Summations Only

And to be frank guys, I have a lot to do in life. I have fairly large family, a company to run, employees to make sure they get paid, etc....I do want to discuss science issues with people, but I grow tired of petty arguments.I think it would not have been too difficult for anyone to see what my stance was, and not to misrepresent it, and I think the use of the peppered moth story continues not because it is a good example as evidence for evolution because there's not much real evolution taking place, just variation within the genome and variation that can switch back again. So it is very misleading, but imo, evolutionists are loathe to replace misleading material.Why?If the goal is education, then you don't want to create false impressions.Maybe when all these arguments came to the fore, the real goal was not education but acceptance of evolutionary theory.This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 06:30 PM

It's natural selection of existing traits. That's all, and from what I read, the whole tree trunk claim is way overstated since reportedly they don't hang out so much on trees, and furthermore, bird vision is a little different spectrum so there's a lot to criticize. It's very misleading, and imo, totally inappropiate as basic evidence for evolution.A similar process occurred when most of the Indians died due to epidemics the Europeans had built up more resistance having already been decimated, but if we were to speak of that as evolution, it would be seen as racist because it suggests speciation when racial differences are not speciation.But frankly, if you can't see my point, I have no more interest in repeating it you ad nauseum. You are either capable of grasping the point, or not.

1. First off, no the study does not rule out all the various factors that could have influenced whether lightly colored or darkly colored moths became more dominant as a result of soot. It could be something else entirely, perhaps another aspect of pollution, coincidence, etc,...2. Secondly, birds have the ability to see in the UV spectrum and the ignorance of that basic fact renders moot any conclusions about what birds actually see in this instance.3. Peppered moths are nocturnal and so releasing them in the day-time to draw conclusions about their behaviour also makes the study based on faulty data.4. In reality, birds are not even the primary predator of peppered moths, but rather bats are. Bats method of sensing prey is totally different, and relies on sound waves and thus bats tend to capture moths in flight rather than while they are resting. This fact further makes the claims of the study to be somewhat fantastic in nature and without solid scientific standing.5. I have heard but not verified that these same experiments were repeated elsewhere in the world with the opposite results. As such, since the experiment is not repeatable, it falls down on that merit as well.I do find it amusing that RAZD is now quoting a creationist web-site as evidence, but on the whole, I don't think the OP addresses the basic problems with the study, nor the fact that it doesn't show speciation and is not therefore evidence of even microevolution giving rise to new species and therefore the way it is used is incorrect.The best we can say is some very poorly done studies might suggest that there is a relationship between the pollutants of the industrial evolution and population sizes of peppered moths, but that other potential causal effects have not been ruled out, nor is there any reason to draw any strong conclusions to the peppered moth experiments as they did not involve peppered moths' primary predators and were riddled with gross errors and flaws.In fact, to hold the peppered moth experiments as valid science is educational malpractice, presenting very poorly done and erroneous science as somehow something students should accept as valid.It's a joke, and from my perspective darn near inexcusable for evos to continue to cling to such wildly erroneous uses of data, even moreso when these same evos blast critics like myself as if we are the ignorant ones here.This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 07:10 PM

RAZD, I am sorry but if at this point you cannot concede, yoy are beyond reason. The study has no relevance at all because it was not conducted relative to moths principal predators, nor do we know if industrial pollutants are the deciding factor because there are myriad other factors involved, and there is no reason to trust the methodologies involved either considering the error-ridden aspects of the study.Your attempts to get around this are woefully weak. You cannot show that birds even are a significant enough predator to make a difference, and quoting a study that isn't even aware that peppered moths are nocturnal is hardly evidence of any standards of scientific rigor.For example, are there any cases where birds actually do eat peppered moths that have been verified? What percentage of the peppered moths are eaten by birds?What other factors could be involved to explain darker moths in one region and lighter ones in another? For example, are we to believe the 2 different regions and forests are absolutely equal? It could just be that something completely unrelated is involved, and that darker moths have some other differing trait along with that.To make scientific claims based on a poorly done study as this, showing next to no knowledge of moths, birds, and bats, and then pass it off as science, is mere arrogance on your part and evolutionists' part in not wanting to admit the absurdities of your position.

