Summations Only

I think that to underestand darwinistic myth of random mutation and natural selection as mechanism behind evolution is not so complicated as one would say. But if some darwinist hold it for some secret wisdom I do not care.As to "chameleon" process: Once I saw a darwinistic propaganda film on birds catching fish. It was said, that there was once rare mutation, that led to the completely white color of abdomen of a bird and consequently fish could not detect it against the sky, so bird has advantage and its genes spreads.And that was my question before. I suppose that mutation that can change colour/pattern of moths wings are rare. Anyway I do not see any restriction, why this rare mutation could not change colour of wings to green/yellow color? Or might be, that it changes, but we did not detect them, because they are so rare and do not survive?
Yes?It seems strange to me, that according darwinians there were more melanic forms of species of Lepidoptera during industrial revolution. Even according Majerus: Is it not weird, that mutation is somehow restricted to dark color in moths species and green, red, yellow mutations are excluded ? If we do not detect other colours but melanic, is it correct to presume, that mutations in this case of moths are "random"? I would say that mutation in these cases have nothing to do with chance but are rather directed to prevalent color of environment (really some chameleon process as you noted). Otherways there should be some constraints to vivid coluors, but then again - melanic mutation is not random only just somehow predetermine to happen in particular way.Because we know, that some of night moths have colourful hindwings. For instatnce yellow:http://www.geocities.com/brisbane_noct/TransverseMoths.htmSo why so many random mutation during industrial revolution have led to melanic forms, but we did not found any random mutation (even before and after) that led to other colors as melanic ones? Were mutations during the period really random? If directed, would not be that case of melanic moths somehow falsify darwinism?

So I do not understand it much and will apreciate some explanation: I do not understand if Armendaris dark phenotype aroused via using different melanic protein as Pinacate melanics? They do not use same melanic protein?
Or there is only different "cascade" of regulatory path via which the same melanic protein is activated and which in Armendaris population we did not indentify yet? Pheomelanin (yellow and red pigment) is deposit in hair of some morphs. The article claims are backed by surprisingly old sources (8,9,10 are all before 1948) that owls see colors: This seems not to be taken for granted by latest sources: (here).and even if they have: (here).but whats more: these cones sometimes contain same photoreceptors as rods!See:Cone Pigment of the Great Horned Owl.(here).And last but not at least again from your article: 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.

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: 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

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: (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? 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: 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 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.

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? 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.

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: 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.

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. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Thanks for your response. I agree with all your computation.
Nevertheless: 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 areaCombining 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. 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...........2550So 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: 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.

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 - PIMSThis 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: Melanic Moth Frequencies in Yorkshire, an Old English Industrial Hot Spot | Journal of Heredity | Oxford AcademicSo 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. Same for "neordarwinista".Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This "reccurent" mutation is really interesting. If we assume, that typica has 2 alleles tt this "reccurent" mutation not only should create de novo always dominat(!) C allele but whats more it should create "de novo" instict that led moths to rest on proper black lichens/backround. This to believe suppose strong faiths in neodarwinism. I would say that mutation with so pleitropic effect cannot occurs "reccurently", but should be sitting somewhere in DNA and only be "derepressed". Your claim contradicts the article I have given you in previous link:Melanic Moth Frequencies in Yorkshire, an Old English Industrial Hot Spot | Journal of Heredity | Oxford AcademicBut thinking about difficulties of peitropic effect of "reccurent" mutation from typica to melanica and vice versa it is underestandable that you stick on claim that "typica continued to exist within carbonaria" even if it seems in case of Leeds contradicts completely the basics of genetics and mendelian maths.

Not at all.There is strong corellation between genotype frequencies and allele frequecies in this case. If there is selective predation on typica, then carbonaria are cleaned out of typica allele after some time and the result is only homozygotous carbonaria. There is a little bit complicated equation of gene changes dependency on selective advantage. If carbonaria has 0,3 selective advantage over
typica then after 50 years the frequency of Carbonaria genes raised from almost 0% to more than 95% and it is obvious, that as selective predation persists, then the number will be soon almost 100%.After all if we started as in case of Leeds with the fraction Melanica genes 0,999 the fraction of normal moths are only 0.001x0.001 = 0.000001. According professor Jeremy Tatum of the University of Victoria if we started with fraction of Melanica
genes from this 0,999 and put them under strong selective disatvantage -0,9 even after 50 gnerations M will make 0,9927!If you see on table 2 of the mentioned article you will notice that in Leeds before rise of typica were numbers of caught moths:--------C T
1967 47 0
1968 58 0
1969 27 0
1970 75 1
1971 41 0
1972 76 0
1973 40 1
1974 40 0
1975 3 0Carbonaria/typica ration was 407/2 = 0,9951.Take into consideration, that in Leeds there was - I suppose - pollution more than 80 years, so carbonaria was in 1967 necessary homozygous and gene frequency should be consequently almost 100%.That is why scientists claim, that but you: HE proceeded correctly and scietifically using mathematics. So conclusions are correct until you present us some other mathematics. This is very interesting and yet perplexing. Where do "derepressed" typica allele rest on your opinion in case of homozygous Biston betularia in which both locus are occupied by same carbonaria allele? Is after mutation that "release" typica gene also reshuffle of genes on locus?--------------------
--------------------------------
Maths and moths by Jeremy Tatum:
Page not found | Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences - PIMS Edited by MartinV, : link added

