|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Peppered Moths and Natural Selection | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
See Message 140 for an explanation of what was fixed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Typica alleles should have been created by mutation during industrialization. I would like see if the pollution would have made green or blue sooths, it there would be also mutation in this color. No mutation was involved in the natural selection of one variety of already existing moth over the other variety of already existing moth. Environment does not cause mutations to match the environment.
But then ratio between heterozygotes without any selective predation after 100 years will be 1:0,36 Without selective predation pressure, the genetic equilibrium would be 25% homozygous carbonaria, 50% heterozygous carbonaria, and 25% homozygous typica, with 50% carbonaria alleles and 50% typica alleles. With selective predation on typica varieties, the ratio of homozygous carbonaria to heterozygous carbonaria depends on a lot of factors that are not documented, including proportion consumed prior to reproductive success and on gene flow between adjacent populations always importing heterozygous moths into areas with depleted typica alleles (like water flowing downhill). After 100 years\generations, it can easily vary from (37.1%/84.7=43.8% homozygous carbonaria) / (47.6%/84.7=56.2% heterozygous carbonaria) when only 1% of typica are consumed prior to reproductive success (with remaining 14.3% typica consumed after) ... ... to (96% homozygous carbonaria)/(4% heterozygous carbonaria) when 50% of typica moths are consumed prior to reproductive success. The cause for the absence of typica moths from the samples collected is preferential predation by birds. The cause for the shift in proportions of typica alleles from 50% of the population in one without any preferential predation pressure to either of those levels above is preferential predation by birds.
And we do not know when and where mating occurs and how are selection effective before/after mating. And this really doesn't matter for us to know that (a) the cause for the absence of typica moths from the samples collected is preferential predation by birds, and (b) the cause for the shift in proportions of typica alleles from 50% of the population for one without any preferential predation pressure to either of those levels above is preferential predation by birds.
In any case selective predation seems to have no dramatic influence as to the typica, while it recovers own population in short time after change of environment, so selection seems to be incapable to reverse population into typica and vice versa. Yes, changing from 99% typica 1% carbonaria to 1% typica 99% carbonaria and then from 1% typica 99% carbonaria to 99% typica 1% carbonaria is not dramatic at all. Again, the genetic equilibrium population proportions in the absence of any preferential selective mechanism is 25% homozygous carbonaria, 50% heterozygous carbonaria, and 25% homozygous typica, so any population that is NOT at those levels is being subject to preferential selection = preferential predation by birds in this case. The recovery of typica variety to 25% of the population is all that can happen without the assistance of preferential predation -- no matter how many generations it takes, no matter what reservoir the typica alleles come from. How rapid the recovery is initiated is a matter of how much typica alleles were still existing in the reproductive reservoir of the populations, ... ... and with the possibility of non-polluted populations moving into non-polluted environments the apparent recovery rate can be higher ... ... but the final result - typica variety moths at ~99% of the post-pollution population - is still due to preferential predation of (now) carbonaria variety moths by birds. No matter how you slice the data, preferential predation plays a significant role in the observed proportions of typica and carbonaria moths in pre-industrial, industrial polluted and post industrial polluted areas.
In any case neodarwinism as to the selection would be right, no? Those best able to survive and reproduce pass their genes to the next generation. That is all natural selection does - distinguish between those BETTER able to survive and reproduce and those LESS able to survive and reproduce. It does not matter WHAT that fitness feature is, just that it be existing within the population under selection pressure.
Yet mechanism of hidden alleles which were previously succesfull in heteroyzgotes seems to me be very good device how not to react headless to change of environment. The genes don't even need to be that "hidden" - it depends on the degree of selection pressure involved: if only 1% were consumed prior to reproductive success there is still an effect on the population, and you would still have 15.3% of the preferential predation consumed typica moths in a generation after 100 years\generations. This is a drop from 25% for genetic equilibrium, or 60% of the equilibrium value: this is still natural selection. Natural selection only needs SOME proportion of the population to be preferentially selected for it to have an effect on the proportions of alleles within the overall population/ Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JohnnyHads Inactive Junior Member |
Is the original post claiming that if the population of moths becomes mainly black, or mainly white because of natural selection (survival of the fittest) that its an example of evolution??
