Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 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: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peppered Moths and Natural Selection
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 226 of 350 (355401)
10-09-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Wounded King
10-09-2006 1:39 PM


You are right that I use much more older sources, but it is due fact that outdoors research was is in decline so to say after ww2.
But I am not sure, that owl predation of mice due their colours (there is not only white/black as you write, but also yellow due Pheomelanin - yellow and red pigment) are sufficiently supported by experiments.
Anyway barn owls that are most distributed owls around the world use hearing to detect preys. Note, that there is also decline of rodents activity during full moon.
According research from 1971:
1. Barn owls (Tyto alba) can locate prey in total darkness using only the sense of hearing, with an error of less than I in both the vertical and horizontal planes.
So no matter of color of mouse I would say.
Acoustic Location of Prey by Barn Owls (Tyto Alba) | Journal of Experimental Biology | The Company of Biologists

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Wounded King, posted 10-09-2006 1:39 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 227 of 350 (355409)
10-09-2006 2:39 PM


T o p i c !
Peppered Moths are such a nice tidy topic. Let's stick to it. If someone wants to open a mouse topic that would be fun too.
More off topic posts on mouses here will be hidden. Poster may get a suspension.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

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


Message 228 of 350 (355421)
10-09-2006 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by MartinV
10-09-2006 12:55 PM


population shift and preferential predation
This
msg 226 writes:
Anyway barn owls that are most distributed owls around the world use hearing to detect preys. Note, that there is also decline of rodents activity during full moon.
With regard to topic drift, is the same misunderstanding of the issue as this:
It would be interesting to know. Now we do not know where peppered moths rest, if there is any connection between available lichen resting places and oscillation of typica population and even we do not know genetics behind peppered moth melanic phenomenon. Yet we are persuaded same as in your link that oscillation of peppered moths is due bird predation.
The issue of the Peppered Moth is NOT a change in mutations, and the "oscillations" of "genetics behind peppered moth melanic phenomenon" is not the issue: the moths that survive are not increasing their melanic coloration in polluted areas and decreasing it in non-polluted areas.
What is increasing and decreasing is the numbers of moths of the different varieties that survive to reproduce moths genetically similar to themselves. This is what survival natural selection is about, selection based on existing conditions, behavior, and features.
Any and all predation that does not depend on coloration and cryptic behavior is irrelevant to the selection for or against cryptic behavior. Owls hunting mice by sound in pitch dark and bats hunting moths by ultrasound at night are totally neutral to the selection of color\cryptic patterns.
In both cases there is also predation that DOES depend on visiblity of the mouse and moths, and during those times the benefits of better camouflage means that one type has an advantage over the other type that will result in higher overall survival rates throughout the population.
Those with an advantage survive in higher numbers, those with a disadvantage survive in lower numbers, and the proportions of the populations change.
In both cases the prey species also shows adaptive behavior to reduce predation when most visible - the mice are less active on moonlit nights, and the moths stay fixed in place by day - thus demonstrating that visibility plays a role in the overall predation of the species, and that any benefit to reduce the effect of visibility AT THOSE TIMES will pay off with increased survival for the population with the beneficial features, while features that increase relative visibility AT THOSE TIMES will cost in decreased survival for the population with the non-beneficial features.
Those with an advantage survive in higher numbers, those with a disadvantage survive in lower numbers, and the proportions of the populations change.
This explanation fits the data of the Peppered Moth changes in population proportions. It also fits all the experimental evidence.
The question of what we do not know does NOT invalidate the information that we DO know. Focusing on what we do not know can be valid for the question of further research to refine the results we already have, or to test a new theory that has a different explanation than the current one.
Without a new theory though, and certainly without any significant contradictory information\data for preferential predation, nit-picking the tid-bits that are not known does not invalidate the information collected OR the conclusion reached that does explain all the current data.
All it amounts to is god-of-the-gaps and denial of evidence. Neither of which qualify as "knowledge".
So no matter of color of mouse I would say.
You would be as wrong about the mouse as you have consistently been about the Peppered Moth. Perhaps Wounded King will start a thread on that so that this can be demonstrated.
In your 18 posts out of the 100 or so since your first post on this topic (Message 126) you have not presented any information that invalidates either the data collected from the studies OR the conclusions reached based on the data.
Certainly you have not demonstrated any level of deception or fraud on the part of the existing studies, as you had implied in Message 32
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.
The conclusion is that you have no such information to support an assertion of fraud or deception, and all you have is denial of the existing evidence.
Preferential predation by birds during the day of moths, resting on lichen covered barks in unpolluted forests or on sooty barks in polluted forests, based on their relative camouflage ability in each environment, remains the best (if not the ONLY) explanation that fits the evidence.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added moonlit nights

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 224 by MartinV, posted 10-09-2006 12:55 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by MartinV, posted 10-10-2006 1:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 229 of 350 (355645)
10-10-2006 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by RAZD
10-09-2006 4:08 PM


