|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Iconic Peppered Moth - gene mutation found | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Same process exactly, while losing the allele for the white moths. Little problem there. Whatever genetics produce light moths remains in the population. There are always a few light moths. As the trees' barks get lighter on average (because of the great decrease in pollution allowing increased lichen growth) the population is changing and now there are far more light moths than dark moths.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: how is it that a mutation so suited to the needs of the creature just happened to come along at the right time? Aren't mutations random accidents in DNA replication, and very rare and so on? Or is the ToE now reverting to Lamarckianism? Where is there any evidence that the mutation only came about when it was needed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: Even a dominant can more or less disappear in a large population where the recessive is strongly selected. That's how you can get a predominantly blue-eyed population. The only way you get dominant and recessive alleles of the same gene is through mutations. The reason that they are dominant and recessive is due to DNA sequence differences brought on by mutations. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The only way you get dominant and recessive alleles of the same gene is through mutations. The reason that they are dominant and recessive is due to DNA sequence differences brought on by mutations. That's pure theory, not something known by observation. If genetic material was built in from the Creation it included all the dominant and recessive forms of alleles and their combinations just as Mendel spelled them out. And it's bizarre to think you NEED mutations, since if you did get them as reliably as claimed, they would act EXACTLY like the built-in alleles would act anyway. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Where is there any evidence that the mutation only came about when it was needed? In Tangle's original post where he quoted the date for its appearance in the late 1800s at the height of the Industrial Revolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I was talking about the rise of the black moths due to the blackened tree trunks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
In Tangle's original post where he quoted the date for its appearance in the late 1800s at the height of the Industrial Revolution. I believe the quoted date was 1819+/- or so and not the late 1800s. That puts the age of the gene somewhere during the transition 50 year period leading up to the Industrial Revolution. The gene seems to have preceded the time when factories were belching out smoke. The height of the period would have been much later. Wikipedia gives dates for the first citings of the moths that are consistent with the age of the mutation. I understand that Tangle originated the idea that the date was coincidental with the height of the Industrial Revolution, but that does not really seem to be the case. Much less of a coincidence, but is it really that surprising? Absent the mutation, the moth might have have been wiped out, but that might only have made it one of the species that have been lost since industrialization. I think it is also important to note that because the gene is dominant, it also results in prolonged survival of white moths because some members of the species will carry the recessive gene while still being dark. So there is no immediate, permanent loss of genetic diversity. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That is evidence that it happened at a time when it was convenient, not that it only happened at a time when it was convenient. I've seen articles discussing how often the mutation happens. There's some reason to believe that it happens a few times a century or so, although I've forgotten the details.
But your original comment can't be addressed without an estimate of how often it happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
The thing Faith needs to remember is that it really is a multipart system. Mutations causing dark moths may well have been happening all along but before the soot phase of the industrial revolution they were simply dinner. It was only when the selection pressure changed that the dark moths had an advantage.
It was selection that determined this particular mutation got preserved. Any earlier examples of a similar mutation would have just been putting food on the table.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NN writes: In Tangle's original post where he quoted the date for its appearance in the late 1800s at the height of the Industrial Revolution.I believe the quoted date was 1819+/- or so and not the late 1800s. That puts the age of the gene somewhere during the transition 50 year period leading up to the Industrial Revolution. The gene seems to have preceded the time when factories were belching out smoke. The height of the period would have been much later. Wikipedia gives dates for the first citings of the moths that are consistent with the age of the mutation. I understand that Tangle originated the idea that the date was coincidental with the height of the Industrial Revolution, but that does not really seem to be the case. Much less of a coincidence, but is it really that surprising? Absent the mutation, the moth might have have been wiped out, but that might only have made it one of the species that have been lost since industrialization. The wiki actually says"The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840." The date of the mutation is given at around 1819.
