Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peppered Moths and Natural Selection
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 121 of 350 (346813)
09-05-2006 7:42 PM


MartinV asserts fraud - but does he have integrity?
MartinV in Message 32 asserts:
First I would like to close this:
RAZD writes:
I'll take your non-response to this (and your failure to posting on the above thread) as a tacit admission that you were completely wrong...
Talkorigins also admitted, that photos of moths were staged:
Icon of Obfuscation
But I can glue as well dead moths on the tree trunk, photograph them and presented them as support of my conception, that there are no changes in population of moths.
But if you think that it was done with noble aim to persuade pupils
into believing in darwinism I have no intention to quarrel about this.
This is basically saying that the textbooks are perpetuating a fraud on the public and that the study is invalidated by the moths being glued to the trunks.
This is a serious charge and either needs to be substantiated or withdrawn, publicly.
If MartinV has any integrity.
What does his link say about this aspect of his charge?
quote:
But as it turns out, the differences between staged and unstaged photos are minimal. Readers who wish to see unstaged photos of peppered moths are advised to look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action. Majerus says that all of the peppered moth photos taken by him in the book are unstaged.
It may come as a shock, but probably more than half of all pictures in textbooks are "staged" -- set up to show the concept being presented in a clear and unambiguous manner.
Does that invalidate the concept that is being exemplified by the picture? Hardly.
The issue of moths being glued to the tree trunks is addressed in Message 1 of this thread, and the fact that moths were glued in place -- in the initial study as well as in staged textbook pictures -- is indeed not in dispute, not by talkorigins, and not by me.
What may come as a surprise to MartinV is that this does not invalidate the study.
Why not? Two reasons:
(1) The initial study was to show that predators preferentially selected to eat dark moths on light trunks and light moths on dark trunks. This was done.
One set of tests was done in sooty polluted areas and one set of tests was done in clear unpolluted areas. In both sets of tests preferential predation was demonstrated and this was recorded by the data.
This in essence was controlling for all other conditions of predation or death of the moths (ie pollution etc) and limiting the results to strict predation based on the difference in visibility of the moths (they were also dead and not moving so the only characteristic involved was visibility).
The data is clear. Dark moths were seen and eaten more frequently than light moths on light tree trunks and light moths were seen and eaten more frequently on dark tree trunks.
The data says preferential predation occurred.
(2) The initial study does not have any bearing on subsequent studies that did not rely on glued moths for the data and which supported the conclusion of the initial study.
In all subsequent studies preferential predation is observed, with dark moths being seen and eaten more frequently than light moths on light trees and light moths being seen and eaten more frequently on dark trees.
Conclusion: preferential predation occurred and has been replicated and repeated, and that this validates the conclusions of the initial study.
This is how science works, it doesn't rest on any one experiment done by any one scientist -- otherwise "cold fusion" would be accepted -- it rests on repetition and replication, on testing the variables to see what effect that has on the results, and on expanding initial findings into more general cases.
You can think of the first study as assuming that predation was the cause of the different populations that were observed, and testing that assumption in a controlled manner to eliminate other possibilities.
You can think of subsequent studies as extending that finding to more general cases and finding that the initial conclusions hold up.
True, the moths don't naturally rest predominantly on readily observed tree trunks, but it is also true that (1) some do, and (2) birds don't restrict their predation of bugs to only readily observed tree trunks.
The importance of tree trunks and the gluing are insignificant when it comes to the results of the tests.
Text books with pictures of staged moths on staged tree trunks still portray this truth: differential predation occurred, it was due to sooty pollution, and the effect was reversed when the pollution was cleaned up for the same reason.
MartinV can either
  • concede that this differential predation is in fact what happened, that this is natural selection in action, and that he was in error to imply anything different,
    or
  • he can present evidence that does in fact show that fraud occurred (as in the data was falsified in all these studies),
    or
  • he can toss his integrity to the side.
    We'll see eh?
    Enjoy.

