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


Message 106 of 350 (262259)
11-22-2005 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by randman
11-22-2005 12:13 AM


Extinction by predation
Jumping in on this one - though I haven't been following it nearly close enough.
It seems that we're (not entirely sure who's on what side) arguing that the change in population from light towards dark should result in the white moths eventual extinction.
But extinction do to predation (from species other than man) isn't all that easy. If the light moth population drops very low, but not to extinction levels, then the bird population must either likewise reduce or move to greener pastures. It doesn't take very many moths to keep the population in existance (not thriving mind you, simply alive).
So, it doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect white moth extinction in an area where neither the moth, nor bird, populations are restricted in their movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:13 AM randman has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5076 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 107 of 350 (262278)
11-22-2005 6:51 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.
Why did darker moths increase wildly in population to 80% of the moth population in areas with no substantial industrial pollution?
That's misleading. Your quote actually says that the melanics "reached a frequency of 80%," without giving any indication of the degree to which this percentage differs from expectation. In fact, Lees and Creed state in that 1975 study that the increases and decreases at the individual study sites weren't statistically significant individually, but when the data were pooled by region a significant result could be reported.
There are possible population-dynamics explanations, but I'm reluctant to go into them without finding studies to support them in this case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:45 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 108 of 350 (262520)
11-22-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Nuggin
11-22-2005 3:27 AM


