Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 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
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 76 of 350 (261822)
11-21-2005 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by randman
11-20-2005 9:24 PM


Forum Guidelines Warning II
randman writes:
Your snide tone is to be expected, totally dishonest in it's connotations I might add.
As the Forum Guidelines request, please keep the discussion impersonal.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:24 PM randman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 77 of 350 (261827)
11-21-2005 8:30 AM
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
This may already have been covered by others, but it contains a couple fundamental mistakes, so I'll address it, too:
randman writes:
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.
First, and maybe this was just sloppy phrasing, but natural selection is not "part of reproduction". Natural selection governs which individuals of a population reproduce to pass their genes on to the next generation. Some selection factors *are* part of the reproductive process, but natural selection is defined more generally. Differential success is a common term used when describing natural selection.
Ultimately the goal is to reproduce. The interplay of environment with an organism's individual qualities govern the likelihood of achieving that goal and is what is termed natural selection.
Second, evolution occurs in tiny steps, not in units of species, so you cannot argue that just because no speciation occurred that no evolution occurred. Evolution isn't defined that way. The allele frequency profile of a population over time that is an accurate measure of evolutionary change over time. When and where speciation occurs, if it occurs, is a separate and often debateable issue.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:39 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 78 of 350 (261828)
11-21-2005 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by randman
11-20-2005 9:46 PM


Forum Guidelines Warning III
randman writes:
Moreover, the claims are overstated, but passing off overstatements as facts is par for the course for evolutionists.
Please stay focused on the topic and ignore the supposed deficiencies of your opponents.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:46 PM randman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 79 of 350 (261830)
11-21-2005 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by randman
11-20-2005 9:46 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
randman writes:
Peppered moths are presented as evidence for evolution, as an example of evolution occuring. That's a patently false claim because natural selection alone does not equal evolution in the sense of of the ToE being true.
Then I think you must misunderstand the premise. Natural selection influences allele frequency in a population. Changes in allele frequency over time is evolution. Most certainly the allele frequency of the moth population changed over time, so the moth population experienced evolution. This isn't a point you can debate, unless you believe the color change did not have a genetic component.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:46 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 80 of 350 (261832)
11-21-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
11-20-2005 10:41 PM


Forum Guidelines Warning IV
randman writes:
Petty demands of "yes, no" questions will be ignored because you are ignoring the points I raised.
...
Further posts ignoring the need for data to answer these questions will be ignored by me until they are dealt with.
The Forum Guidelines request that you debate constructively, and declarations like this work against this goal. Please work proactively toward developing ways of constructively exchanging viewpoints and information with your fellow debaters.
This message has been edited by Admin, 11-21-2005 08:47 AM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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

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


Message 81 of 350 (261833)
11-21-2005 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by arachnophilia
11-20-2005 11:18 PM


Forum Guidelines Warning
arachnophilia writes:
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.
Please stay focused on the debate topic and avoid commenting on the behavior of your opponents.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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 92 by arachnophilia, posted 11-21-2005 11:03 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 82 of 350 (261834)
11-21-2005 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by RAZD
11-20-2005 11:47 PM


Forum Guidelines Warning
RAZD writes:
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.
The Forum Guidelines requests constructive dialogue.
This message has been edited by Admin, 11-21-2005 09:57 AM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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

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


Message 83 of 350 (261836)
11-21-2005 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
11-21-2005 12:29 AM


Forum Guidelines Warning V
randman writes:
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.
The Forum Guidelines request that you remain dispassionate and impersonal in discussion. Postponing replies until no longer "ticked off" might help you achieve this.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 12:29 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 84 of 350 (261840)
11-21-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by mark24
11-21-2005 3:59 AM


Forum Guidelines Warning
mark24 writes:
It's not my fault you are too poorly schooled in logic to understand this.
The Forum Guidelines request that discussion confine itself to the topic of debate and not extend to the personal qualities of fellow debaters.
This message has been edited by Admin, 11-21-2005 09:05 AM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by mark24, posted 11-21-2005 3:59 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by mark24, posted 11-21-2005 10:31 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 85 of 350 (261845)
11-21-2005 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
11-21-2005 4:24 AM


Re: Good Grief, Charlie Brown
randman writes:
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.
By your definition of evolution, you are correct. But you're using your own personal definition of evolution, and your definition is incorrect.
The definition of evolution that everyone else in this discussion is using is the correct one. Evolution occurs in the tiny steps of microevolution that gradually accumulate into macroevolution. But the peppered moth example is not an instance of macroevolution, and no one here but you is raising any issues related to macroevolution or speciation when discussing the peppered moth.
More specifically, evolution is the change over time of the allele frequency profile of a population. Environmentally influenced changes in genetically determined color in a population over time is evolution by way of natural selection.
I think this discussion may have difficulty moving forward until all the participants agree on the definition of evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 4:24 AM randman has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 86 of 350 (261852)
11-21-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
11-20-2005 10:41 PM


