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


Message 91 of 350 (261899)
11-21-2005 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Wounded King
11-21-2005 10:58 AM


Re: Warning, un-constructive off-topic comment.
haha this is great.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 10:58 AM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 92 of 350 (261901)
11-21-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Admin
11-21-2005 8:51 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
sorry,
the irony was killing me.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 8:51 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 93 of 350 (261909)
11-21-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
11-21-2005 4:24 AM


Re: Good Grief, Charlie Brown
randman,
mark writes:
Natural selection is evolution, as it results in change over time. So if the experiment shows natural selection, it also shows evolution.
randman responds writes:
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.
Yes, science textbooks are.
If you think differently, then show that the peppered moth study of natural selection is specifically & in context conflated with speciation et al. Something like, "look at those peppered moths, macroevolution therefore occurred", will do.
Under that definition, Young Earth Creationists are evolutionists.
They accept that aspect of evolution, yes. It's up to them as to whether they call themselves evolutionists, or not.
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.
It is not misleading. What is dishonest is claiming something that shows change over time, & therefore evolution by definition, is misleading in actually calling itself evolution.
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.
No, the universal ToE is not under debate. A study that shows natural selection in action is under debate. And given that natural selection is evolution in action, is not wrong or misleading to call a spade a spade.
What is wrong is to falsely imply that all of the ToE is being conflated with the word "evolution", rather than just natural selection.
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.
The peppered moth study shows differential predation leading to changes in allele frequency over time via natural selection. Calling this "evolution in action" is perfectly valid. It's exactly what it is. If anyone thinks that this has anything to do with speciation then I suggest they learn to read for context.
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.
At the risk of repeating myself:
Evolution is change over time. The ratio of melanic phenotypes has changed over time, therefore evolution has occurred. There is nothing deceptive about this, it is just plain fact. Pre-industrial revolution saw no to low frequencies of dark phenotypes, now they are prevalent. The reason for this is explained quite trivially by differential predation between the two phenotypes. Ergo, evolution happened as per the theory of evolution.
Note that at no point am I switching between the theory of evolution & back, I am at all times within the theory.
Evolution doesn't have to involve speciation, nor macroevolution. Think of it like this, evolutionary theory is a set that consists of a number of mechanisms, the observation of any means evolution is in evidence. What is not true is that all parts of the set must be observed in order for evolution to be in evidence.
A bit like evidence of an electron is confirming evidence for atomic theory, you don't need to see protons & neutrons at the same time, but then at the same time it doesn't pretend to be evidence for anything other than an electron.
Giving the conflation you engage in it's proper name, you are committing a fallacy of division. Evolutionary theory has multiple components, natural selection, recombination, neutral theory, population genetics, genetic drift, speciation etc. Each of which is different & specific in it's own right. All of which can be considered evolution, just because a study is showing speciation but not genetic drift, does not mean that evolution is not in evidence.
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 68 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 4:24 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 94 of 350 (261922)
11-21-2005 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
11-21-2005 4:24 AM


interchanging 'evolution' with 'the theory of evolution'
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.
It can get confusing, and creationists are wonderful for doing it 'evolution isn't a theory, since we can't see dinosaurs in the lab!!!". Context can help, but sometimes it can't. Still its the same for everything else. Theory of Gravity can be equivocated with 'Gravity'.
I made a post about this a while back. The whole 'phenomenon' and 'theory to explain phenomenon' problem. Just be vigilant and try to ascertain from context which one is being discussed, will probably help.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 21-November-2005 04:28 PM

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by arachnophilia, posted 11-21-2005 11:44 AM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 95 of 350 (261938)
11-21-2005 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Modulous
11-21-2005 11:26 AM


Re: interchanging 'evolution' with 'the theory of evolution'
'evolution isn't a theory, since we can't see dinosaurs in the lab!!!"
sure you can.
they're just all dead.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 11-21-2005 11:26 AM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 96 of 350 (262161)
11-21-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
11-21-2005 12:29 AM