Re: Dark Moths, White trees.
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.
Apparently, the studies took that into account already.
Various theoretical models have been proposed to account for the discrepancies. Some include the effects of gene flow due to migration, though according to Jones "gene flow alone cannot explain... why melanics are so common in some unpolluted parts of Britain" (Jones 1982, p. 109).
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm
But your questions bring up an interesting idea. Why would there be a massive continent-wide drop in lighter colored moths and rise in darker colored moths over such a wide region if this was due to bird predation on sooty tree trunks?
First, moths don't typically rest on tree trunks.
Most textbook pictures of peppered moths show specimens that have been manually placed on tree trunks.11 Since 1980, however, it has become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest there. K. Mikkola observed that "the normal resting place of the Peppered Moth is beneath small, more or less horizontal branches (but not on narrow twigs), probably high up in the canopies, and the species probably only exceptionally rests on tree trunks." He noted that "night-active moths, released in an illumination bright enough for the human eye, may well choose their resting sites as soon as possible and most probably atypically." Thus "the results of Kettlewell (1955, 1956) fail to demonstrate the qualitative predation of the morphs of the Peppered Moth by birds or other predators in natural conditions."13
Mikkola used caged moths, but data on wild moths support his conclusion. In 25 years of fieldwork, C.A. Clarke and his colleagues found only one peppered moth on a tree trunk, and admitted that they knew primarily "where the moths do not spend the day."14 When Howlett and M.E.N. Majerus studied the natural resting sites of peppered moths in various parts of England, they found that Mikkola's observations on caged moths were valid for wild moths as well and concluded: "[I]t seems certain that most B. betularia rest where they are hidden ... [and] that exposed areas of tree trunks are not an important resting site for any form of B. betularia."15 In a separate study, T.G. Liebert and P.M. Brakefield confirmed Mikkola's observations that "the species rests predominantly on branches .... Many moths will rest underneath, or on the side of, narrow branches in the canopy."16
In a recent book on melanism, Majerus criticizes the "artificiality" of much previous work in this area, noting that "in most predation experiments peppered moths have been positioned on vertical tree trunks, despite the fact that they rarely chose such surfaces to rest upon in the wild."17 It seems that the classical example of natural selection is actually an example of unnatural selection
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmothshort.htm
Secondly, the overwhelming majority of tree trunks continent-wide would not be darkened by soot.
So even if the unproven and unlikely assertion of sooty tree trunks causes some small changes in bird predation near industrial sites with intense levels of pollution, it doesn't explain the Continent-wide shift in moth populations. In fact, considering the highly unlikely event many moths at all rested on tree trunks, it becomes s somewhat ludicrous suggestion as if every tree trunk in America was darkened by soot.
But considering the vast forests of America were not all covered by soot, this is a fantastical claim calling into question the professionalism and competence of evolutionists.
some relevant info
Figure 2. Problems with the classical story: The U.K. and The Netherlands. (a) Despite theoretical predictions, the proportion of melanics around heavily-polluted Manchester never reached 100% (Bishop and Cook 1980, Mani 1990). (b) The proportion of melanics in East Anglia reached 80% despite the absence of any apparent pollution (Lees and Creed 1975); after the introduction of pollution control legislation, typicals became predominant before lichens returned to the trees (Grant and Howlett 1988). (c) South of latitude 52*N, the relatively poor correlation of melanism with sulfur dioxide concentration suggested that non-industrial factors were of greater importance than selective predation (Steward 1977a,b); after the introduction of pollution control legislation, the proportion of melanics decreased in the north, as expected, but increased in the south (Bishop and Cook 1980, Jones 1982). (d) The frequency of typicals on the Wirral Peninsula increased dramatically before the return of lichens to tree trunks (Clarke et al. 1985, Grant et al. 1998). (e) The decline of melanism in The Netherlands has been accompanied by an increase not only in typicals, but also in an intermediate form almost as dark as melanics. (Brakefield 1990).
Steward cautioned that "it may not be possible to generalize from the results for one area, to explain geographic variation over the rest of Britain" (Steward 1977a, pp. 239, 242).
After the passage of anti-pollution legislation, the proportion of melanics decreased north of London (as expected), but inexplicably increased to the south (Bishop and Cook 1980; Jones 1982). In The Netherlands, the decline of melanism took another twist. As air pollution declined, not only did the frequency of typicals increase, but also the frequency of an intermediate form which was almost as dark as melanics, suggesting a more complex change than was seen in Britain (Brakefield 1990).
Various theoretical models have been proposed to account for the discrepancies. Some include the effects of gene flow due to migration, though according to Jones "gene flow alone cannot explain... why melanics are so common in some unpolluted parts of Britain" (Jones 1982, p. 109). 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; emphasis in original). Whatever the actual causes may be, Berry concluded, "it is clear that melanic peppered moth frequencies are determined by much more than differential visual predation by birds" (Berry 1990, p. 312).
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm
In rural East Anglia, where there was little industrial pollution and typicals seemed better camouflaged, melanics reached a frequency of 80 percent, prompting D.R. Lees and E.R. Creed to conclude that "either the predation experiments and tests of conspicuousness to humans are misleading, or some factor or factors in addition to selective predation are responsible for maintaining the high melanic frequencies."5 Reviewing the geographical evidence in 1990, R.J. Berry concluded, "it is clear that melanic peppered moth frequencies are determined by much more than differential visual predation by birds."6
One notable discrepancy in the distribution of melanism was its lack of correlation with lichen cover on tree trunks. Even Kettlewell had observed that melanism began declining before lichens returned, and Lees and his colleagues found a lack of correlation with lichen cover, which they considered "surprising in view of the results of Kettlewell's selection experiments."7,8 According to B.S. Grant and R.J. Howlett, if the rise of industrial melanism had originally been due to the demise of lichens on trees, then "the prediction is that lichens should precede the recovery of the typical morph as the common form. That is, the hiding places should recover before the hidden. But, this is clearly not the case."9
In the United States, the frequency of melanics in southeastern Michigan dropped from more than 90 percent to less than 20 percent between 1960 and 1995, thus paralleling the decline of melanism in the United Kingdom. Yet the decline in Michigan "occurred in the absence of perceptible changes in local lichen floras," prompting Grant and his colleagues to conclude that "the role of lichens has been inappropriately emphasized in chronicles about the evolution of melanism in peppered moths."10 Recently, T.D. Sargent and his colleagues noted that "the recent declining frequency of melanism in B. betularia in North America, where the hypothesis of a cryptic advantage of melanism never seemed applicable," is "perplexing" in view of the classical story.11
So the rise and fall of industrial melanism did not depend on lichens. Why, then, did lichens appear to be significant in Kettlewell's experiments?
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmothshort.htm
This message has been edited by randman, 11-22-2005 06:29 PM
This message has been edited by Admin, 11-22-2005 07:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Nuggin, posted 11-22-2005 3:27 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2005 11:02 PM randman has replied