Re: my response
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.
Irrelevant. The conclusion is that natural selection, largely due to bird predation, changed the distribution of light and dark moths. It is not necessary to rule out all other protential factors to consider that conclusion justified.
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.
Let's see the cite.
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.
The moths were released in the morning about the time that moths are settling in for the day.
As I psoted before, see Moonshine: Why the Peppered Moth Remains an Icon of Evolution, The peppered moth: a black and white story after all, FINE TUNING THE PEPPERED MOTH PARADIGM, and Recent History of Melanism in American Peppered Moths.
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.
Please demponstrate that it is necesary to accounht for bat predation.
Since bats apparently do not select by color, the effect of bat predation would be to somewhat blur but not remove the effect of bird predation. If 95% of all moths are eaten by bats and 5% are eaten by birds, that's still enough for differential bird predation to affect the distribution of colors. So, you need to provide evidence of bat predation being more significant than bird predation and the statistical analysis that demonstrates that the effect of bat predation can remove the effect of differential bird predation.
. 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.
You heard wrong. The same experiments have been repeated elsewhere in the UK and in the U.S. with the same results. The results are repeatable and have been repeated. See, I can repeat myself too. Don't bother to repeat yourself again until you've read my references.
Yet again, see Moonshine: Why the Peppered Moth Remains an Icon of Evolution, The peppered moth: a black and white story after all, FINE TUNING THE PEPPERED MOTH PARADIGM, and Recent History of Melanism in American Peppered Moths.

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 87 of 350 (261857)
11-21-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
11-21-2005 4:29 AM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
randman writes:
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.
You've said this before, and others have already noted what I'm going to say, but, as usual, I'll come at it from a slightly different direction.
You appear to want higher levels of assurance than we currently have that we understand all the selection factors in moth melanism. There's nothing wrong with saying that you find the current evidence insufficient for the conclusion that differential coloration is the significant selection factor. There's no requirement that everyone's threshold of evidence be the same. But your posts make clear that you do believe that something is being selected, you just don't believe we know enough to be sure of what it is yet.
So I think many are puzzled about why you are so impassioned about the peppered moth example. It's a very popular example because it is so easy for students to grasp. This example makes it very easy for students to fix the principles of natural selection and evolution in their mind. Even if evolutionists are dead wrong about the causes of moth melanism (and scientists can always be wrong), it's still a very useful example. The lesson to be taken away from this example is not about birds and moths and polution, but about important scientific principles. It enables students to gain an understanding of the principles of evolution through natural selection.
What is special about the peppered moth studies is that they attempt to detect natural selection operating in the wild. As the discussion illustrates, the wild is very different from a controlled laboratory environment, and identifying and accounting for all the factors is extremely difficult. As you correctly note, perhaps there are factors at work which haven't yet been identified, but that will almost always be true outside the lab.
So I think it is fine if you find the available evidence unpersuasive. There have been scientists who have felt much the same way. But that doesn't change the fact that from all the accumulated studies there *is* a lot of evidence supporting the peppered moth example. And the principle being taught by the example, natural selection, is not disputed by Creationists. What they dispute is natural selection's ability to produce sufficient change to cause speciation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 4:29 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 88 of 350 (261877)
11-21-2005 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Admin
11-21-2005 9:04 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
Admin,
Guilty as charged: Tu Quoque.
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 84 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 9:04 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 89 of 350 (261891)
11-21-2005 10:55 AM


General interest and easy reading
Good old Ken Miller. Here is a link which seems to sum up, in a balanced manner, the moth 'controversy':
quote:
However, Majerus also discovered that many of Kettlewell's experiments didn't really test the elements of the story as well as they should have. For example, in testing how likely light and dark moths were to be eaten, he placed moths on the sides of tree trunks, a place where they rarely perch in nature. He also records how well comoflaged the moths seemed to be by visual inspection. This might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but since his work it has become clear that birds see ultraviolet much better than we do, and therefore what seems well-camouflaged to the human eye may not be to a bird. In addition, neither Kettlewell nor those who checked his work were able to compensate for the degree to which migration of moths from surrounding areas might have affected the actual numbers of light and dark moths he counted in various regions of the countryside.
it goes on to say
quote:
As Majerus explains, to be absolutely certain of exactly how natural selection produced the rise and fall of the carbonaria form, we need better experiments to show that birds (in a natural environment) really do respond to camouflage in the ways we have presumed...Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story will be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete...What we have to be cautious about is attributing 100% of the work of natural selection in this case to the camouflage of the moths and their direct visibility to birds.
Pretty much does it for me. There is even a nice little quote from their text book, the massively popular 'Biology' which says how it is considered a 'classic' example of natural selection - does randman have a problem with this wording? Sounds like a non-definite statement to me.

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


Message 90 of 350 (261896)
11-21-2005 10:58 AM


Warning, un-constructive off-topic comment.
Wow, this page is a bit of an admin-athon.
TTFN,
WK

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by arachnophilia, posted 11-21-2005 11:00 AM Wounded King 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