Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wells' Icons of Evolution - Peppered Moths
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 88 (103133)
04-27-2004 4:45 PM


So, to sum up:
--The mocked up pictures were meant to show the difference in camoflage capabilities between phenotypes.
--The darker phenotype increased in the population in corelation with increased pollution and darkening of tree branches.
--The moths spend time on the darkened branches of trees where they are susceptible to bird predation.
Conclusion: the increase of the darker phenotype is due to predation of the less camoflaged, lighter moths. This is an example of natural selection.
Why do creationists have a problem with this study? Is it because the pictures were stressed more than the data? Should the mocked photos be a reason to throw out solid data?
Is it just me, or do creationists avoid the data?

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 04-27-2004 5:48 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 88 (103398)
04-28-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by cromwell
04-28-2004 6:30 AM


Re: The prepared myth
quote:
Taking the figures shown and expanding the amount a little,you can get an idea of the amount of peppered moths within the woodlands.Not many,and then looking at how many very rarely land on the trees and the rarity of being victims due to the camouflage,it is easy to see that there isn’t enough substantial material to formulate conclusions that camouflage is the answer to melanic changes.
Just for exercise, and with the caveat that I haven't seen the actual number of trees observed, lets pretend that the research group looked at 1000 trees over that same time period. Lets then pretend that there are approx 1 million trees that are habitat for the moth and affected by pollution. That would mean that there are 1000 moths open to predation by 74 days (extrapolated from your 1 moth per 74 days on my possible 1000 trees). This would mean approx. 20,000 moths per year, and 1 million moths over 50 years. Also, the mercury light traps did not cover the entire tree. Just for a guess, maybe 10% of the tree. This moves our number up to 10 million moths over 50 years. If the traps only covered 1% of the tree, taking into account smaller twigs and branches, then the number is up to 100 million moths over 50 years. So let's call it between 10 to 100 million so far.
I am making quite a few assumptions in the above calculations, so feel free to criticize my numbers. But 10-100 million sounds pretty good to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by cromwell, posted 04-28-2004 6:30 AM cromwell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by cromwell, posted 04-28-2004 6:00 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 20 by cromwell, posted 04-28-2004 6:10 PM Loudmouth 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