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


Message 109 of 350 (262578)
11-22-2005 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by randman
11-22-2005 12:01 AM


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.
That still does not make the conclusion right. That just makes him even worse at not critically reviewing his material. It also calls ito question the validity of Clark's work, because it is a false conclusion from the work of Kettlewell. Kettlewell did not set out a proportion of response to levels of pollution, just that when sufficient pollution occured to favor carbonaria that they flourished at the expense of the then more visible typica.
Once you cross that threshold adding more pollution does not necessarily increase the response. This conclusion is invalid from the get-go, and implying that it not only is valid but is a valid criticism of Kettlewells work is blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
Still you don't answer to the question of what the actual proportions of the moths are, why they are not reported, and how not giving that information really contributes to misrepresenting the data.
Let's assume several scenarios and see which is most likely:
  • There are more typica moths than carbonarian in Manchester. If this were the case it would have been more invalidating than what is claimed and would surely have been mentioned: we can assume this is NOT the case.
  • There are proportionately more typica moths than carbonarian in Manchester compared to other polluted areas. If this were the case it would also have been invalidating and would surely have been mentioned: we can assume this is NOT the case.
  • There are as many or less typica moths than carbonarian in Manchester in about the same proportion as in other polluted areas. If this were the case it would not have been invalidating and thus would NOT have been mentioned if one were trying to {hide\slant\misrepresent} the facts: thus we can assume this is PROBABLY be the most likely case.

