Summations Only

Thank you for concurring as well, that the peppered moths demonstrate natural selection, due to preferential predation of the moths, based on their relative appearance related to the backgrounds they inhabited. As noted, this topic is not about speciation. Nor is it about "kinds" -- kindly take such discussion to another thread.Thanks, and enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome back SomeOneWhoCares ... not. Still can't get it right can you? Yes, and if you read the opening post for content you would see that:{A} It was never claimed that moths changed into butterflies or even into a different species of moth, but that natural selection changed the relative proportions of the populations of existing varieties of peppered moth first one way and then the other in response to pollution and it's abatement: thus your attempted characterization of it like this above is a totally false one, typical of your search for "truth" as you claim on your website eh?{B}It was never claimed that the genetic code "added" as all that happened is a change in the frequencies of alleles in the populations: thus your attempted characterization of it like this above is a totally false one, typical of your search for "truth" as you claim on your website eh?AND{C} It was never claimed that "Macroevolution" was involved or observed (especially of the "kind" your really ludicrous and inherently false characterization of evolution involving sudden "new organs or tissues"): thus your attempted characterization of it like this above is a totally false one, typical of your search for "truth" as you claim on your website eh?Further, the moths also did NOT change colors -- each variety stayed the same colors they were before, they just changed in the numbers present\surviving within each variety population due to differential predation: thus your attempted characterization of it like this above is another totally false one, typical of your search for "truth" as you claim on your website eh?You not only get it totally wrong but you do it 4 times in 4 sentences (100% eror rate) and STILL didn't post a single thing relevant to what was actually included in the study or the conclusions.I checked your website recently btw, just out of curiosity to see if you had made any corrections to the falsehoods that have been noted about it. I saw you had added some material but had not made those corrections. This shows your dedication to truth and integrity eh?Still standing tall for misrepresentations and false characterizations eh?Perhaps you like to return to the LUCY thread and deal with your comprehension problems there as well ... Message 22We can ask for the thread to be reopened just for you to answer on it.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Curious, why were you suspended?I don't understand why you haven't learned that evolution is false yet... Guess I'm not trying hard enough... Let's see then.

quote:

---

{A} It was never claimed that moths changed into butterflies or even into a different species of moth, but that natural selection changed the relative proportions of the populations of existing varieties of peppered moth first one way and then the other in response to pollution and it's abatement: thus your attempted characterization of it like this above is a totally false one, typical of your search for "truth" as you claim on your website eh?

---

I know you didn't claim that, if you did, you would be lying and knowing about it too. What I AM saying is that pepper moths do NOT show macroevolution. So what if you showed part of natural selection in action? You failed to show it in action for MACROEVOLUTION. Thus you were only supporting the proof that only microevolution happens and that God made a nice filter process to keep the strong and healthy and adaptive animals reproducing.

quote:

---

{B}It was never claimed that the genetic code "added" as all that happened is a change in the frequencies of alleles in the populations: thus your attempted characterization of it like this above is a totally false one, typical of your search for "truth" as you claim on your website eh?

---

Once again, I KNOW that you never claimed this. What I AM saying is that you have failed to show macroevolution, which would require genetic information increases. Which would make your whole pepper moth story irrelevant to the subject- evolution, macroevolution.

quote:

---

{C} It was never claimed that "Macroevolution" was involved or observed (especially of the "kind" your really ludicrous and inherently false characterization of evolution involving sudden "new organs or tissues"): thus your attempted characterization of it like this above is a totally false one, typical of your search for "truth" as you claim on your website eh?

---

I was assuming you were using the pepper moth example as support for evolution, macroevolution. But if you weren't, why else would you have posted it if it was irrelevant to the subject of discussion? If all you did was show microevolution and natural selection working with it, as the way God made it, to have a better world, why would you put it in a forum about Evolution versus Creation and be an evolutionist?

quote:

---

Further, the moths also did NOT change colors -- each variety stayed the same colors they were before, they just changed in the numbers present\surviving within each variety population due to differential predation: thus your attempted characterization of it like this above is another totally false one, typical of your search for "truth" as you claim on your website eh?

