Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 151 of 173 (136578)
08-24-2004 2:41 PM


Topic has gone long past its original theme - Closing down
Take the moth stuff to:
Wells' Icons of Evolution - Peppered Moths
or perhaps:
Book Review: Of Moths and Men
This topic closed.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 2:53 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 154 of 173 (136588)
08-24-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
08-24-2004 2:55 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
As I understand it bird predation is known as a factor. This article establishes that it has been established as the major (but not only) factor
Moonshine: Why the Peppered Moth Remains an Icon of Evolution
quote:
Kettlewell (1955, 1956, 1959) showed that the melanic form of the moth predominated primarily because of predation by birds. He did not think that predation was the only cause of industrial melanism and in fact speculated as to the relative strengths of other causes. Briefly, he performed a number of experiments (Musgrave 2004, Grant 1999, Kettlewell 1959):
1.Release-recapture experiments. Kettlewell marked and released both light-colored and melanic moths early in the morning, and recaptured some the next night. In polluted woods, he and his assistants recaptured more melanic moths than light-colored (1955, 1956), whereas in unpolluted woods they captured more light-colored than melanic (1956).
2.Direct observation (1955, 1956) and filming (1956). Kettlewell and others observed birds eating moths directly off trunks of trees.
3.Camouflage. Kettlewell visually ranked the effectiveness of camouflage of moths on different backgrounds and compared the effectiveness of camouflage with predation rates both in an aviary and in the field. He did not know that birds had ultraviolet vision, which his observers lacked, but got nevertheless a good correlation between camouflage and predation. Later research has shown that the moths are camouflaged in the ultraviolet as well as in the visible (Musgrave 2004).
4.Geographical distribution. He noted that the distribution of the melanic moths in the country closely matched the areas of industrialization (Bishop and Cook 1957).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 2:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 4:17 PM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 156 of 173 (137422)
08-27-2004 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Percy
08-24-2004 4:17 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
OK so the moths were (mainly) in the canopy in the release-and-recapture experiment.
We know that something was removing adult moths from the population - and favoured dark moths in unpolluted areas and light moths in polluted areas. Predation is the most likely explanation.
We know from the other experiments that birds displayed the same selective bias, and we know that they do hunt in the canopies (and on the trunks and branches where the moths have also been seen).
And if the colour during the night matters less (and I'd agree there) then the moths were probably eaten during the day while they rested. Most birds are active durng the day.
Sounds like a good case for bird predation to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 08-24-2004 4:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 08-28-2004 8:43 AM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 159 of 173 (137794)
08-29-2004 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
08-28-2004 8:43 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
I don't see this conversation in the same way you do.
Which if any of the follwoing statements would you disagree wiht:
1) We know that there is a selective effect going on (the release and recapture results)
2) We have good reason to beleive that bird predation is a part of it (the experiments with captive moths, combined with the fact that moths do rest on the trunks).
3) Given our background information it is reasonable to extrapolate the results of the experiments with captive moths to other parts of the trees, including the canopy.
4) While this does not constitute absolute certainty it does present a strong case that bird predation is a major factor in the selection

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 08-28-2004 8:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 9:02 AM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 161 of 173 (137817)
08-29-2004 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
08-29-2004 9:02 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
I would object to the third in that I don't believe that any of the Biblical records are eyewitness accounts from Jesus' life. And I would qualify the last with the fact that Josephus' major mention of Jesus is lkely an interpolation in whole or in part (the second, shorter message most likely is genuine).
If I accepted them all then I would agree that they constituted a strong case that there was a historical Jesus (which I believe anyway).
I really don't see the problem here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 9:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 11:33 AM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 163 of 173 (137836)
08-29-2004 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
08-29-2004 11:33 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
Well as we've seen in other threads Creationists usually value their own opinions over virtually anything short of absolute proof. 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.
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. Or you can explain where you were going with your last couplweof posts but right nw I really don't see what you are objecting to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 11:33 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 9:44 PM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 165 of 173 (137954)
08-29-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Percy
08-29-2004 9:44 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
...before we can legitimately continue offering this as a premier example of natural selection in the wild.
Isn't "premier" simply being the most famous which comes from being "oldest" and in lots of old text books.
How big a deal is this now? Are there other examples that could replace this is the textbooks didn't have so much "momentum"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 9:44 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