|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wells' Icons of Evolution - Peppered Moths | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
They have not provided calculations either. Er, yes, they have. Wells just didn't quote them. Consult the primary literature. Just for example, from The peppered moth: a black and white story after all (which I have recommended several times .. have you read it?), with emphasis added:
quote: Is there really evidence that the mechanism behind variant changes in the peppered moth is by natural selection? There certainly is. It may not be conclusive enough for you or Wells, but it's conclusive enough for most people (and, of course, Wells wouldn't believe it unless God or Sun Myung Moon told him it was so). When a better alternative theory arises, or when NS is disproven, or even when somebody proposes a viable alternative hypothesis, scientists will listen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cromwell Inactive Member |
I only glanced over that site.I'll read it properly.
>>There certainly is (NS). It may not be conclusive enough for you or Wells, but it's conclusive enough for most people (and, of course, Wells wouldn't believe it unless God or Sun Myung Moon told him it was so). When a better alternative theory arises, or when NS is disproven, or even when somebody proposes a viable alternative hypothesis, scientists will listen.<< In your opinion,did you find the the calculations thorough enough,taking into consideration all aspects that i mentioned before,those that should be involved in correct experimentation on predation of the peppered moth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
In your opinion,did you find the the calculations thorough enough,taking into consideration all aspects that i mentioned before,those that should be involved in correct experimentation on predation of the peppered moth? I haven't done an exhaustive, or maybe not even thorough, survey of the primary literature, and it's been a few years since I did it. I found the data and calculations in the primary literature to conclusively support the thesis that natural selection is operating in the color changes in the peppered moth population. There's still room for argument about what the selective mechanisms are, and the relative importance of each, and there are questions which are unanswered. But NS is there, as proven as anything is in science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rick Rose Inactive Member |
I read this entire thread yestersay.
I first read about the moth argument about twenty five years ago. In my way of thinking, the subject does not prove or disprove evolutionary theory. Within the gene pool of the moth, there was the possibility of white and black, if I am correct. The trees became polluted. The white moths were picked off by birds leaving only the black moths to reproduce. The species didn't change. The black moths were always present, but now they became predominant. When the situation reversed, the black moths were picked off. The few remaining white moths were left to reproduce. So how can an evolutionist or a creationist use this argument to support thier respective beliefs? I went back to the beggining of the thread because I wasen't sure where to plug this piece.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So how can an evolutionist or a creationist use this argument to support thier respective beliefs? You said it yourself:
The black moths were always present, but now they became predominant. That's evolution - a change in a population's allele frequencies (specifically the frequency of the black coloration allele) as a result of a selecting interaction with the environment. Of course, then you say:
The species didn't change. which is simply not true - the species did change: the black allele increased in frequency. Changing allele frequency is a change within species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rick Rose Inactive Member |
So frequency of population changed, but genetic structure of black or white moth did not change. Correct? If that defines natural selection, I accept.
rickrose, always learning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
So frequency of population changed, but genetic structure of black or white moth did not change You're sort of got it, I think. The change is in the genetic makeup of the population not the individuals. This is the very first basic step of evolution. This is put forward of an example of natural selection not of the introduction of new mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rick Rose Inactive Member |
As such Ned, I accept natural selection.
rickrose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So frequency of population changed, but genetic structure of black or white moth did not change. Not as a result of pollution, no. But we presume that a genetic structure change did occur at some point prior to the selection event - the mutation that created black moths in the first place. We presume this because mutation is the only observed source of new alleles. What we observed with the moths is natural selection, yes. Combined with the mutation that must have occured, that represents evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rick Rose Inactive Member |
Mutation is a deep well.
rickrose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Mutation is a deep well. From which an astronomical number of variations can be drawn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rick Rose Inactive Member |
You don't miss a lick. Great pun.
rickrose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ediacaran Inactive Member |
Deleted duplicate
This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 05-26-2004 10:25 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ediacaran Inactive Member |
Cromwell writes:
The 20 page chapter from Jonathan Wells book The icons of evolution touch on many other aspects used to back up his assertions.However he has made a sweeping statement,but he is not far off the mark. In this book Wells makes the statement on page 140 >> What the text books don’t explain,however,is that biologists have known since 1980’s that the classical story has some serious flaws-The peppered moths in the wild do not even rest on tree trunks. << ... Majerus observed the peppered moth over a period of 32 years.If you look at his pie chart for peppered moths found in the wild,you will notice that he only observed 47 moths resting on various points of the trees.Only 12 of these in this period rested on various appropriate parts of the tree trunks.This is equivalent to around 1 moth every three years. [End of excerpt from Cromwell's post] So, according to Majerus' data, when moths are observed to rest in trees in the wild, under normal conditions, they rest on the trunks about 25% of the time, a substantial percentage. On p. 260 of Wells' book, one of Wells' suggested "warning labels for biology textbooks" reads: "WARNING: Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks in the wild, and photos showing them on tree trunks have been staged; Kettlewell's experiments are now being questioned." - and you assert that Wells was "not far off the mark"?!? Clearly, Wells is a bald-faced liar. Wells didn't seem to have any moral objections to staged photos in his dissertation on frog embryos. He should make up a disclaimer for it: "WARNING: Xenopus frog ovulation is not induced with human chorionic gonadotropin in the wild, and photos of frog embryos stained with Nile Red are staged; John [aka Jonathan] Corrigan Wells' integrity is now being questioned." Of course, this would be uncharacteristic of Wells, since all the points in the latter warning are true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ediacaran Inactive Member |
Deleted triplicate.
This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 05-26-2004 10:33 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024