Let us start with this your table that describe situation exactly:......| CC | nCt |
-----------------
CC | C1 | nC2 |
-------------------
nCt | nC2 |n^2C3|
-------------------where C1 = 4*CC
C2 = 2*CC + 2*Ct
C3 = 1*CC + 2*Ct + 1*ttOutcome in the next generation will be - if initial
ratio CC/CT is 1/n:CC = CC from (C1 + nC2 + nC2 + n^2C3)
= 4 + n*2 + n*2 + n^2
= 4 + 4n + n^2Ct = Ct from (nC2*2 + nC2*2 + n^2C3)
= n*2 + n*2 + 2*n^2
= 4n + 2n^2tt = n^2So if tt are eaten before mating, astute observer will notice that if ratio CC/Ct is 1/n, in next generation it will be(2n^2 + 4n) / (4 + 4n + n^2).If n is going to infinity then in next generation there will be ratio CC/Ct 1/2, then 1/1, 3/2, 2/1, 5/2, 3/1, 7/2, 4/1 or - I would say that ratio CC/Ct in case, that there was no CC at beginning, only Ct, the ratio in n-th generation will be n/2.If there was strong pollution in Leeds say 1875-1975 that is 100 years and in 1875 there were no typica only Ct than the ratio CC/Ct after 100 years should be 50/1.Probability, that Ct find partner Ct to mate and subsequently express tt genotype in form of typica phenotype is very low - 1/50^2 = 0,0004.Yet I do not know where I do mistake, because according graph in Maths and moths after 10 years of flawless predation on typica there should be CC/Ct ratio 90%:10%, but on my computation it is only 80%:20%. It is however very important, because my result after 100 years will be very inaccurate and whats more, it is not as strong decline of Ct population as I thought before.Do you think, that profesor Tatum started with different preconditions?My formula for CC/Ct ratio after n generation in case that it started from clear Ct population and tt are eaten before mating is: n/2.
Yet I am still not sure on your view - can you send also some explanation as to the change of ratio in subsequent generations, or do you held opininin, that CC/Ct ratio will be always 50%:50% in each generation?

Math will be even little bit more complicated assuming small population of Biston betularia - frequency of heterozygotes should be affected substantialy by genetic drift by formula 2qn(t) = 2pq(0)*(1-1/N)^t where N is the number of individuals, t is nuber of generations. I have read that N is about 400 individuals of peppered moths on square kilometer. If we assume strong cline as in Leeds I suppose that in that case "population" can be make by square kilometre. But then ratio between heterozygotes without any selective predation after 100 years will be 1:0,36.Then I do not know where melanic alleles sit - if on sex chromozomes, than their expression would be different for males and females and our computations are inaccurate.And we do not know when and where mating occurs and how are selection effective before/after mating.In any case selective predation seems to have no dramatic influence as to the typica, while it recovers own population in short time after change of environment, so selection seems to be incapable to reverse population into typica and vice versa. Typica alleles should have been created by mutation during industrialization. I would like see if the pollution would have made green or blue sooths, it there would be also mutation in this color. If not, biston would be eaten and it would be again proof of selection as in case if blue would have arousen and survive. In any case neodarwinism as to the selection would be right, no? Yet mechanism of hidden alleles which were previously succesfull in heteroyzgotes seems to me be very good device how not to react headless to change of environment.*****************Is it possible to change the format - lines are too long and it is difficult to rad responses. Edited by MartinV, : remark on formatting of this page

It occurs when message from RAZD was added.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

The link that you have given shows an intersting photo of "A female parasitoid wasp ovipositing into a 7-spot ladybird". Obviously ladybird has enemies and red colors have no aposematic function as darwinists claim - opposite is more plausible in the case. Wasps should be happy about coloration of ladybirds. The color play obviously no role in "fitness" or "natural selection" in this case. I'll check the Majerus work on the issue later.As to the peppered moth I do not see in your extraction any mention of lichens. It is important to notice in which background typica/carbonaria rests during day. Anyway it is positive that Majerus reserched more closely resting place of moths. Darwinists claim more than 100 years that selection of peppered moths has led to difference in their coloration rate without any study where they rest.In the previous Majerus research he presented a picture, where typica resting on some kind of lichens was unconspicuous in normal light, but very conspicuous in UV light.On the other hand I dont know about eating behaviour of the birds. Do they noticing one piece of moth flies towards it from other tree immediately? Just to pick one moth from the tree-trunk? Or do they eat everything on the place they are sitting at? In that case the bird will notice all mimics and eat them too.If those questions are not answered I am afraid we are still as we were 50 years ago when Kettlewel started his "experiments". We suppose that predators selection is responsible for chaging of moth populations without experiments proving it. It' still the ad-hoc explanation that should prove natural selection as responsible of the phenomenon.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.