Re: population shift and preferential predation
RAZD writes:
Owls hunting mice by sound in pitch dark and bats hunting moths by ultrasound at night are totally neutral to the selection of color\cryptic patterns.
It might be correct but what may be also of interest is this -
acccording following research there is correlation between bats population and air pollution:
This study concerns comparison of bat activity in five mixed coniferous forest areas, exposed to different degree of air pollution...
.
A significant difference was found in bat diversity and activity between these areas.
(here).
I may confirm that Silesia as coal mining area was really very polluted area.
Kettlewell (as discussed above) claimed that 90% of peppered moths are eaten by bats. Even if bats predation is totally neutral as you states I would say that decline of bats population due industrial pollution from 100% to less than 12% ( 303 in Bialowieca forest vs 36 in Upper Silesia) should have had some impact on peppered moth population if moths do not migrate - as you tried to explain in previous post.
So my first question is: was there any increase in population of peppered moth in polluted area?
In your 18 posts out of the 100 or so since your first post on this topic (Message 126 ) you have not presented any information that invalidates either the data collected from the studies OR the conclusions reached based on the data.
Another question of course is if "information" provided by neodarwinists is sufficiently enough to back hypothesis of "bird selection". I am just studying problem from many views and considerations, so I am prudent of making any conclusions.
You assert that:
"The issue of the Peppered Moth is NOT a change in mutations."
I would like to know if carbonaria in all polluted areas
1) preexisted
2) migrated
3) arrosed via mutation from typica.
The still unproven claim is that typica rest on crustose lichens and
carbonaria on some dark lichens and according your consideration migration is excluded as explanation of population change of rate between typica/carbonaria.
But according Grant:
The gene causing melanism would therefore have a pleiotropic effect on the behavior if moths used the "contrast/conflict" mechanism in background selection...
The point is that wing patterns are somehow genetically interlocked with perception because moths automatically select proper lichens.
I would say that thay have some "idea" or "archetype" of lichens to which they compare lichens they see and if "archetype" and the "scene" match they choice them to rest on. This seems to be rather complicated process which have to do with trigering different instincts due to different patterns on wings. If so complicated process aroused via random mutation and natural selection is it bold to assume, that if moth do not find place to rest it will try to find it all the night whatever the price is? (If it is even possible, that there is no bright place for typica in polluted forest.)
Is it bold to assume, that given complicated developed connection between instinctive behaviour and wing patterns moths would not search night after night better place to rest on?
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 4:08 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by AdminNosy, posted 10-10-2006 1:34 PM MartinV has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 230 of 350 (355649)
10-10-2006 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by MartinV
10-10-2006 1:27 PM


Careful Debate Warning!
Martin, I'm having to warn you about debating in good faith.
You are not showing why the changing bat population would make a difference to the topic being discussed.
Another question of course is if "information" provided by neodarwinists is sufficiently enough to back hypothesis of "bird selection". I am just studying problem from many views and considerations, so I am prudent of making any conclusions.
This has been answered. Do not ask again.
I would like to know if carbonaria in all polluted areas
1) preexisted
2) migrated
3) arrosed via mutation from typica.
This has also been posted at least once.
If you continue to run around in circles and over the same material then you will be suspended for a day or so to give you time to read the replies to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by MartinV, posted 10-10-2006 1:27 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by MartinV, posted 10-10-2006 2:13 PM AdminNosy has not replied

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


Message 231 of 350 (355655)
10-10-2006 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by AdminNosy
10-10-2006 1:34 PM


Re: Careful Debate Warning!
This has been answered. Do not ask again.
Sorry, but it is still RAZD who claims that thing is clear - even if there is no relevant study, just Majerus started (as I found today) one experiment with thousands of moths in may 2004 and it should have lasted for 2 years so I am looking forward every day for outcome. If Majerus claimed in 2004 that new experiment is needed to prove bird predation, why am I reproved and not also RAZD who claims in every response that bird predation is the fact?
This has also been posted at least once.
As far as I know there ar views of Majerus, Grant, Mikola and West
that are not exactly same (Mikola claims that carbonaria aroused independetly in different area via independent mutation) so I would like to know what opinion on this exists among folks here to discus it later.
Thank you for your underestaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by AdminNosy, posted 10-10-2006 1:34 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2006 9:33 PM MartinV has replied

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


Message 232 of 350 (356014)
10-11-2006 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by MartinV
10-10-2006 2:13 PM


the question is: what is your theory?
The question is how do YOU explain the documented change in population proportions?
So far you have proposed no mechanism to explain the data.
You claim the conclusions of others is wrong but have yet to explain what really happened.