Dr Pascal Campagne, who worked on the study, said: "Our best estimate of 1819 shows that the mutation event occurred during the industrial revolution and that it took around 30 years for it to become common enough to be noticed." The first documented sighting of a black moth was in Manchester in 1848. (Manchester was a particularly filthy city surrounded by coal mines, iron foundries and cotton mills powered by coal.)Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: That's pure theory, not something known by observation. The peppered moth's evolution from white to black and back to white again is pure observation. That's how we know about it - it is documented. The mechanism that allows the selective survival of black moths over white moths has been observed - the darkening of the trees on which the moths rest during the day leaving them open to predation against the newly black trunks. The predation process was reversed when the trees were no longer black. Observed and documented. The mutation that caused the original colour change from white to black has now been observed and dated. You no longer have an objection, this is the direct, observed evidence for evolution that you have been asking for.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The thing Faith needs to remember is that it really is a multipart system. Mutations causing dark moths may well have been happening all along but before the soot phase of the industrial revolution they were simply dinner. It was only when the selection pressure changed that the dark moths had an advantage. It was selection that determined this particular mutation got preserved. Any earlier examples of a similar mutation would have just been putting food on the table. If you'd been following my posts you would know that this is exactly what I said would be the situation if the black moth alleles were built in. While the whites were selected the blacks would show up from time to time in heterozygous form and be picked off by predators. It was only when the whites started getting picked off instead (selected against) that the blacks could start to multiply. Same thing whether built in or mutated. If a black mutation occurred during the white advantage and managed to survive, then it would fare exactly as it would if it was a built in allele -- its numbers would stay small because of being constantly picked off by predators. However, if it did arise during the time the whites had the advantage it would have a very low probability of surviving at all. But you even have black moth mutations "happening all along" as if it's that common an event that the same locus has the same mutation over and over again? Is mutation ever described in such terms? If the timing is that exquisite that it has to happen either over and over again, or just when the conditions for its selection are optimum, is this really mutation, meaning a random accident of replication? What are the odds? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I wasn't talking about the single mutation of the peppered moths but responding to Taq's generalization about mutations in general.
However, I'll respond to this:
The peppered moth's evolution from white to black and back to white again is pure observation. That's how we know about it - it is documented. The mechanism that allows the selective survival of black moths over white moths has been observed - the darkening of the trees on which the moths rest during the day leaving them open to predation against the newly black trunks. The predation process was reversed when the trees were no longer black. Observed and documented.
That much is common knowledge, and quite easily explained in terms of a built-in allele for the black moth. Mutation is in fact harder to explain. See my post to jar above. There is something very very weird about the idea that it was a mutation instead of built-in for the reasons I give there. You either need many same or similar mutations at the same locus to counteract the constant loss to predation, which doesn't fit with the general observations of mutations as random accidents of replication, or you have to count on one mutation surviving against ridiculous odds, or showing up so exactly at the right time that only a teleological mechanism could explain it. Not what the ToE normally has in mind. There has to be something wrong with the science that supposedly "observed" this mutation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: If you'd been following my posts you would know that this is exactly what I said would be the situation if the black moth alleles were built in. While the whites were selected the blacks would show up from time to time in heterozygous form and be picked off by predators. It was only when the whites started getting picked off instead (selected against) that the blacks could start to multiply. But Faith you have provided no evidence of any built in conditions and all the evidence shows that is NOT the case nor have you provided a model, process, mechanism, procedure or thingamabob that would explain how the genes would get transferred when the critter gets eaten immediately.
Faith writes: But you even have black moth mutations "happening all along" as if it's that common an event that the same locus has the same mutation over and over again? Again, no one but you is making such a claim. We cannot know about the frequency or whether or not there are multiple genetic pathways to dark moths but all the evidence seems to show that there are several possible genetic pathways to almost any condition.
Faith writes: If the timing is that exquisite that it has to happen either over and over again, or just when the conditions for its selection are optimum, is this really mutation, meaning a random accident of replication? What are the odds? Of course it is random just as selection is random. And we do know for a fact (as I have pointed out to you) that mutations do happen constantly and in every generation of almost every population (there are populations of cloned critters where there is no genetic variation but moths are not one of those critters). Remember when I pointed out to you that your DNA is unique and identifies YOU uniquely? Even the DNA of siblings born from the same Mother and Father is different enough to uniquely identify each individual. Those differences are due to mutations. So we know mutations happen all the time. We know that selection changes all the time. We know that samples of DNA from critters that lived tens of thousands of years ago show DNA that is still similar enough to what we see today to allow us to identify the species even when the sample is just from stomach contents. The current Theory of Evolution provided a model, mechanism, method and procedure that explains what is seen. The evidence from all lines of inquiry and science support that model. There is no "exquisite timing". The odds of anything that did happen in the past is now 100%.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Of course it is random just as selection is random
Missing a "not:?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024