Really. You know, eh? Based on what. Please explain how color affects bats hunting for prey. I am sorry, but it's not my fault you are so poorly educated that you cannot grasp the difference between 2 things occuring at the same time, and establishing causal relationships. It is not ad hoc to ask that any study show a causal relationship when it makes claims of something causing something, and part of that is ruling out other potential causes.Where does the study rule out other potential causes?Moreover, the study seems to focus on birds as predators of the moths, but fails to establish this because it erroneously tests for moths behaviour during the day-time, releasing them into the day-light in a manner that is not consistent with their normal behaviours. For example, if you drop someone into very cold water when they do not expect it, some people will drown that would otherwise live if they were prepared for the shock of entering cold water and could do so under their own, normal behavious patterns.The fact the study seems blissfully ignorant of bats as predators calls into questions the basic level of knowledge and logic by those doing the study. Have you ever been in a forest surrounding an area with a lot of soot and pollution? The study places great emphasis on the moths resting on tree trunks, but once again, the study assumes something that is not true, namely that moths typically rest on tree trunks. If you cannot see why basing conclusions on faulty assumptions makes the study erroneous, we have little to talk about.I would still wager that there are plenty of lightly colored items such as leaves in a forest next to industrial soot pollution. The study, emphasizing only tree trunks, is just plain bad science. So don't you think that just maybe the moths typically hide on something colored more like them in the day-time and thus the fact tree trunks are darker is a moot point?Also, is there any evidence that moths are primarily eaten during the day-time? So you consider the fact moths are mainly eaten by bats to be irrevalent? Maybe one type of bat prefers the darker colored moths and another the lightly colored moths, and can distinquish them by their flying patterns, and thus differing bat populations are to explain differences in types of moths found?That's not ad hoc by the way. That's asking for reasonable evidence to rule out other factors that are likely to be in play. To claim that bird predation is a significant factor without even mentioning bats shows the study is not comprehensive enough to be presented as conclusive.You also ignore the fact that the patterns of increasing melanin are not consistent in many areas with more pollution.This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 09:14 PM

And of course, natural selection is neither here nor there since this is presented as evidence for evolution, not just natural selection. In fact, trying to pass off natural selection as some sort of magical thing to create evolution is inherently dishonest, imo.Of course, species change, die off, etc,....but that doesn't on it's own even show speciation, much less macro-evolution.Truthfully, everything that ever happens can be considered natural selection, but that still is not some sort of real evidence for ToE.

Your snide tone is to be expected, totally dishonest in it's connotations I might add.Clearly, I answered the direct question here in as much as I can. I am not actually positive, but taking evo's word, increases in melanin during this period appear to have occured. From what I have read, the increases occurred in non-polluting areas as well. So I think it is fair to say, along with the other factors I mentioned, that the fact moths overall grew darker during this period could be attributed to any number of things.I realize you and others in your simplicity, think the fact something occurs during a particular period establishes causality, but that's not a scientific approach.For example, does the study detail the nature of the predators at that time overall. It could well be that what occurred is the species that prefers to eat black moths went extinct for some reason, and the increase had nothing to do with industrial pollutants.The truth is you guys would slam this study all day long if it was a creationist study because it is so faulty, but you defend it because you are not being honest and want to defend the practices of evolutionists.The simple fact more dark colored moths emerged during the industrial revolution, assuming that is true, means absolutely nothing in terms of attributing industrial pollution to the cause of more darker colored moths, and in reality, it is a superstitious approach sort of like a coach thinking he has a lucky jacket.The reason is the relationships between darker tree trunks, bird predation, and darker moths has not been well-established due to serious flaws in the study.This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 09:26 PM

They cannot validate the study's conclusions without considering all of the potential causes of darker moth coloration, such as bats, weather patterns affecting predator populations, etc, etc,...You have not shown even an awareness that these other factors need to be seriously considered, much less provided any data showing these factors were ruled out. In fact, you throw out ad hoc arguments saying, well, bird predation on tree trunks is significant, but show nothing to prove that.Do lightly colored moths normally rest on tree trunks? How often? Do they know to rest on more similar colored areas?How about at the caterpillar stage? Are there differences between light and darker moths that can affect their survivability?For example, have they shown whether one breed of moths are more susceptible to diseases than the other?I see none of the basic requirements necessary to make a solid conclusion, and moreover, you gloss over the fact that darker colored moths also increased in areas with very little pollution?How do you explain that? That suggests something besides air pollution was the determining factor.