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 231 by MartinV, posted 10-10-2006 2:13 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by MartinV, posted 10-13-2006 1:12 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 233 of 350 (356317)
10-13-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by RAZD
10-11-2006 9:33 PM


Re: the question is: what is your theory?
RAZD writes:
You claim the conclusions of others is wrong but have yet to explain what really happened.
I think that my imagination is far beyond of creativeness of darwinists ones but neverthenless I would try give alternative explanation in points.
1)
Due to ultraviolet visions of birds there is no crypsis of pepperd moths at all and survival depends only on ability of moths to hide as perfectly as possible. In holes for instance or places inaccessible to birds. So the rise of melanic forms is caused by mutation that automaticaly accomodated wings colors and patterns to prevalent colors of environment without any neodarwinian reason.
(Your explanation that that vision from UV cones in birds are somehow "blended" seems to me unprovable, because human blue sensitive cones make only 3% (!) of all color sensitive cones in human eye - majority are red sensitive ones - but we see blue color well).
2)
Migration. Some silk moths are able to detect the scent of the females from 10 to 20 km (6 to 12 miles) or more away. So I do not see any obstacle to explanation that if in case of mating they can fly so large distances why they should not fly away from unfavourable polluted areas.
3)
Melanic alleles are dominant. I do not unterestand how is it possible, that if melanic forms constituted 98% of population in industrial areas why did not they constitute 100% say next 5 years later? Do homozygous typica males mate only homozygous typica females? Do not imigrate typica from unpolluted area?
4)
Selective predation of bats which are leading predators of moths. Acording some latest researches in India they can detect UV very well too. It plays in cards of neodarwinistic selection too but if it is the case all Kettlewell and subsequent researches and hypothesis were wrong from the beginning.
May be that birds are not the reason of melanism, because also there are some strong and relevant claims from sciensts from Finland 2004:
It should be noted that night-active moths are also exposed to diurnal predators in nature. The effect of diurnal predation on these moths is probably negligible because they are inactive and hidden among the foliage that makes visually oriented predation more difficult.
Ultraviolet reflection and predation risk in diurnal and nocturnal Lepidoptera | Behavioral Ecology | Oxford Academic
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2006 9:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Wounded King, posted 10-13-2006 3:41 PM MartinV has not replied
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2006 11:29 PM MartinV has replied

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


Message 234 of 350 (356345)
10-13-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by MartinV
10-13-2006 1:12 PM


Re: the question is: what is your theory?
Due to ultraviolet visions of birds there is no crypsis of pepperd moths at all
Absolutely nothing to suggst this is true and you have even already discussed the Majerus research which provides a substantial basis for it being false.
2)
Migration. Some silk moths are able to detect the scent of the females from 10 to 20 km (6 to 12 miles) or more away. So I do not see any obstacle to explanation that if in case of mating they can fly so large distances why they should not fly away from unfavourable polluted areas.
This doesn't explain anything unless you are positing a much more substantial difference between the two forms than simply melanism.
3)
Melanic alleles are dominant. I do not unterestand how is it possible, that if melanic forms constituted 98% of population in industrial areas why did not they constitute 100% say next 5 years later? Do homozygous typica males mate only homozygous typica females? Do not imigrate typica from unpolluted area?
This isn't an explanation it is an objection.
4)
Selective predation of bats which are leading predators of moths. Acording some latest researches in India they can detect UV very well too. It plays in cards of neodarwinistic selection too but if it is the case all Kettlewell and subsequent researches and hypothesis were wrong from the beginning.
This is also not an alternative explanation but a mere objection.
The only 'explanation' actually resembling an explanation is...
So the rise of melanic forms is caused by mutation that automaticaly accomodated wings colors and patterns to prevalent colors of environment without any neodarwinian reason.
Which explains absolutely nothing. It just posits a completely hypothetical mechanism of environmental feedback leading to a directed mutation with absolutely no purpose, given that you seem to feel melanism is essentially neutral with respect to fitness.
Do you think there is any tenable mechanism to mediate this effect? I might buy it if you said it wasn't genetic at all but that melanism was an epigenetic effect of the pollution but as is stands your proposal is just a fairytale.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by MartinV, posted 10-13-2006 1:12 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 235 of 350 (356427)
10-13-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by MartinV
10-13-2006 1:12 PM