This is an error of ommission and, yes imh(ysa)o, it is probably intentional on Wells' part. Couple this with the false conclusion above and you have either someone who is either incompetent at reviewing science (doubtful given his PhD), or someone who is intentionally trying to mislead people with false information and with obscuring valid information.
The fact that you accept this as valid unquestioned fact just shows you are operating on a double standard when you question other work that is more substantiated.
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.
I'll put this down to late night and rapid reading. We are still talking about Manchester and not some non-polluted area here. This is the same conclusion as I show above in greater detail.
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?
Here I notice that you completely ignore this comment:
RAZD msg 97 writes:
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.
What the birds see was tested and it validated that dark moths on dark backgrounds (with or without SO2) were more protected than light moths and that light moths on light backgrounds were more protected than dark moths. As far as I know there has been no test of the effect of the presence or absence of SO2 or SO4= on these results even by those who find a better correlation of moth color with these specific pollutants than with general soot.
Are you going to insist the hypothesis is wrong no matter what the data says?
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?
No I don't think you can rule it out, heck even Wells doesn't think you can rule it out and says so.
For one, as noted again above, the studies showed a direct and observed tendency for birds to preferentially select moths based on the presence or absence of sooty pollution.
That is direct evidence for the trend you think you can "safely rule out" -- especially as NO OTHER MECHANISM IS PROPOSED TO REPLACE IT. A point you concede. You can't blythely rule out something that has been tested and validated without replacing the hypothesis with a better one that explains ALL the data better -- including why the preferential bird predation was observed.
Otherwise, why did darker moths increase in areas with no sooty tree trunks?
I haven't fully researched this particular anamoly yet and plan to. I do note that others have looked at it. There are a couple of factors that could be involved - migration, the fact that the carbonaria gene is dominant, and possible SO2 and SO4= contamination without {visible to human eyes soot}.
There also needs to be validation that we are talking carbonaria and not a hybrid that still looks darker than typica due to the dominance of the dark gene, but which also exhibits a mottled appearance - making it better at camouflaging against darkish backgrounds.
This could also be a surviving remnant colony of carbonaria where the effects of pollution have been washed away but which has not yet reverted to predominant typica population (they could still be in transition).
Another possibility is that there is another factor causing a visible darkening of the environment, such as a natural blight in one area. After all, Wells says the "proportion of melanics in East Anglia reached 80% despite the absence of any apparent pollution (Lees and Creed 1975)" -- without stating that the area is otherwise similar to the areas where typica predominate, so this could be just another example of his misrepresenting the facts.
There are many possiblities, and I don't know enough at this point to judge what this particular anomaly is and why it exists.
Claimiing that this anomaly disproves the study when there is insufficient information on why it exists is just as intellectually dishonest as trying to ignore the anomaly.
AND: given that bird vision is documented as substantially and fundamentally different from human vision, basing a conclusion on human vision alone is obviously invalid.
He is just being objective as a scientist
That has actually been disproven by the information above. He is not objective, he slanted the evidence and misrepresented some facts on Manchester. Of course he also has a vested interest to promote the sale of his book, which is based in good part on this information being wrong.
Your blanket approval of Wells given the huge holes in his evidence would be humorous if it were not just another example of blatant double standard application to the validity of the evidence presented.
but he effectively rules out the sooty tree trunk story since it does not jive with the facts.
You are refuted by Wells' own words: "These findings do not entirely rule out a role for cryptic coloration and selective predation in industrial melanism ..."
You are overreaching, even based on a biased and distorted source with a vested interest for comparison.
Oh, and Occam's razor is not a fact.
All you need to do is come up with a mechanism that explains not only the correlations between pollution and moth coloration of all the current studies, but also explains the few anomalies ...
You seem to think that all experiments and all science is devoid of anomalies, and while this may be the case for many it is not the rule, nor is it necessary for a theory to be the best explanation of the observed facts.
Without any other theory to explain the observed trend of dark moths in polluted areas and light moths in non-polluted areas to be naturally selected by the preferential predation of the more visible (to birds) varieties Occam's razor doesn't even need to be applied.
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 99 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:01 AM randman has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 110 of 350 (262596)
11-22-2005 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by randman
11-22-2005 6:17 PM


Re: Dark Moths, White trees.
Far more than I ever really cared to know about peppered moths...
Rand, really, is this necessary?
this is a fantastical claim calling into question the professionalism and competence of evolutionists
Huge numbers of studies and reviews have been done on the peppered moth varieties, melanism, differential predation. Like most science, it wasn't done "right" (optimally) the first time, and even now the data, and their implications, remain unclear. As RAZD notes, even your DI source concedes the jury is still out, although you missed that part. I will note that the data on which the critique is based was also obtained by scientists--are they also fantastical and incompetent?
The scientific process of self-correction continues forever. The original fellow pinned moths to tree trunks because he thought it was good enough to yield data that would otherwise be difficult if not impossible to obtain.
So?
Both data collection and analysis are being sharpened.
So?
BTW, what makes you think that the upper branches of trees would be less polluted than trunks? Some birds work their way up with their head up, some work their way down with their head down, and some hang from branches and work all around them--but most of the activity is in the canopy. If the forest is polluted (as all the tiny remaining shreds of European forests are), the entire tree is polluted, not just the trunk. If anything, the moths on high branches are more intensely predated by birds, and camouflage even more crucial.
BTW, America no longer has "vast" forests, and their pitiful remnants are all grievously polluted.
I'd be more impresed by your insulting assessment of scientists making an authentic effort to learn the facts if there were some suggestion of fraud or incompetence. There is none.
There is, however, your continued insistence on offensive, inaccurate, unjustified denigration of the integrity of men and women who devote their lives to inching closer to truth. Do you refer to the early work by Benjamin Franklin on electricity that way? It was crude; most, if not all, of what he thought was wrong: was he "fantastical and incompetent"? Or was he merely taking a step forward so that others could step past him?
That kind of smearing language makes you sound like an ethically-challenged fanatic. If you have good arguments, just make them: gratuitous accusations of dishonesty and fraud are counterproductive and hurtful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 6:17 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 11:12 PM Omnivorous has not replied