Natural selection always occurs. It's part of reproduction, but that means very little as far as claiming this as evidence for evolution. No speciation occured.Do you deny no speciation occured?Additionally, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude bird predation has anything at all to do with more darker moths. Yes, in the sense that there is no conclusive evidence of this. Once again, there is no conclusive evidence of this. It is a totally unproven hypothesis. No, I don't deny it. Heck, I admit the studies seem to be blissfully ignorant of moth predators. The fact they are unaware that bats are a more signicant predator is actually a point in my favor, not your's.This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 09:40 PM

The were reported more darker moths emerging during the Industrial revolution, sure.But that is coorelation not causality, which is the subject of this thread.

Peppered moths are presented as evidence for evolution, as an example of evolution occuring. That's a patently false claim because natural selection alone does not equal evolution in the sense of of the ToE being true.Moreover, the claims are overstated, but passing off overstatements as facts is par for the course for evolutionists.

Not necessarily natural selection related to bird predation, no.The fact there are more caucasians in North America now and there used to be more Indians is also natural selection, and so is the fact species are going extinct, but none of that is relative here.Natural selection does not equal evolution.

So does this mean a darker moth is actually more visible to birds on a sooty tree trunk?

You know, it's amazing you can claim that. The logical fallacy here is to claim demonstrating natural selection alone is demonstrating evolution, and moreover to put forth a claim as faulty as peppered moths being selected for due to darker tree trunks is valid when there is no conclusive evidence to show that.The fact you cannot see ignoring things like bat predation as necessary for a proper analysis shows how incredibly closed to basic reason you are here. There is no way you would not be all over this, slamming these studies as totally worthless, if there were presented on the creationist side.At this point, there is not much else to say. Imo, I feel like I trying to convince a KLansmen that it's OK if his daughter marries a black guy.

I think I answered the fallacy of the study quite well, and do not see any rebuttals based on reasonable, factual analysis. So here is the same post I think adequately deals a deathblow to the OP.Petty demands of "yes, no" questions will be ignored because you are ignoring the points I raised.1. First off, no the study does not rule out all the various factors that could have influenced whether lightly colored or darkly colored moths became more dominant as a result of soot. It could be something else entirely, perhaps another aspect of pollution, coincidence, etc,...Unless someone can show where all of the other potential factors have been ruled out, please don't respond until you (evos here) provide that.2. Secondly, birds have the ability to see in the UV spectrum and the ignorance of that basic fact renders moot any conclusions about what birds actually see in this instance.It appears one study indicates UV vision reverses things, but perhaps I am misreading that. If you want to get into this subtopic, I'll answer you in that regard.3. Peppered moths are nocturnal and so releasing them in the day-time to draw conclusions about their behaviour also makes the study based on faulty data.Please cite the studies that show statistics related to bird versus bat predation, day-light habits, etc....Releasing moths into the day-light where they are stunned by the change is not a valid approach.4. In reality, birds are not even the primary predator of peppered moths, but rather bats are. Bats method of sensing prey is totally different, and relies on sound waves and thus bats tend to capture moths in flight rather than while they are resting. This fact further makes the claims of the study to be somewhat fantastic in nature and without solid scientific standing.Please cite where bat predation factors are accounted for.5. I have heard but not verified that these same experiments were repeated elsewhere in the world with the opposite results. As such, since the experiment is not repeatable, it falls down on that merit as well.Further posts ignoring the need for data to answer these questions will be ignored by me until they are dealt with. it is obviously unfruitful to continue if you guys are not willing to honestly deal with basic facts, such as considering bat predation versus bird predation, species changes among predators, etc,...This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 10:46 PM