Try again.
That hypothetical rambling doesn't explain the evidence.
1)
Due to ultraviolet visions of birds there is no crypsis of pepperd moths at all ...
This is invalidated (ie proven false) by Kettlewell's experiments with the moths on the tree trunks, you know, the one where the birds showed clear, distinct and unambiguous ability to spot the more non-cryptic moths and gradually less ability to spot the more cryptic ones the more cryptic they got.
You don't explain the results of Kettlewell's release experiments either. Why there was a difference in the two different forests in one night.
... beyond of creativeness of darwinists ...
Creativeness is not the issue -- explaining the evidence is the issue, and fantasy that is invalidated by the evidence does very little to explain it.
The point of science is to explain the observations and evidence, not just to make up stories.
So the rise of melanic forms is caused by mutation that automaticaly accomodated wings colors and patterns to prevalent colors of environment ...
Like Lamarkism, Mutationism has been invalidated as well, as previously mentioned.
4)
Selective predation of bats which are leading predators of moths. .. It plays in cards of neodarwinistic selection too but if it is the case all Kettlewell and subsequent researches and hypothesis were wrong from the beginning.
This doesn't explain the shift from light to dark forms with pollution and then back from dark to light with the removal of pollution -- this bat selection based on hypothetical UV vision would be the same for the different varieties no matter which environment they were in.
You do not explain the data of the experiments and you do not explain the data of the populations shifting from light to dark and then from dark to light.
Your hypothetical fantasy does not stand up to the test against existing data. It has been falsified.
Please try again.
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 233 by MartinV, posted 10-13-2006 1:12 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by MartinV, posted 10-16-2006 5:31 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 236 of 350 (356904)
10-16-2006 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by RAZD
10-13-2006 11:29 PM


Re: Try again.
OK. I will try again and it will be a bit new theory (call it fairy tale if you like) with an outcome, that perhaps explains better than neodarwinism one anomality. I will assume these neodarwinian claims to be true and valid:
1) Birds predation is different and selective on typica and on carbonaria depending on backround (polluted area) as observed in aviary and claimed by neodarwinists.
2) Mayerus many years observation (as the only one publicized observation where do peppered moths rest) is right and really there are many moths that rests on tree trunks and on branch and trunk joins and that are subsequently exposed to selective pressure.
So my conlusion is this - what we catch in pheromone and light traps might not automatically correspond with real situation in forest at all. Let say that in forest there are in the moment of catching moths into traps already laid eggs for next genearation and ratio for next generation is 50% carbonaria and 50% typica. Even if in sample in traps we catch 98% of carbonaria.
It would surely explain very well anomality, that after anti-pollution legislative there was sudden increase of typica despite of no observable re-occurence of lichens and despite of fact that carbonaria alleles are dominant. Or that carbonaria never make 100% of local population in most polluted areas. Simply - typica was always present but we did not know it.
Why? Because we catch only male individuals after mating. As you know, in traps we always have only males, no females. I suppose that females do not react on trap light because of some reason they do rest on some places and they do not move, just laid eggs, than fly to other place to lay eggs and so on. What is more important,
mating occurs first night after going out of pupa. On my information at that time male is near to female to prevent another mating so possibility is, that these males do not react to moth traps too (to pheromones traps I would be almost sure).
After that female is starting to lay eggs - details we do not know. Anyway if length of life of moths are say 10 days, the selective pressure from birds is starting to to be effective only after first night, when mating is over. And really next days and as individual is getting older selection can be observed. But I suppose that younger indivuduals hide and fly far better as older ones, so the individuals that Majerus see rest on tree trunks were so to say veterans. I can even concede that these individuals are exposed to strong selective pressure as claimed by neodarwinists. But they think, that what they measure is what happening. But individuals are selected by birds only after mating and we do not have information on females. So my conclusion may be as right as neodarwinian one. After-mating selection without any eesential influence on fitness of typica.
Mating and oviposition were observed in captive females. Males and females emerge from pupal cases in the evening and mate the same night. They remain in copula until late the next day. Most eggs are laid during the second and third days after emergence
Both sexes are capable of mating on the first night of their emergence.
The total number of B. betularia trapped in the 33 year period was 15,969 of which only 86 were female (0.54%).
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2006 11:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2006 11:22 PM MartinV has replied

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


Message 237 of 350 (357606)
10-19-2006 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by MartinV
10-16-2006 5:31 PM