Re: homework, insults and substantiation
Yes homework. This is your 22nd post in this thread and that was the first one where you provided substantiation for you position. If you had provided this at the start then your position would be better.
I intend to do my homework before answering. I do not consider it an insult to research the facts before making a post.
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.
Let's see, you have compared me to a racist white supremacist, but you are insulted at the thought that you provide substantiation for your positions? You throw out gratuitous ad hominems everywhere but can't be bothered to do the research behind your position?
You really think this is insulting????? I don't. I consider it part of putting together a good post. Do you think I set up the OP without doing my homework?
Take the bat issue. It's not up to me to figure out the role of bats and birds. It's your OP.
Absolutely false: it is YOUR assertion that bats are a significant factor that makes the bird data irrelevant -- it IS up to you to demonstrate how that can possibly be if for no other reason than other people cannot know what you want to accomplish with your post.
I consider the bat issue totally and completely refuted, btw, and that your continued reiteration of it is unreasonable without some form of justification ... from you. Everyone else can clearly see that a colorblind predator in the mix has no selective value on the color distribution of the population as a whole, so that when predation -- demonstrated by the recovery studies -- shows a distinct and substantial selection of one variety over the other, the only valid conclusion is that some predator is selecting the moths based on the difference between the varieties -- a difference that is genetic and results in color differences in the wings.
This means that whatever is making the selection difference it is NOT the bats.
Bat predation is therefore totally irrelevant to the selection issue.
Meanwhile, other studies demonstrated that birds did display differential selection of the varieties in both areas consistent with the recovery studies.
If you disagree with the conclusion it is UP TO YOU to show how and where and why it is wrong and to BACK IT UP with data, not just opinions.
That means doing your homework and not just making stuff up.
I hope I am surprised tomorrow but I won't hold my breath.
I will get back to you when I have done my homework, and not before.
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 56 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 12:29 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 8:18 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 97 of 350 (262166)
11-21-2005 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD
11-21-2005 8:06 PM


Re: homework, insults and substantiation
I look forward to your responses to the material, and yes, I have thrown out too many insults. My only defense is I did not draw "first blood" so to speak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2005 8:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2005 11:20 PM randman has replied

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


Message 98 of 350 (262222)
11-21-2005 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by randman
11-21-2005 8:18 PM