---

I forgot that. Excuse me then, the moths DIDN'T change colors. (Still clearing some cobwebs from my evolution arguments, been a while since my last debate...)

quote:

---

I checked your website recently btw, just out of curiosity to see if you had made any corrections to the falsehoods that have been noted about it. I saw you had added some material but had not made those corrections. This shows your dedication to truth and integrity eh?

---

Actually, reread my essay on evolution there. I did make a few rewordings to make it more proper, just recently.

quote:

---

Perhaps you like to return to the LUCY thread and deal with your comprehension problems there as well ...

---

What problems? Lucy was a chimpanzee, nothing more. No human characteristics to make it a hominid.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

For saying someone had no integrity instead of saying that their posts demonstrated a lack of integrity.Like yours would seem to do. Kind of like you saying that I am lying. So you know I didn't claim something, but create an argument that I did, just so that you can refute the false argument I did not make?That is called a strawman argument, a logical fallacy. All the rest of you responses are of a similar false from the start error. Because that is the way science works -- validate the concept with evidence.The real question is why creationists like you seem to need to make it into something it isn't. Not to find the truth it would appear -- certainly not by putting false statements in my mouth.You do seem to be trying real hard to spread misrepresentations and falsehoods, with the pretense of spreading truth. What do you call someone who spreads misrepresentations and falsehoods and claims that they are {TRUTH}? Do you call that "standing tall" for misrepresentations and falsehoods? Don't you mean since the last time you ran away from the evidence that what you were posting was full of misrepresentations and falsehoods, including your "essay" (I think there was a thread that was started about it just so you could defend your misrepresentations and falsehoods -- and that was when you left, but hey - I could be wrong about that - you can answer this on A Critique of the "Evolution Essay")? Try {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal for discussing this. It is off topic here as this has nothing to do with moths.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added link to essay discussion thread

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Right, we know that. However, the observations DO quite clearly show how natural selection acting on variations in a population can change the frequency of alleles in that population. In "real time", no less. Which, of course, is the topic of this thread. Anyone who tries to claim the observations show something else is creating a strawman. Well, duh. They didn't even speciate. What's your point? This is bizarre. You need to dig up one of the myriad threads on "information" and defend this contention there. Again, duh. And again, yet another strawman of evolution.I think you have a couple of options here: 1) learn something about the subject you are attempting vainly to criticize - because your insistence on things like "genetic code increasing" and the old canard about a chicken from a lizard's egg that part C indicates, shows you know very little about what the ToE actually says; 2) Open a thread to defend the general basis - in detail - any given one of the three contentions you've made here, because all of your assertions are evidently based on misunderstanding some of the very basic concepts of biology and evolution. Of course, you could surprise us...Edited by Quetzal, : changed experiment to observation in the first sentence

This comment demonstrates a lack of perspicacity. Of course, this is only a comment about your post and should not be construed as implying anything about you personally. No association whatsoever should be inferred. By they way, your post also demonstrates a lack of personal hygiene and general attractiveness. Again, not a personal comment, I'm only talking about your post. Seriously, my advice is always the same: keep discussion focused on the thread's topic and not on the people you're debating with. Adding a level of indirection so you can say, for example, "I only said his post was stupid, not that he was stupid," isn't a significant distinction.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