Once more -- Try again.
I will assume these neodarwinian claims to be true and valid:
1) Birds predation is different and selective on typica and on carbonaria depending on backround (polluted area) as observed in aviary and claimed by neodarwinists.
Nit-pick: Bird predation is the SAME - selecting the ones less protected by comouflage for predation first. The condition of exposure to predation is different for the different varieties in different environments -- as predicted by the theory of natural selection btw.
I understand your meaning, but this is rather significant to the issue and it needs to be clear.
2) Mayerus many years observation (as the only one publicized observation where do peppered moths rest) is right and really there are many moths that rests on tree trunks and on branch and trunk joins and that are subsequently exposed to selective pressure.
There does not need to be {many} there just needs to be {some}. This seems to be one of your big stumbling blocks, that you want a universal effect on every moth involved. Think of it this way:
  • non-selective predation will consume moths in proportion to their different populations, and thus will not change the proportions of the two varieties,
  • selective predation will consume more of one type of moth over the other OUT of proportion to their different populations, and thus WILL change the proportions of the two varieties.
That is all that preferential predation need accomplish to result in the observed changes in populations, first in the polluted areas, and then in reverse in the pollution alleviated areas.
So my conlusion is this - what we catch in pheromone and light traps might not automatically correspond with real situation in forest at all. Let say that in forest there are in the moment of catching moths into traps already laid eggs for next genearation and ratio for next generation is 50% carbonaria and 50% typica. Even if in sample in traps we catch 98% of carbonaria.
Some variation is possible, of course. This amount is highly unlikely.
This kind of trend would also only explain the change observed for one day or so, and not the overall consistent trend that was observed, day after day after day.
Remember that the reason for the study in the first place was the observation of clear, distinct and unambiguous change in the populations, change that persisted within the polluted areas as long as the pollution continued, and that did NOT occur outside the polluted areas.
It would surely explain very well anomality, that after anti-pollution legislative there was sudden increase of typica despite of no observable re-occurence of lichens and despite of fact that carbonaria alleles are dominant.
Sorry? How does this get explained? By assuming something without any evidence for it? Ignoring evidence that exists by claiming it is irrelevant?
Remember that you need to first explain the RISE of the carbonaria variety in the polluted forest.
Remember also that Majerus says the populations of the two moths correlate more with SO2 concentrations in the polluted forests. Sulphur Dioxide is soluble in water, commonly forming what is known as acid rain (also in areas of coal burning pollution, btw), in the process. Thus it dissolves in rain and is readily washed out of the environment except where pollution keeps re-introducing it. End the pollution and the first thing to go is the sulphur dioxide.
After that female is starting to lay eggs - details we do not know.
But the genes in the eggs will be roughly proportionate to the genes in the overall breeding population, with the proportions easily determined by standard Mendelian genetics eh?
Using C = carbonaria and T = typica and looking at the results for changes in populations ...
... At first blush we should get CC, CT, TT and TC as possible offspring of random mating where there is equal populations, and there should be a major advantage to carbonaria as the dominant morph gene, yes?
But remember that as the C gene is dominant so that all CC, CT and TC are already lumped into carbonaria, and they already exist within the carbonaria population.
This gives us four (4) basic mating patterns (within which there are sub patterns):
Pattern {A} - male typica breeding with female typica
  • TT+tt = Tt Tt Tt Tt - all four "typica"
    4 typica out of 4
    100% typica
    0% carbonaria
Pattern {B} - male typica breeding with female carbonaria
  • TT+cc = Tc Tc Tc Tc - all four "carbonaria"
  • TT+tc = Tt Tc Tt Tc - two "typica" and two "carbonaria"
  • TT+ct = Tc Tt Tc Tt - two "typica" and two "carbonaria"
    4 typica out of 12
    33% typica
    67% carbonaria
Pattern {C} - male carbonaria breeding with female carbonaria
  • CC+cc = Cc Cc Cc Cc - all four "carbonaria"
  • CC+ct = Cc Ct Cc Ct - all four "carbonaria"
  • CC+tc = Ct Cc Ct Cc - all four "carbonaria"
  • CT+cc = Cc Cc Tc Tc - all four "carbonaria"
  • CT+ct = Cc Ct Tc Tt - one "typica" and three "carbonaria"
  • CT+tc = Ct Cc Tt Tc - one "typica" and three "carbonaria"
  • TC+cc = Tc Tc Cc Cc - all four "carbonaria"
  • TC+ct = Tc Tt Cc Ct - one "typica" and three "carbonaria"
  • TC+tc = Tt Tc Ct Cc - one "typica" and three "carbonaria"
    4 typica out of 36
    11% typica
    89% carbonaria
Pattern {D} - male carbonaria breeding with female typica
  • CC+tt = Ct Ct Ct Ct - all four "carbonaria"
  • TC+tt = Tt Tt Ct Ct - two "typica" and two "carbonaria"
  • CT+tt = Ct Ct Tt Tt - two "typica" and two "carbonaria"
    4 typica out of 12
    33% typica
    67% carbonaria
IF the populations are equal then each of these has equal probability (assuming no sexual preference for varieties to mate together)
typica = (100% + 33% + 11% + 33%)/4 = 177%/4 = 44%
carbonaria = (0% + 67% + 89% + 67%)/4 = 223%/4 = 56%
Some difference, yes, but not nearly as much as one would have thought from "first blush" eh?
That is IF the populations are equal in size.
If the populations are NOT equal in size, then we need to correct for the population proportions (this is where it gets a little technical mathematically, so bear with me).
Say typica is 75% of the breeding population and carbonaria is 25% of the breeding population -- this gives us a 4x4 grid - with females across the top axis (typica, typica, typica, carbonaria), and males on the left side axis (typica, typica, typica, carobnaria), and then within this grid we can place each of the four (4) cases above
   | T | T | T | C |
--------------------
T | A | A | A | B |
--------------------
T | A | A | A | B |
--------------------
T | A | A | A | B |
--------------------
C | D | D | D | C |
--------------------
Notice the proportions: we have typica at 3:1 to carbonaria in both male and female populations, and this results in (3+1)^2 = 16 mating patterns with 3^2 = 9 mating pattern {A}, 3 mating pattern {B}, 1 mating pattern {C} and 3 mating pattern {D}, for an overall mating result:
typica = (9x100% + 3x33% + 1x11% + 3x33%)/16 = 1111%/16 = 69%
carbonaria = (9x0% + 3x67% + 1x89% + 3x67%)/16 = 491%/16 = 31%
And that we can generalize this as
typica = (100%n^2 + 33%n + 11% + 33%n)/(n+1)^2 = (100%n^2 + 67%n + 11%)/(n+1)^2 = T%
carbonaria = (0%n^2+ 67%n + 89% + 67%n)/16 = (133%n + 89%)/(n+1)^2= C%
So that if carbonaria is 10% of the breeding population we get a next generation population proportion of
typica = (100x81 + 67x9 + 11)/100 = 87%
carbonaria = (133x9 + 89)/100 = 13%
And if carbonaria is 1% of the breeding population we get a next generation population proportion of
