Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 146 of 173 (136530)
08-24-2004 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Percy
08-24-2004 10:07 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
Why is the issue of the moths resting in the canopy a problem for the bird-predation hypothesis ? I would have thought that it weakly supported it because the canopy seems to me to be less accessible to other potential predators - but birds certainly do hunt there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 10:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 12:12 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 148 of 173 (136551)
08-24-2004 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Percy
08-24-2004 12:12 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
What's that basis for claiming that the hypothesis is restricted to the tree trunks ? So far as I know the main reason for talking about the trunks is that that was the focus of Kettlewell's experiments and his staged photographs - and because the moths usually rest elsewhere (although they do sometimes rest on the trunks). In other words it seems to be little more than a pretext for personal attacks (since Wells has no objection to "microevolution" it makes no real difference if the peppered moth story is exactly as Kettlewell proposed it or even completely wrong).
It is irrelevant to the basic idea of soot pollution, camouflage and selective predation.
This message has been edited by PaulK, 08-24-2004 11:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 12:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 1:21 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 150 of 173 (136570)
08-24-2004 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Percy
08-24-2004 1:21 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
So far as I know the question is the degree to which bird predation is the selective factor. The appearance and spread of the melanic form - and its disappearance after pollution was reduced - are known facts. So is the genetic basis for the colouration. So there seems to be a very good case for it being an example of natural selection even if the details are not fully established. Bird predation is very likely an important factor and applies even in the canopies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 1:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 2:55 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 154 of 173 (136588)
08-24-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
08-24-2004 2:55 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
As I understand it bird predation is known as a factor. This article establishes that it has been established as the major (but not only) factor
Moonshine: Why the Peppered Moth Remains an Icon of Evolution
quote:
Kettlewell (1955, 1956, 1959) showed that the melanic form of the moth predominated primarily because of predation by birds. He did not think that predation was the only cause of industrial melanism and in fact speculated as to the relative strengths of other causes. Briefly, he performed a number of experiments (Musgrave 2004, Grant 1999, Kettlewell 1959):
1.Release-recapture experiments. Kettlewell marked and released both light-colored and melanic moths early in the morning, and recaptured some the next night. In polluted woods, he and his assistants recaptured more melanic moths than light-colored (1955, 1956), whereas in unpolluted woods they captured more light-colored than melanic (1956).
2.Direct observation (1955, 1956) and filming (1956). Kettlewell and others observed birds eating moths directly off trunks of trees.
3.Camouflage. Kettlewell visually ranked the effectiveness of camouflage of moths on different backgrounds and compared the effectiveness of camouflage with predation rates both in an aviary and in the field. He did not know that birds had ultraviolet vision, which his observers lacked, but got nevertheless a good correlation between camouflage and predation. Later research has shown that the moths are camouflaged in the ultraviolet as well as in the visible (Musgrave 2004).
4.Geographical distribution. He noted that the distribution of the melanic moths in the country closely matched the areas of industrialization (Bishop and Cook 1957).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 2:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 4:17 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 156 of 173 (137422)
08-27-2004 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Percy
08-24-2004 4:17 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
OK so the moths were (mainly) in the canopy in the release-and-recapture experiment.
We know that something was removing adult moths from the population - and favoured dark moths in unpolluted areas and light moths in polluted areas. Predation is the most likely explanation.
We know from the other experiments that birds displayed the same selective bias, and we know that they do hunt in the canopies (and on the trunks and branches where the moths have also been seen).
And if the colour during the night matters less (and I'd agree there) then the moths were probably eaten during the day while they rested. Most birds are active durng the day.
Sounds like a good case for bird predation to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 4:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 08-28-2004 8:43 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 159 of 173 (137794)
08-29-2004 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
08-28-2004 8:43 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
I don't see this conversation in the same way you do.
Which if any of the follwoing statements would you disagree wiht:
1) We know that there is a selective effect going on (the release and recapture results)
2) We have good reason to beleive that bird predation is a part of it (the experiments with captive moths, combined with the fact that moths do rest on the trunks).
3) Given our background information it is reasonable to extrapolate the results of the experiments with captive moths to other parts of the trees, including the canopy.
4) While this does not constitute absolute certainty it does present a strong case that bird predation is a major factor in the selection

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 08-28-2004 8:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 9:02 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 161 of 173 (137817)
08-29-2004 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
08-29-2004 9:02 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
I would object to the third in that I don't believe that any of the Biblical records are eyewitness accounts from Jesus' life. And I would qualify the last with the fact that Josephus' major mention of Jesus is lkely an interpolation in whole or in part (the second, shorter message most likely is genuine).
If I accepted them all then I would agree that they constituted a strong case that there was a historical Jesus (which I believe anyway).
I really don't see the problem here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 9:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 11:33 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 163 of 173 (137836)
08-29-2004 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
08-29-2004 11:33 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
Well as we've seen in other threads Creationists usually value their own opinions over virtually anything short of absolute proof. I don't really think that we should set "good enough to convince a closed-minded creationist" as anything other than a practical guideline for use in dealing with such individuals.
Now we can disucss why you don't feel that the experiments with captive moths were good enough to conclude that birds will take moths off tree trunks if you like. Or you can explain where you were going with your last couplweof posts but right nw I really don't see what you are objecting to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 11:33 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 9:44 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 166 of 173 (138037)
08-30-2004 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Percy
08-29-2004 9:44 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
Unfortunately you make the mistake of believing Wells. Peppered moths have been observed resting on tree trunks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 9:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 08-30-2004 8:50 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 168 of 173 (138048)
08-30-2004 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Percy
08-30-2004 8:50 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
The point you were disputing only states that the moths sometimes rest on tree trunks.
According to the chart given here Icon of Obfuscation taken from Majerus' data 6 out of 47 moths observed were on the exposed trunk - and another 6 were on unexposed locations on the trunk (typically concealed behind vegetation).
The moths have been seen resting on tree trunks, in the wild, under natural conditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 08-30-2004 8:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 08-30-2004 12:05 PM PaulK 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