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


Message 111 of 350 (262599)
11-22-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Omnivorous
11-22-2005 11:02 PM


Re: Dark Moths, White trees.
Don't have much time, but what is unprofessional and incompetent is to assert dogmatically unproven claims. The research itself, even if flawed, is not the problem. The problem is what appears to me to be the clear attempts by many evolutionists to refuse to admit a mistake was made here.
It doesn't really look like sooty tree trunks were the causal factor.
Btw, I am not referring to all evolutionist scientists, just those evolutionists that insist the claims are valid without dealing with the evidence, as we see on the web, here, and elsewhere, even among some professional scientists.
What's humorous on this thread is that there is actually a call for me to present the causal agent, or that means sooty tree trunks is correct. I find that sort of strange thinking all the time with evos, and none of you seem to come clean and recognize how silly that sounds. The fact we do not yet know what caused darker moths to increase in population does not change we have a lot of evidence to seriously question or discount dogmatic claims that this was the result of soot on trees.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-22-2005 11:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2005 11:02 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 11-23-2005 2:57 PM randman has not replied
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2005 9:23 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 112 of 350 (262717)
11-23-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by randman
11-22-2005 11:12 PM


Re: Dark Moths, White trees.
randman writes:
Don't have much time, but what is unprofessional and incompetent is to assert dogmatically unproven claims.
I know this was written hastily, but I still think that it captures how you're thinking about this, so it is important to correct this.
We all know that science doesn't really go around proving things. There aren't "proven claims" on the one hand and "unproven claims" on the other. Proving things is the realm of mathematics, not science.
Scientists use the words "proven" and "unproven" all the time, but what they really mean is "sufficiently supported by evidence to be broadly accepted" and "insufficiently supported by evidence and so not accepted."
So scientists making claims about the peppered moth are not saying they are proven, but that they are sufficiently supported by evidence to achieve broad acceptance.
But the way you have used the word proven when you accuse scientists of "dogmatically asserting unproven claims" implies a reckless disregard of evidence, and this just isn't true. As this thread makes clear, scientists have considered mountains of evidence in reaching their scientifically tentative conclusions. You may disagree with their conclusions, but to assert that they're "dogmatically asserting unproven claims" is just you recklessly casting about unsupported aspersions.
The problem is what appears to me to be the clear attempts by many evolutionists to refuse to admit a mistake was made here.
Millikan's first attempts at finding the charge of the electron were pretty far off what we know the value to be today. Did he make a mistake? No, of course not. His work led the way toward better and better refinements of experiment and data analysis.
The first measurements of the speed of light were pretty far off the mark. Would you call the measurements a mistake, or just the best that could be managed for early attempts?
In the same way Ketterwell's initial studies were probably insufficiently rigorous for the claims he made. Did he make a mistake? Well, some of his experimental procedures have been called into question, but his conclusions have been largely supported by subsequent research. His initial primitive experiments provided the impetus for what eventually followed.
In science, incremental progress that does not provide the final word is not a mistake.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 11:12 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2005 12:54 AM Percy 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 113 of 350 (262794)
11-24-2005 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Percy
11-23-2005 2:57 PM