Surely black moth > white moth isnt evolution in any educated persons mind. moth = moth If so, questions must be asked to help the ignorant find common sense. Such as: Can this moth create a non moth? Did the white moth cohabit with the black moth before the population changes due to the industrial revolution? If these questions beg for yes answers, then either Im not geting the point of the original post about peppered moths or I AM getting the point and its author is ignorant and brainwahsed for someones personal agenda.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
You're not getting the point.
TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray JohnnyHads
Is the original post claiming that if the population of moths becomes mainly black, or mainly white because of natural selection (survival of the fittest) that its an example of evolution?? The OP clearly states that this is an example of natural selection. Natural selection is a part of evolution, but does not include all of the mechanisms involved.
Did the white moth cohabit with the black moth before the population changes due to the industrial revolution? Yes, they were previously existing varieties of the moths, with the carbonaria (that's "black" for you, although "dark" is much more accurate) in much smaller proportions than typica (that's "white" for you, although "light" is much more accurate). Natural selection operates on existing variations within a population, letting those better able to survive to live and pass on their genetic patterns to the next generation.
... or I AM getting the point and its author is ignorant and brainwahsed for someones personal agenda. LOL. Nothing like starting your career here with an open ad hominum insult that is in violation of the board rules.
Surely black moth > white moth isnt evolution in any educated persons mind. moth = moth Can this moth create a non moth? Speciation is evolution, and it has been observed. Species will always be members of whatever group their ancestors were members of. Creating something unrelated from one species or another is an ignorant creationist straw man argument and has nothing to do with the theories of evolution.
If so, questions must be asked to help the ignorant find common sense. Ask away, and we'll be happy to help. Or you could start by reading the entire thread first, then go back and ask questions on parts you still don't understand. Enjoy ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:quote boxes are easy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That's the conclusion of a new study by Michael Majerus, specifically designed to test the bird predation hypothesis.
A PDF transcription of his talk about it at ESEB in Uppsala is available at The Peppered Moth: The Proof of Darwinian Evolution. Hopfully the PowerPoint slides will be available soon and, of course, we look forward to a peer-reviewed publication. The Panda's Thumb has a blurb at Peppered Moths: We Told You So.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Can this moth create a non moth? Can a member of your family ever give birth to someone who isn't in your family? We use words like "moth" to describe families of organisms. By definition, their decendants must always be a part of that family. What usually happens is that a word like "moth", over time, describes so many different shapes of organism that we begin sub-dividing the term. That's what happened with the word "mammal", in a way. Originally, "mammal" described a certain kind of hairy lizard: but as that organism had decendants, and those decendants were shaped by natural selection and random mutation - which we see going on now in moths - the word "mammal" came to describe many very different organisms: Do you see what I mean? Originally there was one sort of mammal, one sort of insect. Over time, the number of different sorts of organisms expanded within those terms so that they became very broad categories of organism, but once they might have been as specific as "golden-crested wood finch" might be, now. Once there was only one sort of moth. Now there are very many sorts of moths, via evolution. The number of sorts of moths might increase to the point where the term "moth" is so broad we stop using it altogether, and we describe some of those decendants as so distantly related that we don't even bother to call them "moths" anymore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
There's a new discussion of the state of the art things Peppered Moth at Panda's Thumb:
Page not found · GitHub Pages For whatever it's worth, there's also another Peppered Moth topic at . It's Wells' Icons of Evolution - Peppered Moths. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
There's a new discussion of the state of the art things Peppered Moth at Panda's Thumb Beat'cha to it! Message 261.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Now both Majerus' script and PowerPoint presentation are available at Majerus Lab Evolutionary Genetics Group. Some highlights:
quote:
quote: quote:
quote: quote: quote:
quote: Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : Slight table formatting cleanup
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5856 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
The link that you have given shows an intersting photo of "A female parasitoid wasp ovipositing into a 7-spot ladybird". Obviously ladybird has enemies and red colors have no aposematic function as darwinists claim - opposite is more plausible in the case. Wasps should be happy about coloration of ladybirds. The color play obviously no role in "fitness" or "natural selection" in this case. I'll check the Majerus work on the issue later.