typica = (100x9801 + 67x99 + 11)/10000 = 99%
carbonaria = (133x99 + 89)/10000 = 1%
OR
Say carbonaria is 75% of the population and typicais 25% of the population -- this gives us a 4x4 grid - with females across the top axis (carbonaria, carbonaria, carbonaria, typica), and males on the left side axis (carbonaria, carbonaria, carbonaria, typica), and then within this grid we can place each of the four (4) cases above
   | C | C | C | T |
--------------------
C | C | C | C | B |
--------------------
C | C | C | C | B |
--------------------
C | C | C | C | B |
--------------------
T | D | D | D | A |
--------------------
Notice again the proportions: we have carbonaria at 3:1 to typica in both male and female populations, and this results in (3+1)^2 = 16 mating patterns with 3^2 = 9 mating pattern {C}, 3 mating pattern {B}, 1 mating pattern {A} and 3 mating pattern {D}, for an overall mating result:
typica = (1x100 + 3x33 + 9x11 + 3x33)/16 = 399/16 = 25%
carbonaria = (1x0 + 3x67 + 9x89 + 3x67)/16 = 1201/16 = 75%
And that we can also generalize this as
typica = (100 + 33n + 11n^2 + 33n)/(n+1)^2 = (100 + 67n + 11n^2)/(n+1)^2 = T%
carbonaria = (0 + 67n + 89n^2 + 67n)/16 = (133n + 89n^2)/(n+1)^2= C%
So that if carbonaria is 90% of the breeding population we get
typica = (100 + 67x9 + 11x81)/100 = 16%
carbonaria = (133x9 + 89x81)/100 = 84%
And if carbonaria is 99% of the breeding population we get a next generation population proportion of
typica = (100 + 67x99 + 11x9801)/10000 = 11%
carbonaria = (133x99 + 89x9801)/10000 = 89%
The astute observer will notice that as the breeding population approaches 100% typica that the results approach breeding pattern {A}, and that as the breeding pattern approaches 100% carbonaria that the results approach breeding pattern {C}.
The astute observer will also notice that where the carbonaria proportion of populations is low (below an equilibrium point) that the next generation will tend to have more carbonaria (driving the carbonaria proportion upwards - towards the equilibrium point) ...
... and that where the carbonaria proportion of populations is high (above an equilibrium point) that the next generation will tend to have less carbonaria (driving the carbonaria proportion downwards - towards the equilibrium point) ...
... and that, in the absence of any active selection process or mechanism that favors one variety of the moths over the other variety, that the populatio proportions should be at the equilibrium levels.
A really astute observer will see that the equilibrium point will be reached when the carbonaria variety reaches 75% and the typica variety is at 25% of the overall breeding population - the same proportions as the original "first blush" mating results: with CC, CT, TT and TC as equally possible offspring of random mating.
Conclusions based on this analysis are:
(1) Even with 100% predation of the typica variety the proportion of carbonaria in the total population can never logically reach 100%.
(2) That starting from 1% carbonaria proportion of the population that the population proportion will reach 75% in ~40 generations - in the absence of any active selection process or mechanism that favors typica moths.
(3) That starting from 99% carbonaria proportion of the population that the population proportion will reach 75% in ~20 generations - in the absence of any active selection process or mechanism that favors typica moths.
(4) For the "natural" (non-pollution) situation, the proportion of typica moths exceeds 25%, so there must be an active selection mechanism in place that preferentially selects for survival of the typica variety over the carbonaria variety.
(5) For the "polluted" situation, the proportion of carbonaria moths exceeds 75%, so there must be an active selection mechanism in place that preferentially selects for survival of the carbonaria variety over the typica variety.
... despite of fact that carbonaria alleles are dominant. Or that carbonaria never make 100% of local population in most polluted areas. Simply - typica was always present but we did not know it.
As we see from a real analysis of the genetic probabilities, the proportion should never reach beyond 75% in the absence of preferential predation and would struggle to get over 89% even with 100% consumption of typica varieties before they can mate.
This is because typica as the recessive gene is always present in populations of carbonaria variety moths.
This "doesn't reach 100%" is another "creatortionista" misrepresentation of basic genetics, or evidence of profound ingnorance and misunderstanding of the basic science involved.
Because we catch only male individuals after mating. As you know, in traps we always have only males, no females.
This is basic to evolution: males need to search out the females to mate, the females do not search for males. Females will concentrate on feeding, males on breeding. Thus males will always be caught in higher proportions than the females, whether the traps use light to attract the moths or pheromones (which will of course only attract males, due to the pheromone used), because they spend more time flying than females.
The breeding population proportion of female carbonaria to typica will also be very similar to the breeding population proportion of male carbonaria to typica due to the same genetics producing them.
Thus one could use 100% male captures for the data and it would still represent the overall picture.
Furthermore, even if the preferential selection did only operate on the males of the populations this would still be enough to drive the population change that is observed. The female proportions would follow the trend of the male populations, and the effect would lag behind the male effect, but it would still occur.
But individuals are selected by birds only after mating and we do not have information on females.
You are reaching conclusions that are not based on any data again (ie making guesses).
The evidence is that birds preferentially select the more visible moths for predation, whether male, female, carbonaria or typica.
So my conclusion may be as right as neodarwinian one. After-mating selection without any eesential influence on fitness of typica.
Conclusion? You have just made an assertion, not a logically derived conclusion from validated premises backed by evidence. You've piled up a bunch of hopeful guesses and then stated what you think the result could be without showing the logical development or any real analysis.
I can even concede that these individuals are exposed to strong selective pressure as claimed by neodarwinists.
Good for you.
But they think, that what they measure is what happening.
And you have provided no real challenge to the idea that they really ARE measuring what actually happened. Remember the original study was because the change in population proportions had been observed.
The studies were also replicated with a number of indoor controls, things that would have shown any kind of pattern such as you suggest. They also involved breeding programs to have moths to release eh?
The genetic equilibrium evidence is that preferential selection is persistent and ongoing due to the population proportions NOT being at equilibrium in either the non-polluted or polluted scenarios.
There is still no other mechanism that produces this population proportion in either condition.
Care to try again?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : formating