That is surprise, I do not know.
Yet it is then obvious, that we are not sure - instead of so many experiments to prove industrial melanism - where the peppered moths rest during day.Let me cite from your neodarwinistic link "FINE TUNING THE PEPPERED MOTH PARADIGM":"Mikkola (1984), based on his observations of moths kept in
captivity, suggested that peppered moths hide by day on the underside of branches in the canopy."to come to the conclusion:"In truth, we still don't know the natural hiding places of peppered moths."
It may be then only unproven darwinistic assumption, that peppered moths are eaten during day by birds and that there exists selection pressure at all. According Eisner birds, despite that butterflies are most conspicuous insects, avoid them, eat them very infrequently.I personally will be very glad to read some article about how "palatable" peppered moths really are, if it is convinient for birds (and simple) to look after them on bottom parts of branches in the canopy. Some experiments in the aviary where birds have nothing else to choise for eating and where peppered moths are light accessible on wall is not of relevance.Because we know, that some locusts (grasshopers) as Oeddipoda caerulescens or Oedipoda germanica change their colour on on wings during larval stage through vision channels (Suchantke:"Metamorphosen in Insektenreich").Is this not also possible explanation for peppered moths?That peppered moths change color according environment (whatever the mechanism is) without any selective pressure from birds and that this case of peppered moths do corroborate neither darwinistic selectionism nor neodarwinism as theory. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Could you explain somewhat more fully what you mean here? Alternatively could you provide a more accessible reference since I don't seem to be able to find "Metamorphosen im Insektenreich" except on e-bay and Amazon in germany. I can't find anything by Suchantke on pubmed either.TTFN,WK

I beleive that Kettlewell's experiments established that birds will eat peppered moths given the opportunity. And wherever peppered moths prefer to rest during the day it is unlikely to be inaccessible to small birds.Can you suggest how your explanation is supposed to actually work ? And how it explains the results of Kettlewell's experiments ?

Is it? Do you have any link/publication where this was really observed?

I have Slovak - sorry, Czech - translation. Book has about 110 pages with many pictures and interesting facts. I only cited S., he does not dwell on this phenomenon.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

It is not a possible explanation. You should learn something about the subject before attempting to criticise. The peppered moth has been extensively studied, and individual moths do not change color over time or under any kind of pressure or environment. The statistics of the populations have been investigated in many experiments. The color differences are due to a mutation in a gene that causes melanin production. The "dark" allele is dominant, so a moth must have two "light" alleles to be light. The dark mutation is "recurrent", in that it arises anew once in a while; but, before industrialization, the dark moths were at such a disadvantage that the light moths were far in the majority.We know that the coloration is due to genetics and nothing else, and we know that dark and light moths are that way because of their alleles.

From Peppered moth predation experiments:

quote:

---

Moths were released into a large (18m by 6m) aviary, where they were fed on by great tits, (Parus major).

---

ABE: From the distinctly anti-evolution Jonathan Wells at Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths:

quote:

---

In the 1950’s, British entomologist Bernard Kettlewell set out to resolve the issue empirically. Like Tutt, Kettlewell believed that industrial melanism was due to cryptic coloration and selective predation, and he used three experimental approaches to test the theory. First, he estimated the moths’ camouflage efficiency on various backgrounds, as judged by the human eye. Second, he directly observed bird predation through binoculars. Third, he marked and released larger numbers of moths, then recaptured some and compared the pre-release to post-recapture proportions.

​

Kettlewell’s first experiment was conducted in an aviary containing a pair of nesting birds and their young. He released peppered moths into the aviary, and watched through binoculars as they settled onto resting sites and were subsequently eaten by the birds. Kettlewell (1955) thus established that birds do, in fact, prey on resting peppered moths.

---

{emphasis added}{end ABE} Well, then, hie thee to a library and start with Kettlewells's 1953 and 1955 papers. So far you haven't done even an Internet search. How do you know they had no other choices? How do you know how accessible the moths were? Even if there was nothing else to eat and the moths were accessible, why is it not relevant? It shows that birds will eat peppered moths and not avoid them.Edited by JonF, : Added quote from Wells

I'm sure that everyone can observe that birds can get into many places that would not be easily accessible to humans

We already have a thread to discuss "Somone Who Cares" and his "essay" on evolution at A Critique of the "Evolution Essay"The link to the "essay" is on the first post in that thread, and you will see numerous errors and false statements.It would be an excellent place for "Someone Who Cares" to show his comprehension of ........ (fill in the blank).