidelines Warning
randman writes:
I am sorry, but it's not my fault you are so poorly educated...
'Nuf said?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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