As to the peppered moth I do not see in your extraction any mention of lichens. It is important to notice in which background typica/carbonaria rests during day. Anyway it is positive that Majerus reserched more closely resting place of moths. Darwinists claim more than 100 years that selection of peppered moths has led to difference in their coloration rate without any study where they rest. In the previous Majerus research he presented a picture, where typica resting on some kind of lichens was unconspicuous in normal light, but very conspicuous in UV light. On the other hand I dont know about eating behaviour of the birds. Do they noticing one piece of moth flies towards it from other tree immediately? Just to pick one moth from the tree-trunk? Or do they eat everything on the place they are sitting at? In that case the bird will notice all mimics and eat them too. If those questions are not answered I am afraid we are still as we were 50 years ago when Kettlewel started his "experiments". We suppose that predators selection is responsible for chaging of moth populations without experiments proving it. It' still the ad-hoc explanation that should prove natural selection as responsible of the phenomenon. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alan Fox Member (Idle past 2010 days) Posts: 32 From: France Joined: |
MartinV writes: ...Kettlewel started his "experiments". Are the scare-quotes intended to imply that Kettlewell's (note spelling) data were invalid, rather than just illustrative photos being posed due to the difficulty of photographing live moths? I fully understand you have an objection to evolutionary mechanisms, but I am having difficulty in seeing precisely what that is, in relation to peppered moths. Evolution is postulated to occur within a population of organisms when there is competition for scarce resources and variation in that population which is inheritable. Is your objection:1) that RM + NS never occurs, 2) that RM + NS can occur but is not happening in the case of camouflage in peppered moths. This might conceivably reduce the amount of time various posters waste in discussing issues relating to one species, only to have you ignore their post and blithely move on to some other point. If your objection is fundamentally against the entire concept, I would consider it reasonable for you to say so. I would also be interested, {presupposing 1)}, in hearing if you have any alternative mechanism, so long as you have more than the word "saltus".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The link that you have given shows an intersting photo of "A female parasitoid wasp ovipositing into a 7-spot ladybird". Obviously ladybird has enemies and red colors have no aposematic function as darwinists claim - opposite is more plausible in the case. Wasps should be happy about coloration of ladybirds. The color play obviously no role in "fitness" or "natural selection" in this case. The title of this thread is not "MartinV whines about aposematism again".
As to the peppered moth I do not see in your extraction any mention of lichens. It is important to notice in which background typica/carbonaria rests during day. Anyway it is positive that Majerus reserched more closely resting place of moths. Darwinists claim more than 100 years that selection of peppered moths has led to difference in their coloration rate without any study where they rest. This is not true, and we know it's not true, and you know it's not true, and you know we know it's not true, and we know you know it's not true, and you know we know you know it's not true. So why bother saying it?
If those questions are not answered I am afraid we are still as we were 50 years ago when Kettlewel started his "experiments". Actually, no. Majerus' results will continue to be meaningful whether or not you can be bothered to look up all the things you don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5856 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
quote: Kettlewel observed resting positions of peppered moths on striped barell and noticed that carbonaria and melanica choosen stripes in accord with their wing coloration. It means melanica rested on white, carbonaria rested on black stripes. It means they choosen their resting backgrounds. I suppose industrial revolution didn't polute whole areas from one day to another. It took some time. So melanica having less places to rest moved to less poluted places. You know darwinian gradualism - they rested every day 10 meters more away from chimneys. After 10 years they were off and only carbonaria remain. Natural selection has nothing to do with it - melanica perhaps just relocated to clean areas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I suppose industrial revolution didn't polute whole areas from one day to another. It took some time. So melanica having less places to rest moved to less poluted places. ... Natural selection has nothing to do with it - melanica perhaps just relocated to clean areas. Even IF you were right about emigration, you would still be wrong about natural selection, for that would have caused the emigration -- the movement of the moths in response to the changing environment would have selected for their survival. But you are also wrong (as usual) about the preferential selection by bird predation NOT being involved, documented, verified, replicated. Enjoy. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024