Re: homework, and results.
From your source: Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths, by Jonathan Wells (click) -- quotes followed by comments.
JW, "Problems with the Classical Story" writes:
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.
There is no reason to expect one form to be "completely replaced" and this was never observed in any area studied. Complete replacement would be more consistent with a speciation event and not just natural selection pressure altering the genetic mix within a population.
There are no numbers given for the relative population sizes, so no real information is presented in this paragraph even though it is designed to appear that way. This comment is misleading and begging the question.
I think we can safely say that the populations of the different varieties still showed a shift from typica to carbonaria within this study area, as if they didn't we would have been told such (especially given the source of this disinformation).
JW, ibid writes:
Yet the decline in Michigan "occurred in the absence of perceptible changes in local lichen floras" (Grant et al. 1996, p. 351).
This lack of correlation to lichens has also been reported before, and it is not controversial to say that lichens are not necessary for the selection process. All that is necessary is that typica variety have places of refuge where they appear better camouflaged in unpolluted areas and that those same areas are then darkened or otherwise changed by the pollution so that the carbonaria variety is favored.
Note that in the heavily polluted areas the lichens had been killed but the typica variety was not eliminated, ergo they had places of refuge for daytime resting places where they were camouflaged sufficiently to survive predation by birds. It is not unreasonable that they would continue to have those same places of refuge as the pollution decreased.
Decrease in pollution, however, would decrease the available places of refuge for the carbonaria variety, thus creating a stage for the reversal of the population densities to occur.
It could even be true that the pollution had no effect on the refuge of the typica variety but just enabled the heretofor rare carbonaria variety to find sufficient refuge to thrive.
All that is required is a differential in the hiding places of the moths. The moths do rest on surfaces with their wings spread flat (a characteristic of moths versus butterflies btw), so they do need relatively flat surfaces to rest on and still remain relatively unremarkable to the visibiity of any predators during the day. Mottled coloration is generally better for this than monochromatic, regardless of the surface used, as it tends to blur the outline more.
JW, ibid writes:
Mani (1990), like Steward (1977a), obtained a good fit between melanism and sulfur dioxide concentration, but cautioned that "such a correlation does not define causal connection. It only says that SO2 concentration can be used as an approximate measure of the level of pollution that affects the morphs differentially in some unknown way" (Mani 1990, p. 368).
and
JW, again writes:
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).
All this correlation does is replace "soot" with a more specific pollutant, SO2, as the major player in the industrial pollution affecting the environment of these moths.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and ionic Sulfate (SO4=) are by-products of coal-burning industrial pollution. They are particulate pollutants in the atmosphere and have also been linked with acid rain ... due to burning coal with high sulfur content. "Soot" would be a marker for the presence of this kind of pollution as long as the source of the "soot" was sulfurous fossil fuels.
Measurements of Rural Sulfur Dioxide and Particle Sulfate: Analysis of CASTNet Data, 1987 through 1996 (click)
Particulate sulfur also is well known to inhibit visibility in the air (haze\smog), and it can occur naturally as well as come from pollution. From Sulfur in the Southern Appalachians (click):
However, visitors sometimes cannot fully appreciate these views because of regional haze. Regional haze is caused by very small particles that scatter and absorb light, reduce visual range, and alter the color of landscapes.
In the eastern United States, particle sulfate (PS) originates from both natural and human-caused emissions of sulfur especially sulfur dioxide (SO2). The conversion of SO2 to PS usually is very slow. But once created, PS removal from the air is a slow process, unless sufficient rainfall occurs to wash it from the atmosphere.
What we don't know that would be of interest here, is the relative visiblity of these sulfur particles in the ranges that the birds can see in: ie would SO2 and SO4= particles change the visiblity of the trees and thus the visiblity of the moths?
As a side note, I noticed the picture in the Wells article with the moths placed on a green algae covered tree, where both were quite visible ... to us. The question really revolves around what the birds see.
The sensation of colour stems from the differential stimulation of the different types of photoreceptors in the retina. Each cone type produces an output, and it is their differences in output at a particular point on the retina which underlies the sensation of colour. In humans there are only three types of cones, absorbing maximally in different regions of the spectrum. Due to the appearance (to humans) of monochromatic light at these wavelengths, these three cone types are called "red", "green" and "blue" respectively. Consequently, for humans, all hues can be produced by mixing red, green and blue light. This is how a colour television set works;
Bird colour vision differs from that of humans in two main ways. First, birds can see ultraviolet light. It appears that UV vision is a general property of diurnal birds, having been found in over 35 species using a combination of microspectrophotometry, electrophysiology, and behavioural methods.
As well as seeing very well in the ultraviolet, all bird species that have been studied have at least four types of cone. They have four, not three, dimensional colour vision. ... Whilst UV reception increases the range of wavelengths over which birds can see, increased dimensionality produces a qualitative change in the nature of colour perception that probably cannot be translated into human experience.
Conclusion: we cannot judge what birds see based on what we see, we can only base what birds see based on their observed behavior to visible cues and tests. Thus the studies that showed preferential predation based on the visiblity of moths on different backgrounds is a valid test for what birds see in a natural environment.
It may well be that the {presence\absence} of SO2 and SO4= particles changes the apparent color of the environment -- relative to bird vision and the apparent color of the different varieties of the moths -- and that this is all that is needed for the natural selection to occur.
This {UV/color\sulfur} visiblity issue is speculation, agreed, but it is consistent with all the facts presented and does not introduce any new mechanism or process than those that have already been studied. It is also falsifiable (it can be tested).
There are two other possible explanations for the correlation of the carbonaria variety with SO2 and the typica variety with unpolluted areas:
(1) the pollution causes the coloration to occur. This has been eliminated by studies (that tried to invalidate Kettlewell) where they tried to induce this color change in Biston betularia and were unable to do so. It was also confirmed that the cause of the color differences is genetic and not environmental, and that the carbonaria gene is, in fact, the dominant one of the two.
(2) the pollution has a toxic effect on one variety and not the other. This is extremely unreasonable on two grounds: first that the moths are otherwise the same in diet and behavior (and a difference in behavior and ability would also be closer to speciation than just natural selection), and second that this does not explain the loss of population of the carbonaria variety when the pollution is cleaned up, well after it had become the predominant form, especially given that this form of the gene is the dominant one (and this kind of effect would only have a detrimental effect on one population and and would be much more likely to result in the total elimination of that variety in high concentration areas -- the way DDT totally eliminated some species from some areas).
The only other valid explanation that I can see is that the selection process operates at the caterpillar stage instead of the adult. A far as I know this too has been eliminated by other studies (that tried to invalidate Kettlewell) and they could not determine any significant difference in the caterpillars -- the (confirmed as genetic) color differences were only expressed in the adults (and even if there were a {color\hiding} benefit to one form of caterpillar compared to the other that would only add another point of predation selection at the caterpillar stage to the already shown predation at the adult stage: the end result would still be the same).
Thus all this discussion still leaves birds as the most likely source of differential daytime predation between two color varieties of moth under circumstances that favor one or the other based on the {presence\absence} of pollution and their relative ability to hide from the predators.
No other mechanism has been proposed that provides this level of explanation for the observed population shifts.
JW, ibid writes:
These findings do not entirely rule out a role for cryptic coloration and selective predation in industrial melanism ...
This is one of Wells' final conclusions. Given that he is a critic of "icons of evolution" and given that he still cannot rule out selective predation means that there is still a very strong case for the evidence that has been observed in the studies -- and that the conclusions have not been invalidated, just questioned.
Questions do not invalidate theories. Facts do. Occams razor says that the simplest explanation that covers all the observed facts is the most likely answer: that answer still remains that birds are the most likely source of differential daytime predation between two color varieties of moth under circumstances that favor one or the other based on the {presence\absence} of pollution and their relative ability to hide from the predators.
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 97 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 8:18 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:01 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 99 of 350 (262231)
11-22-2005 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
11-21-2005 11:20 PM