    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

  • Replies to this message:
     Message 122 by Quetzal, posted 09-06-2006 8:53 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    Quetzal
    Member (Idle past 5862 days)
    Posts: 3228
    Joined: 01-09-2002


    Message 122 of 350 (346930)
    09-06-2006 8:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 121 by RAZD
    09-05-2006 7:42 PM


    Re: MartinV asserts fraud - but does he have integrity?
    And for reference, I have been taking animal pictures for years. About 50% of all my pictures are "staged", including some of the best. Although the staging includes framing the shots to resemble the organism's natural habitat as much as possible, nature photography has as much "art" as "science" to it. Most organisms are simply uncooperative - even insects - and for some reason won't sit still to have their pictures taken. Baiting, using captive animals, dead insects, etc, is fairly standard practice. IMO, staging doesn't constitute fraud of any kind. Only someone who's never tried to work in the wild could think this.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 121 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2006 7:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 123 by PaulK, posted 09-06-2006 9:15 AM Quetzal has replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17815
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.1


    Message 123 of 350 (346940)
    09-06-2006 9:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 122 by Quetzal
    09-06-2006 8:53 AM


    Re: MartinV asserts fraud - but does he have integrity?
    And to add to the difficulty:
    Peppered moths are hard to find
    For illustrative purposes it was desirable to find both morphs sitting next to each other on the same surface. In an accessible place. With good lighting.
    Staging seems the only practical method of producing what was wanted.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 122 by Quetzal, posted 09-06-2006 8:53 AM Quetzal has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 124 by Quetzal, posted 09-06-2006 11:11 AM PaulK has not replied
     Message 126 by MartinV, posted 09-07-2006 3:53 PM PaulK has replied

      
    Quetzal
    Member (Idle past 5862 days)
    Posts: 3228
    Joined: 01-09-2002


    Message 124 of 350 (346958)
    09-06-2006 11:11 AM
    Reply to: Message 123 by PaulK
    09-06-2006 9:15 AM


    Re: MartinV asserts fraud - but does he have integrity?
    Heh - no kidding. I have a totally staged - but breathtaking - photo of an owl butterfly (Caligo indomeneus) sitting on a branch that shows its crypsis capability to very good effect (one of the few that I've bothered to blow up and frame). What you can't see in the picture is: 1) it's dead - I carefully crushed it's thorax after capture, and 2) it's pinned to the tree by a small pin pushed through its off-side abdomen. People keep telling me what a wonderful shot it is and asking how I got it.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 123 by PaulK, posted 09-06-2006 9:15 AM PaulK has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 125 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2006 8:41 PM Quetzal has not replied

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


    Message 125 of 350 (347118)
    09-06-2006 8:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 124 by Quetzal
    09-06-2006 11:11 AM


    MartinV has no integrity
    Looks like the answer is in.
    His response Message 38 to
    RAZD writes:
    See Message 121 for a fuller evaluation of your base assertion. I'll take failure to answer on that thread as taking the third option listed.
    About peppered moth there are plenty materials on Internet - I have no intention transcript anti-darwinian articles and read your transcrition of darwinian claims ...
    In other words option #3. MartinV essentially admits he has no integrity. None. He just demonstrated that he's not interested in looking for the truth, he won't substantiate his claim or withdraw it.
    Sad. He doesn't even have enough integrity to post his answer here.

    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 124 by Quetzal, posted 09-06-2006 11:11 AM Quetzal has not replied

      
    MartinV 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5819 days)
    Posts: 502
    From: Slovakia, Bratislava
    Joined: 08-28-2006


    Message 126 of 350 (347313)
    09-07-2006 3:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 123 by PaulK
    09-06-2006 9:15 AM


    Re: MartinV asserts fraud - but does he have integrity?
    Peppered moths are hard to find
    If they are hard to find, where do they rest during day? Are these
    places accessible for birds to pick them? If it is so, what are the difficulties for a scientist to make a photo of them in their resting place?
    Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 123 by PaulK, posted 09-06-2006 9:15 AM PaulK has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 127 by PaulK, posted 09-07-2006 4:29 PM MartinV has not replied
     Message 128 by JonF, posted 09-07-2006 7:48 PM MartinV has replied
     Message 134 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 12:10 AM MartinV has not replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17815
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.1


    Message 127 of 350 (347318)
    09-07-2006 4:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 126 by MartinV
    09-07-2006 3:53 PM


