You’ve come to the point of skirting round the true facts and making out Majerus figures to be mere generalizations.
His observations are hard facts not averages.
Yes, sadly, you really are that ignorant of statistics.
Now you are attempting to read different amounts into this,expanding to suit. making out that the observations are generalizations.
No, I am (and the various researchers in this field are) using standard statistical methods to infer the characteristics of the population from observations of a sample.
Majerus' observations are the best data we have on the percentages of peppered moths naturally rest in various places. They are also our best estimates of the population characteristics, with error estimates produced by standard methods.
More hype.It is not impossible to have a low percentage especially considering the facts that the sightings are extremely rare..You say sampling theory as opposed to sampling facts that Majerus has produced.This is a contradiction. Majerus data was not theory.
Well, I must admit that it is
sort of possible that a low percentage of moths rest where they would be subject to differential predation, but only in the same sense that it is possible that you will win the grand prize in the lottery for the next 50 weeks in a row; it's physically possible, but it ain't gonna happen.
"Sampling theory" does not refer to Majerus' observations, it refers to a well-developed sub-field of statistics that tells us what we can do with such observations and what inferences we can draw about the characteristics of the population from such observations.
If you want to argue that a low percentage of all moths rest where they are not subject to differential predation,
present your statistical calculations! Anything other than calculations is arm-waving.
rom Majerus own data 47 moths only seen to land on exposed parts of the tree within 34 years..
Not 470,000 moths in 34 years.
Not 47 moths in 34 days.
Not 25 % of an unknown quantity of moths that existed in a period of 34 years.
More moths obviously existed. The percentage resting on exposed parts of the tree is a fraction of any amount of moths that you can come up with.Majerus data states this as fact.
{Sigh} you really shouldn't make such firm pronouncements about a subject in which you are so ignorant.
You are attempting to mix raw sample numbers (the number of moths that Majerus observed) with inferred raw population numbers (the number of moths that exist in the wild). That's not kosher; standard statistics tells us the result is meaningless.
Majerus' data does not contain any facts beyond the reported numbers and the percentages that can be derived from
those numbers and no others. From those facts, statistics and sampling theory tells us that those percentages are good estimates of the percentages that we would see
if we were able to observe the entire population. Statistics and sampling theory also tell us that
the probability of the percentages of the entire population being greatly different from the percentages of Majerus' observations is negligible.
This could be said to be more experimental and definate than mere observations. In 34 years only 203 were seen 34% (70) of these were seen on exposed parts of the trees.This is hard evidence, although its not indicative of actual moths becoming predatory victims during the day when birds are active, and it is not natural. However it clearly shows that pepered moths appearance even when enticed with light are extremely scarce.The data is not a generalization.
It could be said to be less definite, since the moths were studied in artificial situations. But it also clearly shows that the percentage of moths that rest in areas where they are subject to differential predation is in the range that I quoted before. Under 5% is not possible.
Nothing that ties in with actual observed naturally occurring predation of peppered moths in the wild, one that also encompasses the time span required for the changes to occur.
There is a plethora of information about observed moths, melanic types, e.t.c.But there is next to nothing on natural predation of peppered moths.
Yup, you
haven't done your homework. You make charges about what has or has not been done without having actually studied what has beeen done. Combined with your ignorance of statistics, that makes you completely unqualified to debate this matter.
This message has been edited by JonF, 06-10-2004 01:58 PM
™ Version 4.2