Re: homework, and results.
There is no reason to expect one form to be "completely replaced" ...
He's quoting studies that apparently convincingly make that case. Admittedly without access to the studies he cites, we cannot easily examine their methodologies, but bare assertions that "there is no reason to expect" is nothing but a bare assertion without documentation. He backs up his claim with a citation. It may not be accurate, but it is more than a bare assertion as your claim is.
I think we can safely say that the populations of the different varieties still showed a shift from typica to carbonaria within this study area
That's the point. There should be no shift in areas not polluted if sooty tree trunks is a determinative factor. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude bird predation changes due to sooty tree trunks are not the cause here.
All this correlation does is replace "soot" with a more specific pollutant, SO2, as the major player in the industrial pollution affecting the environment of these moths.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and ionic Sulfate (SO4=) are by-products of coal-burning industrial pollution. They are particulate pollutants in the atmosphere and have also been linked with acid rain ... due to burning coal with high sulfur content.
The point is there is not a coloration issue, and so darker tree trunks favoring darker moths could not be in play. Keep in mind this fact, darker moths grew in percentages of population in areas with no discoloration due to sooty trees. You dodged that whole point with several paragraphs that appear to me to be out of place. The results are reversed in some areas.
Is this a situation where the data doesn't matter at all? You guys are going to insist the hypothesis is right no matter what the data?
Particulate sulfur also is well known to inhibit visibility in the air (haze\smog), and it can occur naturally as well as come from pollution.
How does that favor darker moths? If anything, it would favor lighter moths. But you make a good point that bird vision is not mentioned.
It may well be that the {presence\absence} of SO2 and SO4= particles changes the apparent color of the environment -- relative to bird vision and the apparent color of the different varieties of the moths -- and that this is all that is needed for the natural selection to occur.
It may be indeed, or may not be. Too bad the original study does not take this into account, and that evos are so wed to the original study's claims that in arguing for it, they ignore this area.
All that says to me is that there is no conclusive evidence one way or another that bird predation changes are a significant factor in the emergence of darker moths, especially since this occurred in wide regions with very little to no soot accumulating on trees.
As you say, "it could be"?
Too bad, evos haven't come up with anything conclusive here.
No other mechanism has been proposed that provides this level of explanation for the observed population shifts.
That may be so, but I think we can safely rule out sooty tree trunks making lighter moths more visible to birds. Don't you agree?
Otherwise, why did darker moths increase in areas with no sooty tree trunks?
Given that he is a critic of "icons of evolution" and given that he still cannot rule out selective predation means that there is still a very strong case for the evidence that has been observed in the studies -- and that the conclusions have not been invalidated, just questioned.
Questions do not invalidate theories. Facts do.
You mean like the fact vast swaths of land with no accumulation of soot on trees also experienced the same phenomena?
You err and thinking Wells is like you. He is just being objective as a scientist and stating that there could still be some other selective pressure we don't know about, but he effectively rules out the sooty tree trunk story since it does not jive with the facts.
Oh, and Occam's razor is not a fact. Moreover, the simplist explanation is that where there is no soot on trees, claiming sooty tree trunks led to increased bird predation of lightly colored moths is quite absurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2005 11:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by arachnophilia, posted 11-22-2005 12:07 AM randman has replied
 Message 105 by Nuggin, posted 11-22-2005 3:27 AM randman has replied
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 11-22-2005 9:35 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 100 of 350 (262233)
11-22-2005 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by randman
11-22-2005 12:01 AM