    Re: MartinV asserts fraud - but does he have integrity?
    They usually rest high up in trees, where it is very hard to see them from the ground. So yes, where they rest is very accessible to birds but not to us. And, of course, the "wrong" colour moths for the area would usually be rare, so finding one of each kind side-by-side would be really difficult even now.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 126 by MartinV, posted 09-07-2006 3:53 PM MartinV has not replied

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


    Message 128 of 350 (347363)
    09-07-2006 7:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 126 by MartinV
    09-07-2006 3:53 PM


    Peppered moths are _really_ hard to find
    If they are hard to find, where do they rest during day? Are these
    places accessible for birds to pick them? If it is so, what are the difficulties for a scientist to make a photo of them in their resting place?
    From Fine Tuning the Peppered Moth Paradigm:
    quote:
    As to where peppered moths actually do take up daytime resting sites, Majerus himself reports by far the greatest number of sightings among moth workers. In his 34 years of moth hunting, Majerus has discovered 47 peppered moths at rest by day in the wild. (The large samples of peppered moths used to calculate melanic frequencies in local populations come from operating light traps and assembling [pheromone] traps at night. It's rare, indeed, to find a peppered moth away from a trap by day even where the species is abundant.) Majerus separates into categories the position on trees where the moths were located (trunk, trunk/branch joint, branches). While the trunk/branch joint was the most common site, his data indicate that the moths do not all rest in the same place. As Clarke et al. (1994) put it: "Moths habitually resting in only one place will be habitually sought there." Mikkola (1984), based on his observations of moths kept in captivity, suggested that peppered moths hide by day on the underside of branches in the canopy. Grant and Howlett (1988) showed that captive moths move to whatever end of their holding pen light enters (if the light enters from the bottom of the pen, the moths will sit on the floor). Perhaps Mikkola's conclusion is correct, but perhaps his evidence is an artifact of his apparatus. In truth, we still don't know the natural hiding places of peppered moths.
    {Emphasis added}
    34 years. He saw 47 moths, far more than any other researcher. Yup, they're hard to find and pose. Got any suggestions for how to get a light-colored moth and a dark-colored moth together in a well-lit area that demonstrates teh difference in camouflage?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 126 by MartinV, posted 09-07-2006 3:53 PM MartinV has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 142 by MartinV, posted 09-08-2006 12:48 PM JonF has replied

      
    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 129 of 350 (347380)
    09-07-2006 9:00 PM


    I've merely skimmed through this thread, and I don't have a comment on the various scientific questions discussed, but it does seem to me that the main thing about the peppered moth has barely been touched on: that is, creationists have NO problem with new varieties brought about by natural selection. It may have been fudged or staged or miscalculated or misinterpreted or anything, but assuming it's 100% legitimate, creationists should have no objection to it. This is completely in keeping with what we expect from the ability of a Kind to vary and adapt.
    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
    Edited by Faith, : improved wording

    Replies to this message:
     Message 130 by skepticfaith, posted 09-07-2006 9:39 PM Faith has replied
     Message 135 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 12:12 AM Faith has not replied

      
    skepticfaith
    Member (Idle past 5712 days)
    Posts: 71
    From: NY, USA
    Joined: 08-29-2006


    Message 130 of 350 (347391)
    09-07-2006 9:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
    09-07-2006 9:00 PM


    How do I define a kind?
    I am trying to make a similar argument on a different topic
    What mutations are needed for a particular trait (e.g. wings) to arise?, but there is a snag here. There is no scientific definition of a kind, and there needs to be or the evolution people will just say that we have already observed evolution between species and you are merely asking for the impossible.
    Certainly some species are classified as separate and yet they are so closely related - we can infer it is a kind, but there has to be some way of calibrating the kinds..

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 129 by Faith, posted 09-07-2006 9:00 PM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 131 by Omnivorous, posted 09-07-2006 10:27 PM skepticfaith has not replied
     Message 132 by Faith, posted 09-07-2006 10:33 PM skepticfaith has not replied
     Message 136 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 12:14 AM skepticfaith has not replied

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


    Message 131 of 350 (347400)
    09-07-2006 10:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 130 by skepticfaith
    09-07-2006 9:39 PM


    Re: How do I define a kind?
    Certainly some species are classified as separate and yet they are so closely related - we can infer it is a kind, but there has to be some way of calibrating the kinds..
    How about, oh, say, genus, or family?