Re: Dark Moths, {not "White" - just} Non-polluted trees. Anomalies.
Millikan's first attempts at finding the charge of the electron were pretty far off what we know the value to be today. Did he make a mistake? No, of course not. His work led the way toward better and better refinements of experiment and data analysis.
Not to say that the first description of current in wires assumed a movement of particles (with a + charge) within the wires in one direction (from + to - poles), while the evidence now shows that it is entirely different particles (with a - charge) moving in the opposite direction.
This does not invalidate the conclusion that it is due to the movement of {at the time unobserved and unknown} particles within the wires.
The fact that we still use the convention of "current" flow that is opposite to electron flow is regretable, but - especially given that everyone pretty well knows this is the case, especially those using the theory of current in wires - this can still be used to generate valid electrical systems, from national power grids to the way microscopic semi-conductors work. There are likely some systems where there are anomalies in electricity and current flow -- one involving "tunneling" if I am not mistaken.
We have a theory of gravity, even though the evidence for it is scanty at best. There are some definite observed anomalies where observed behavior does not match predicted values, some involving satellites in the further reaches of the solar system.
Nobody is suggesting that gravity is totally invalid, however, and that bricks don't fall when released from a small height over the observers foot, just that the behavior of the brick is mildly but consistently uncertain when it is at the current limits of observability.
The validity of the conclusion is based on it's usefulness in predicting predominant behavior. Anomalies are allowed so long as they are not numerically close to being as significant as the predicted behavior. We are still able to land a satellite on Titan and send pictures back to earth, without considering or knowing the cause of the gravity anomalies of the pioneer 10 & 11 satellites (and others) as they reach the outer reaches of the solar sytem.
AND so far the only conclusion we have that successfully predicts the predominant behavior in the differentiation of moths in polluted and non-polluted areas is preferential predation by birds based on relative visibility.
Anomalies encourage scientists to investigate the reasons for the anomalous behavior, and we see this with ongoing studies of electricity, gravity and moths.
Claiming anything less is not being fully honest.
Enjoy.
edited to correct the subtitle ... there is no claim that the trees are "white" just that they are not polluted.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*24*2005 12:57 AM

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 112 by Percy, posted 11-23-2005 2:57 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2005 5:00 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 114 of 350 (262862)
11-24-2005 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by randman
11-22-2005 11:12 PM


Dark Moths, non-Polluted trees, Anomalies and Professional Studies.
... but what is unprofessional and incompetent is to assert dogmatically unproven claims.
It doesn't really look like sooty tree trunks were the causal factor.
First off the studies as quoted by Wells don't refer to "white" trees, just ones not showing evidence of pollution.
Second, it doesn't look like sooty trees (not JUST trunks) were the ONLY causal factor, just the predominant one.
Third, they are not invalidated. (you've already been taken to task for you "uproven" usage).
Lets look at medical studies that find causal relationships between diseases and agents, and base cures on those relationships.
A medicine that offers an 80% chance of full recovery from a disease that is 90% fatal without treatment is not discarded as "unprofessional and incompetent" because it does not fully explain and deal with the anomolies of the 20% that are not cured nor the 10% that survive without treatment. Nor does a rational person turn down such treatment when diagnosed with the disease and given the options ... even though there is a 5% chance the person will have an adverse toxic reaction to the medicine, possibly killing the possibly probable 1% (could be anywhere from 0% to 5%) within the 10% of the ones that would not be affected by the disease.
This is your argument.
I expect you not to take any flu shots or any medicine this winter, because the result of the studies are "unprofessional and incompetent" in their dealing with the anomalies that are closer to 50% ....
Enjoy.
{removed double negative}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*24*2005 09:24 AM

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 111 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 11:12 PM randman has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 115 of 350 (263190)
11-26-2005 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
11-24-2005 12:54 AM