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 236 by MartinV, posted 10-16-2006 5:31 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by MartinV, posted 10-21-2006 3:32 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 238 of 350 (357969)
10-21-2006 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by RAZD
10-19-2006 11:22 PM


Peppered moth as model of selection?
Thanks for your response. I agree with all your computation.
Nevertheless:
The astute observer will notice that as the breeding population approaches 100% typica that the results approach breeding pattern {A}, and that as the breeding pattern approaches 100% carbonaria that the results approach breeding pattern {C}.
Pattern {C} is 11% typica and 89% carbonaria. So whatever strong selection on typica is, the next generation emerging from pupa will have typica population that will never make less than 11% of the whole population. But I suppose, that this percentage will be greater. I found only two relevant links that deal with mating /
survival rates of Biston betularia.
...Cline of Industrial Melanism in Biston betularia...
Bionomics of Biston betularia (L.) in Daxing’an Mountains forest area
Combining information from both links I would say that we must take into consideration also your pattern {B} - male typica breeding with female carbonaria with result 33% typica and 67% carbonaria. Because if mating occurs first night there is no time for selective predation to take effect on typica males - next morning birds can eat all of them together with typica females, who cares. Carbonaria females have been fertilized yet and are protected so it seems to me necessary to include this pattern too - whatever extremly strong selective predation on typica may be.
And if carbonaria is 99% of the breeding population we get a next generation population proportion of
typica = (100 + 67x99 + 11x9801)/10000 = 11%
carbonaria = (133x99 + 89x9801)/10000 = 89%
I suppose - again if mating occurs first night before morning when any selective predation can cause whatever immediate and rapid decline of typica - that these 11% of typica will influence rise of the typica population in the next generation. If 11% of typica males mates equally with typica as with carbonaria, then 5,5% will mate carbonaria (pattern {B}) with result of 33% of typica offspring in next generation from this mating. So my ad hoc estimation is that each generation there will be about at least 15% of typica going out of pupa whatever strong selective predation can be.
If life expectancy of males are according link from China are 4 days let me count - I will suppose life expectancy 5 days and linear decline of carbonaria and in addition that all typica are eaten first day(!):
.......typica.......carbonaria
1 night..150..........850
2 night..0............680
3 night..0............510
4 night..0............340
5 night..0............170
6 night..0..............0
--------------------------
sum....150...........2550
So each night we should catch at least 5,8% typica or at most 94,2% of carbonaria. That is not the case, so if we catch 98% carbonaria as in Manchaster, it is necessary to have 7500 carbonaria to 150 typica. If assuming linear decline, life expectancy of carbonaria should be 17,64 days (=7500 / (850/2)).
This seems to be impossible if true previous research from J. A. Bishop:
Females may survive up to a week but produce few eggs during the latter half of their lives.
Anyway I do not see what neodarwinists would like to prove with peppered moths - if your claim that there always will be 11% of typica is true. Selection of such type has no profound meaning and is allways reversible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2006 11:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2006 9:34 PM MartinV has replied

