Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,854 Year: 4,111/9,624 Month: 982/974 Week: 309/286 Day: 30/40 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1
Percy
Member
Posts: 22501
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 152 of 173 (136581)
08-24-2004 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Adminnemooseus
08-24-2004 2:41 PM


Re: Topic has gone long past its original theme - Closing down
I think the moth stuff is just clarification, not discussion, while we await DarkStar's response. This thread is actively on-topic. DarkStar is providing quotes, and we're responding, the last response to his quotes being earlier today. See my Message 141 and DBlevin's Message 143 for very recent detailed responses to DarkStar quotes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-24-2004 2:41 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22501
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 153 of 173 (136582)
08-24-2004 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by PaulK
08-24-2004 1:41 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
PaulK writes:
So far as I know the question is the degree to which bird predation is the selective factor.
Maybe I'm just unaware of the data, but my understanding is that bird predation has not been objectively established as the cause of changing melanism proportions in peppered moth populations in response to polution. What we know is that polution favors melanism in peppered moth populations. What we suspect is that bird predation is the causative factor, and that somehow coloration is protective, though we don't know how.
You could argue, I suppose, that bird predation must be responsible by the process of elimination, because what else could it possibly be? But this would be an ID style argument. Just as Kettlewell defenders prefer bird predation as the answer to the peppered moth melanism question, IDists prefer God as the answer to the evolution question. IDists say it must be God because we can't figure what else it could be, while Kettlewellists say it must be bird predation because we can't figure out what else it could be.
Just to point out that there are other alternatives, and not to suggest this is the actual answer, perhaps melanism helps moths survive because it is more heat absorbant and allows them to stay warmer in polluted environments where less sunlight reaches the ground.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 1:41 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 3:13 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22501
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 155 of 173 (136604)
08-24-2004 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by PaulK
08-24-2004 3:13 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
In the release/recapture experiments, the moths would have been in the tree canopy.
In the direct observation of bird predation, the moths were on the tree trunks.
It's been a couple years since I read Hooper's book, so I don't recall the details. Issues that occur to me now (not necessarily the ones Hooper raised, and not necessarily correct) are that the moths come out at night, so does color really matter? Do we know where the moths go during the day? Does moth predation happen during the day or at night?
I would agree that a connection had been established if someone could explain just where and when the birds eat the moths, and why coloration is a factor.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 08-27-2004 03:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 3:13 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 08-27-2004 3:40 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22501
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 157 of 173 (137593)
08-28-2004 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by PaulK
08-27-2004 3:40 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
There's good circumstantial evidence that bird predation is related to melanism, but this is akin to a murder case where you have motive and opportunity, but you can't place the suspect and the victim in the same room. At the end of the day, no one knows where and when the birds eat the moths or why color is a factor.
We seem to be imitating the Creationist tactic of trying to persuade on the basis of insufficient evidence, arguing endlessly and pointlessly when the evidence just isn't there. I feel like evolutionists have put their foot in the mouth with the peppered moth example. In this foremost example of natural selection in the wild, we can't tell Creationists where and when the birds eat the moths, and what we have been telling them for 50 years is wrong.
I wonder what happened to DarkStar.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 08-27-2004 3:40 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2004 6:04 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22501
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 158 of 173 (137595)
08-28-2004 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by DarkStar
08-23-2004 12:24 AM