    God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
    --Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01
    Save lives! Click here!
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
    ---------------------------------------

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 130 by skepticfaith, posted 09-07-2006 9:39 PM skepticfaith has not replied

      
    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 132 of 350 (347402)
    09-07-2006 10:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 130 by skepticfaith
    09-07-2006 9:39 PM


    Re: How do I define a kind?
    We don't have a definition yet, that's just the way it is. Eventually we may. Meanwhile there are other angles to argue.
    This is kuresu's post listing a lot of hybrids, that it seemed to me could be a start toward at least finding the boundaries of a Kind, in MJFloresta's thread, Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution. Most about at the Family level but not all, showing that the taxonomic tree isn't necessarily the way to the Kind.
    Then I've argued that the natural processes of variation and selection ultimately arrive at a limit where no further speciation is possible, on various threads, including the one going on now, Ben's thread What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution?, and my old threadNatural limitation to Evolutionary Processes. MJF argues similarly on his thread.
    This may not give us a precise definition of a Kind, but if such a limit is recognized to be the inevitable outcome as I think it is, then that's at least demonstrating that macroevolution can't happen.
    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 130 by skepticfaith, posted 09-07-2006 9:39 PM skepticfaith has not replied

      
    Someone who cares
    Member (Idle past 5741 days)
    Posts: 192
    Joined: 06-06-2006


    Message 133 of 350 (347414)
    09-07-2006 11:00 PM


    It's quite obvious...
    Peppered moths, sigh, no, they don't show evolution. It's quite simple: A- the peppered moths stayed moths, they didn't evolve into flies or butterflies. B- There was no genetic code added to the pepper moths, which evolution would require. C- Macroevolution was NOT observed, the moths didn't evolve any new organs or tissues, all that happened was a color change, a variation within a kind.

    "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

    Replies to this message:
     Message 137 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 12:23 AM Someone who cares has replied
     Message 140 by Quetzal, posted 09-08-2006 10:44 AM Someone who cares has not replied

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


    Message 134 of 350 (347451)
    09-08-2006 12:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 126 by MartinV
    09-07-2006 3:53 PM


    Re: MartinV asserts fraud - but does he have integrity?
    MartinV -- welcome to the thread.
    msg126 writes:
    If they are hard to find, where do they rest during day? Are these places accessible for birds to pick them? If it is so, what are the difficulties for a scientist to make a photo of them in their resting place?
    The information is in the website you linked on this and in the opening post on this thread. I suggest you Read the information available and then see if you have any questions.
    See if you can find any evidence that natural selection is not in fact displayed by these moths as described.
    Enjoy.

    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 126 by MartinV, posted 09-07-2006 3:53 PM MartinV has not replied

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


    Message 135 of 350 (347455)
    09-08-2006 12:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
    09-07-2006 9:00 PM


    thanks Faith ...
    ... but it does seem to me that the main thing about the peppered moth has barely been touched on: that is, creationists have NO problem with variation brought about by natural selection.
    Yep. Exactly.
    This is pointed out in the opening post on this thread, where I show that everyone that has looked at the issue honestly comes to the conclusion that it demonstrated Natural Selection.
    For the record the results have been replicated by several studies and the worst you can say about the original study is that it wasn't run to the standards that would be used today. It may have used some bad or questionable techniques, but the results have been validated by later studies that did use good methodology. These later studies cannot be criticized on the basis of how the initial study was conducted.
    It may have been fudged or staged or miscalculated or misinterpreted or anything, but even if it's 100% legitimate, creationists should have no objection to it.
    This is also why it is really very silly at best for a creationist to say that this is a fraudulent study -- it demonstrates Natural Selection and nobody is claiming that it demonstrated speciation.
    And the fact that natural selection is actually demonstrated by the moths is not disputed by anyone who has honestly studied the issue.
    Thanks.

    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 129 by Faith, posted 09-07-2006 9:00 PM Faith 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