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


Message 239 of 350 (358037)
10-21-2006 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by MartinV
10-21-2006 3:32 PM


Re: Peppered moth as model of selection?
I agree with all your computation.
Nevertheless:
I suppose ... I will suppose ...
So each night we should catch at least 5,8% typica or at most 94,2% of carbonaria. That is not the case, so ...
So therefore your assumptions are wrong. Math cannot invalidate reality, all it can do is suggest that a model is correct or not.
One cause could easily be the difference between the pupation proportions and the ones that survived until capture.
Note from your links that males pupate earlier than females (this would be to ensure they are around when the females mate) so they are subject to preferential selection prior to the females.
Note from your links that females don't lay eggs until the 2nd or 3rd day, and so are subject to prefential predation until then.
This means that there is a window of opportunity for preferential predation to act on the two varieties before they have a chance to complete the reproductive cycle, and this is all that is necessary.
Remember that the conclusion was that the proportions would be at an equilibrium level of 25% typica and 75% carbonaria in the absence of preferential predation, and as this was NOT the case either prior to, or subsequent to, pollution changing the environment there must be an active selection mechanism in place that preferentially selects the moths.
Anyway I do not see what neodarwinists would like to prove with peppered moths - if your claim that there always will be 11% of typica is true. Selection of such type has no profound meaning and is allways reversible.
The point is to explain the proportions of the two varieties that are observed in the different environments, the change, the cause of the change, and the recovery.
Preferential predation explains
  • why the populations are NOT at the equilibrium levels in either environment
    - (preferential predation is an active force)
  • why the typica variety has a survival advantage in non-polluted forests
    - (it is better camouflaged by day)
  • why the carbonaria variety has a survival advantage in polluted forests
    - (it is better camouflaged by day)
  • why the population changes from typica to carbonaria when pollution is introduced
    - (the survival advantage changes from typica to carbonaria)
  • why the population changes back when the pollution is alleviated
    - (the survival advantage changes from carbonaria to typica)
  • why the change can happen in such a short time
    - (both types are present in the gene population but the proportion of one or the other is suppressed in the breeding population by preferential predation and has a tendency to recover when predation pressure is alleviated)
  • why pollution is the factor causing the change in population proportions
    - (the changed environment changes the survival abilities from one to the other)
This is natural selection: a shift in the frequency of the genes within a population due to a change in predation and environmental conditions.
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 238 by MartinV, posted 10-21-2006 3:32 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by MartinV, posted 10-22-2006 3:50 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 240 of 350 (358061)
10-22-2006 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by RAZD
10-21-2006 9:34 PM


Re: Peppered moth as model of selection?
As we see from a real analysis of the genetic probabilities, the proportion should never reach beyond 75% in the absence of preferential predation and would struggle to get over 89% even with 100% consumption of typica varieties before they can mate.
I would say after some internet googling that your computation first I agree with is completely wrong. Let us assume we have melanic Mm and Mt morphs (75% M and 25%T alleles). Aftermating result is 24M and 8T alleles (still 75%M and 25%T). Yet there will be as result one typica TT which in case of selective predation will be eaten, so T alleles are permanently spliting away from population. If first MM: Mt was 1:1, next generation will be MM: Mt ratio 9:6.
This will led ultimately to only M allele occurence in population according equation (7) - see Growth of the M-gene fraction x with generation number for ten selective advantages, from s = 0.1 to 1.0 in steps of 0.1. at:
Page not found | Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences - PIMS
This is in accordance with "Melanic Moth Frequencies in Yorkshire, an Old English Industrial Hot Spot" by L. M. Cook, S. L. Sutton, and T. J. Crawford 2005:
If carbonaria gene frequency in Leeds was truly 100% before 1970, then no change would have been possible without introduction of typicals by mutation or migration of immigrants from regions of lower frequency. Because typical is recessive, these processes would have introduced genes in heterozygotes that were not subject to selection, and the response to selection would necessarily be very slow. It is likely that the response observed was in some part due to immigration.
Melanic Moth Frequencies in Yorkshire, an Old English Industrial Hot Spot | Journal of Heredity | Oxford Academic
So immigration is needed to start change. Anyway it seems to be neccesary to involve mutation as starting factor creating new morphs as well - question avoided by all of you neodarwinists here completely.
This "doesn't reach 100%" is another "creatortionista" misrepresentation of basic genetics, or evidence of profound ingnorance and misunderstanding of the basic science involved.
Same for "neordarwinista".
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2006 9:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2006 11:32 AM MartinV has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024