DarkStar, you have replies
Please don't be distracted by the posts from me and PaulK seeking clarification of our positions on the peppered moth example. The topic of the thread remains your quotes. A number of people replied to your list of quotes. My analysis of the quotes is in Message 141
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by DarkStar, posted 08-23-2004 12:24 AM DarkStar has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22501
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 160 of 173 (137801)
08-29-2004 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by PaulK
08-29-2004 6:04 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
Here's an analog of how it sounds to me:
Which if any of the following statements would you disagree with:
  • Millions of Christians around the world believe in Jesus.
  • The events described in the Bible happen in places we know exist.
  • We have the testimony of eyewitnesses from the period.
  • We have archaeological evidence that Pontius Pilate was a real person.
  • Josephus, a Jewish historian, mentions Jesus.
This constitutes a strong case that Jesus was a real person.
I think the evidence that differential bird predation is related to melanism is stronger than the evidence for Jesus, but the fact remains that the foremost example of natural selection in the wild has holes in it. If we want to continue to push this example then it behooves us, given the unhappy history of this example, to do the work necessary to nail this down. Otherwise we're in the situation where our foremost example isn't certain, and all other examples are less certain. If I were a Creationist I would continue to jump all over this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2004 6:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2004 11:12 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22501
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 162 of 173 (137822)
08-29-2004 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by PaulK
08-29-2004 11:12 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
But I would object to some items on your list, such as #2. To me it seems an individual matter of when one decides, "I've checked this enough, that's good enough for me." Trying to convince Creationists of such a key point on less than ironclad evidence doesn't seem like it would be persuasive, and would tend to lessen their confidence in the scientific approach.
I wonder if DarkStar has abandoned the thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2004 11:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2004 12:55 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22501
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 164 of 173 (137949)
08-29-2004 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by PaulK
08-29-2004 12:55 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
PaulK writes:
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...Or you can explain where you were going with your last couple of posts but right nw I really don't see what you are objecting to.
In general, I would agree. But we're talking about the foremost example of natural selection in the wild, an example whose fundamental tenet, that degree of melanism protects moths from bird predation on tree trunks, has been shown false. I think the screw-up obligates us to fill in the blanks before we can legitimately continue offering this as a premier example of natural selection in the wild.
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.
The experiments conclusively demonstrated that birds will eat moths off tree trunks. Unfortunately, the peppered moth apparently doesn't light on tree trunks.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2004 12:55 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by NosyNed, posted 08-29-2004 10:07 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 166 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2004 6:59 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22501
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 167 of 173 (138042)
08-30-2004 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by PaulK
08-30-2004 6:59 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
I don't know who Wells is. My information comes from Hooper's book. My recollections from it, very possibly spotty after all this time but I think I have the broad details correct, is that we don't know where peppered moths rest, but that it isn't on tree trunks.
If they *did* rest on tree trunks, then the fact that some nature photographers took the shortcut of fastening a moth to a tree trunk seems harmless. It would be like throwing a worm to a robin that yields a picture with a caption saying that robins hunt worms. We know robins hunt worms, one can see it everyday, and the staged photograph is just for illustration. If peppered moths really rested on tree trunks, then what would be the harm for purposes of illustration?
But apparently, as a general sort of thing, they don't rest on tree trunks. I guess we could consider this the key point of difference. DBlevins provided this link:
Which at one point says this:
  1. Direct observation (1955, 1956) and filming (1956). Kettlewell and others observed birds eating moths directly off trunks of trees.
This is true as far as it goes. What it doesn't mention is that Kettlewell fastened the moths to the tree trunks. Paraphrasing Hooper, he constructed huge bird feeders.
The key questions for me are still where and when the birds eat the moths, and why is melanism a factor?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2004 6:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2004 9:50 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22501
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 169 of 173 (138103)
08-30-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by PaulK
08-30-2004 9:50 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
PaulK writes:
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.
And Hooper says not so. Next time I'm in the library I'll check Hooper's book and see if she was aware of Majerus' work, and if so, whether she had any legitimate objections. It seems to me that if peppered moths *do* rest on tree trunks that much of the Creationist challenge is answered.
Interestingly, Majerus himself does not seem to believe he has settled the issue, because he's still working on it. The article In Defense of Darwin and a Former Icon of Evolution, purportedly from the journal Science in June of this year, says:
[text=black]After decades of moth-watching, Majerus is convinced that Kettlewell was right and that bird predation is the primary agent of natural selection on the peppered moth. "But that can never be enough," he says, "because I'm also a scientist. ... We're miles beyond reasonable doubt, but it's not scientific proof."
Majerus's experiment is designed to avoid the mistakes Kettlewell made when comparing the proportion of typical and melanic peppered moths that escape the attention of predatory birds. He's releasing a small number of moths, at night, and letting them choose their own hiding places within specially designed mesh sleeves, which he removes at dawn. Like Kettlewell, he's using a mixture of lab-reared and wild-caught moths, but his design allows him to test for potential differences between the two. Majerus is determined to get "a definite answer" on the bird predation issue.
Although Majerus expects to confirm Kettlewell's conclusions, he claims not to care which way the results go: Any findings, he thinks, would make a splash by settling the controversy. But peppered moth expert and evolutionary geneticist Bruce Grant of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, doubts that Majerus will silence the critics. "To do the job the right way is going to be too labor-intensive and it's just not worth it. ... Right now, I think there are other things that need doing more."[/text]
Though Majerus is narrowing in on the issue, even he doesn't think we've got the final answer yet.
What interests me most isn't peppered moths, melanism and bird predation, but presenting an example of natural selection in the wild that doesn't have obvious weaknesses.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2004 9:50 AM PaulK has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22501
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 170 of 173 (138493)
08-31-2004 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by DarkStar
08-23-2004 12:24 AM


Bump for DarkStar
You have replies.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by DarkStar, posted 08-23-2004 12:24 AM DarkStar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 09-05-2004 11:51 AM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22501
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 171 of 173 (140059)
09-05-2004 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Percy
08-31-2004 1:50 PM


Bump for DarkStar
Hello, DarkStar, are you there?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 08-31-2004 1:50 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2004 4:17 PM Percy 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