Re: Dark Moths, {not "White" - just} Non-polluted trees. Anomalies.
We have a theory of gravity, even though the evidence for it is scanty at best.
Pure BS RAZD. I know you have some problems with large scale cosmology, but if evidence for GR (THE most accurately tested theory in existence) is scanty (at best??? for f'ks sake) where does that leave everything else, ESPECIALLY evolution? Comments like this destroy any credibility you have. This is Randman's fallacy in a nutshell. There are a few anomalies, and thus the entire theory is way way out... you have lost perspective.
GR doesn't make vague generalised predictions, it predicts numberical values to observations. How many observations do we need to list that agree with those predictions to 5-10 places of accuracy before you decide that evidence is no longer "scanty at best"? Some of those observations are made far across the Galaxy and even in other galaxies.
Do you see the HUGE theoretical physics community jumping up and down concerning the Pioneer anomaly signing the death warrant of GR? Or even considering it worthy of attention yet? No? Well I guess it must be that same conspiracy that involves all of the Evos desperately clinging to evolution like a sinking ship, knowing full well that the majority of the evidence points to an ID mechanism via quantum mechanics.
Obviously way off topic here, but certain comments require a response. You are doing science a big disservice and playing straight into the hands of YECism and IDism.
This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-26-2005 05:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2005 12:54 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Admin, posted 11-26-2005 9:48 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 9:56 AM cavediver has replied

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


Message 116 of 350 (263223)
11-26-2005 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by cavediver
11-26-2005 5:00 AM


Re: Dark Moths, {not "White" - just} Non-polluted trees. Anomalies.
cavediver writes:
Obviously way off topic here, but certain comments require a response. You are doing science a big disservice and playing straight into the hands of YECism and IDism.
Probably worth a topic if you want to propose one.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2005 5:00 AM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 117 of 350 (263225)
11-26-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by cavediver
11-26-2005 5:00 AM


Re: Dark Moths, {not "White" - just} Non-polluted trees. Anomalies.
We have a large body of observational evidence of the effect we call gravity. We have {theory\on theory\on theory} built up from empirical data formulas to theories of how gravity acts and is effected. But as for evidence for how that {action\effect} actually {works\becomes\exists}, whether via space warping, gravity waves or gravitons or some other method, we have ... what? Theory.
You are doing science a big disservice and playing straight into the hands of YECism and IDism.
I take issue with this. Pointing out that there are many areas of science where we do not know all the answers is not playing into their hands, it is showing that science is consistent in other fields in dealing with uncertainty and the unknowns. This is just one example.
Stating that science knows more than it knows does, imh(ysa)o, play into the hands of those that claim that science is dogmatic and not ammenable to change.
And yes this is offtopic, and could be the basis of a good thread.

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 115 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2005 5:00 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2005 10:29 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 119 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2005 11:54 AM RAZD has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 118 of 350 (263242)
11-26-2005 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by RAZD
11-26-2005 9:56 AM


Re: Dark Moths, {not "White" - just} Non-polluted trees. Anomalies.
We have a large body of observational evidence of the effect we call gravity. We have {theory\on theory\on theory} built up from empirical data formulas to theories of how gravity acts and is effected. But as for evidence for how that {action\effect} actually {works\becomes\exists}, whether via space warping, gravity waves or gravitons or some other method, we have ... what? Theory.
No, you have misunderstanding as evidenced by this paragraph. New topic on its way... soon.
Stating that science knows more than it knows does, imh(ysa)o, play into the hands of those that claim that science is dogmatic and not ammenable to change.
True, but you are talking of what you do not know. I know you say that you read Einstein, etc, but your massive ignorance is demonstrated in the quoted paragraph. I don't mean this as an insult or to be in any way derogatory. Very few have a good understanding of this. You CANNOT gain anything close to sufficient undestanding from popular science and/or the internet to make the above claims. If I showed your posts around my old group or any others there would be howls of laughter.
You are not in a position to comment on the validity of GR. Just your simple confusion of GR with cosmology is ample evidence of this. Please be careful with your comments...
With respect

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 9:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 119 of 350 (263283)
11-26-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by RAZD
11-26-2005 9:56 AM


Taking this GR stuff elsewhere
Debate to continue here if you like: Message 107
This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-26-2005 11:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 9:56 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2005 4:02 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 120 of 350 (263527)
11-27-2005 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by cavediver
11-26-2005 11:54 AM


Re: Taking this GR stuff elsewhere
thank you for moving it to another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2005 11:54 AM cavediver 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