wait. i'm lost.
but bare assertions that "there is no reason to expect" is nothing but a bare assertion without documentation.
so your original statement is that no speciation event occured. right?
and now razd is saying that this article has the unreasonable expectation of a localized extinction (and therefor speciation).
and now you're saying that it is not unreasonable to have expected a speciation result?
{edit: and then you're using that unfulfilled expectation to do what, exactly? topple the strawman claim that speciation occured? is anyone even arguing here?}
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-22-2005 12:09 AM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:01 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:13 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 101 of 350 (262237)
11-22-2005 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by arachnophilia
11-22-2005 12:07 AM


Re: wait. i'm lost.
and now razd is saying that this article has the unreasonable expectation of a localized extinction (and therefor speciation).
The studies he cites suggests IF the scenario were true of increased bird predation feeding on lighter colored moths, that they should have died out in some areas. He doesn't state why the studies say that. I would venture a guess that due the rates of increase in darker moths, but unfortunately, unless one is extremely well verses and has read those studies, the article does not delve into the detail of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by arachnophilia, posted 11-22-2005 12:07 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by arachnophilia, posted 11-22-2005 12:14 AM randman has replied
 Message 106 by Nuggin, posted 11-22-2005 3:34 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 102 of 350 (262238)
11-22-2005 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by randman
11-22-2005 12:13 AM


Re: wait. i'm lost.
so it's not unreasonable to suggest that all light coloration patterns should disappear from the species?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:13 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:18 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 103 of 350 (262240)
11-22-2005 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by arachnophilia
11-22-2005 12:14 AM


Re: wait. i'm lost.
Research the studies cited and get back to us on it, if you want.
The definitive fact for me is that the same thing happened where there were no sooty tree trunks. So blaming sooty tree trunks is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by arachnophilia, posted 11-22-2005 12:14 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by arachnophilia, posted 11-22-2005 12:25 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 104 of 350 (262244)
11-22-2005 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by randman
11-22-2005 12:18 AM


Re: wait. i'm lost.
no no, i'm just asking what you are arguing.
The definitive fact for me is that the same thing happened where there were no sooty tree trunks. So blaming sooty tree trunks is wrong.
that may be the case, yes. but does that mean it was not variation in the frequency of heritable features by means of natural selection?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:18 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 105 of 350 (262257)
11-22-2005 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by randman
11-22-2005 12:01 AM


Dark Moths, White trees.
Randman,
You keep making the same point over and over, namely "the populations of dark moths increased in areas where the trees weren't subject to pollution and therefore not discolored."
I hear ya. Some aren't responding to it, which is frustrating. I'm sure that they have similiar complaints to air as well.
But, let's talk moths.
I assume that you listed a study that showed the population of dark moths increased in non-polluted areas. I'm even willing to accept that they did without a study, just for the sake of arguement.
But let's turn the same critical eye to this study that you have subjected the other studies to.
Were all the moths found in the non-polluted areas born there? Lived there exclusively? Could the study prove this? Seems like it would be extremely hard - sort of like finding leaves on the ground, and trying to put them back on the tree in place.
Moths, like butterflies, can travel often suprisingly long distances, (Look at Monarch migration). If a given large area - let's say 100 square miles contains both species of moth and one part of that area has pollution occuring in it, but the rest does not. The population densities of dark vs light moths is going to change. Unless it can be shown that the moths never move around, wouldn't population density changes in a part of the area naturally influence other parts?
I'm not saying your arguement is wrong, I'm just taking issue with some of the very strict criteria you want applied to the studies. Remember, nature isn't the lab. We don't have infinite control. There are always going to be unnamed factors and unknown influences.
If we are going to hold one study to this sort of rigorous testing, shouldn't we apply the same astute skeptical eye to everything? Even sites the many people here find misleading or even silly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:01 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 6:17 PM Nuggin 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