Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 5:08 PM
48 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx, vimesey (6 members, 42 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,597 Year: 3,634/19,786 Month: 629/1,087 Week: 219/212 Day: 34/27 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Wells' Icons of Evolution - Peppered Moths
JonF
Member
Posts: 4482
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 46 of 88 (104513)
05-01-2004 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by cromwell
05-01-2004 5:35 AM


Re: aAmoth is a moth .dark or light....its a moth.
They have not provided calculations either.

Er, yes, they have. Wells just didn't quote them. Consult the primary literature. Just for example, from The peppered moth: a black and white story after all (which I have recommended several times .. have you read it?), with emphasis added:

quote:
JBS Haldane calculated long ago that the melanics must have had about 50% higher survival than typical mottled forms to explain the rapid rise in melanic gene frequency. In the last half of the last century, field experiments at 35 sites were performed by a number of scientists. These experiments directly demonstrated how bird predation affected the survival of adult moths, and demonstrated that the strength of natural selection was of the same order as that required by Haldane's calculations ...

{Figure 3 caption} Relative fitness of adult typica (normal, pale form) compared with carbonaria (melanic form) in 35 field experiments with the peppered moth, Biston betularia. The survival data are plotted against the frequency of typica in the population, and the trend shows that adults of each form tend to have higher survival in areas where its own form is most abundant, as expected under the industrial melanism hypothesis. The equation for the best-fitting line is y = 0.83 + 0.65x; r2 = 0.20, P=0.007). The data are from Cook (2000); see also Lees (1981). Laurence Cook has told me he doesn't believe the simple regression analysis performed here is sensible, as different groups of experiments were done in very different ways and with different sample sizes. However, I am merely using this regression as a conservative heuristic tool to display the data, because I believe it shows the results clearly. Cook's own (2000) sample-size-weighted analysis of the data after log-transforming the relative fitness values gave similar results (P <0.001).


Is there really evidence that the mechanism behind variant changes in the peppered moth is by natural selection?

There certainly is. It may not be conclusive enough for you or Wells, but it's conclusive enough for most people (and, of course, Wells wouldn't believe it unless God or Sun Myung Moon told him it was so). When a better alternative theory arises, or when NS is disproven, or even when somebody proposes a viable alternative hypothesis, scientists will listen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by cromwell, posted 05-01-2004 5:35 AM cromwell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by cromwell, posted 05-01-2004 10:33 AM JonF has responded

  
cromwell
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 88 (104518)
05-01-2004 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by JonF
05-01-2004 9:43 AM


Re:Weapons of moth destruction
I only glanced over that site.I'll read it properly.

>>There certainly is (NS). It may not be conclusive enough for you or Wells, but it's conclusive enough for most people (and, of course, Wells wouldn't believe it unless God or Sun Myung Moon told him it was so). When a better alternative theory arises, or when NS is disproven, or even when somebody proposes a viable alternative hypothesis, scientists will listen.<<

In your opinion,did you find the the calculations thorough enough,taking into consideration all aspects that i mentioned before,those that should be involved in correct experimentation on predation of the peppered moth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by JonF, posted 05-01-2004 9:43 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by JonF, posted 05-01-2004 3:07 PM cromwell has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4482
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 48 of 88 (104575)
05-01-2004 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by cromwell
05-01-2004 10:33 AM


Re: Re:Weapons of moth destruction
In your opinion,did you find the the calculations thorough enough,taking into consideration all aspects that i mentioned before,those that should be involved in correct experimentation on predation of the peppered moth?

I haven't done an exhaustive, or maybe not even thorough, survey of the primary literature, and it's been a few years since I did it. I found the data and calculations in the primary literature to conclusively support the thesis that natural selection is operating in the color changes in the peppered moth population. There's still room for argument about what the selective mechanisms are, and the relative importance of each, and there are questions which are unanswered. But NS is there, as proven as anything is in science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by cromwell, posted 05-01-2004 10:33 AM cromwell has not yet responded

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 88 (108506)
05-15-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
04-24-2004 2:44 AM


I read this entire thread yestersay.

I first read about the moth argument about twenty five years ago. In my way of thinking, the subject does not prove or disprove evolutionary theory.

Within the gene pool of the moth, there was the possibility of white and black, if I am correct. The trees became polluted. The white moths were picked off by birds leaving only the black moths to reproduce. The species didn't change. The black moths were always present, but now they became predominant. When the situation reversed, the black moths were picked off. The few remaining white moths were left to reproduce.

So how can an evolutionist or a creationist use this argument to support thier respective beliefs? I went back to the beggining of the thread because I wasen't sure where to plug this piece.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2004 2:44 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2004 11:49 PM Rick Rose has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 88 (108507)
05-15-2004 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rick Rose
05-15-2004 11:43 PM


So how can an evolutionist or a creationist use this argument to support thier respective beliefs?

You said it yourself:

The black moths were always present, but now they became predominant.

That's evolution - a change in a population's allele frequencies (specifically the frequency of the black coloration allele) as a result of a selecting interaction with the environment.

Of course, then you say:

The species didn't change.

which is simply not true - the species did change: the black allele increased in frequency. Changing allele frequency is a change within species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rick Rose, posted 05-15-2004 11:43 PM Rick Rose has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rick Rose, posted 05-17-2004 2:35 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 88 (108818)
05-17-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
05-15-2004 11:49 PM


So frequency of population changed, but genetic structure of black or white moth did not change. Correct? If that defines natural selection, I accept.

rickrose, always learning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2004 11:49 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 05-17-2004 3:10 PM Rick Rose has responded
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 05-18-2004 1:37 AM Rick Rose has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 52 of 88 (108834)
05-17-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rick Rose
05-17-2004 2:35 PM


Change in Population
So frequency of population changed, but genetic structure of black or white moth did not change

You're sort of got it, I think. The change is in the genetic makeup of the population not the individuals. This is the very first basic step of evolution. This is put forward of an example of natural selection not of the introduction of new mutations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rick Rose, posted 05-17-2004 2:35 PM Rick Rose has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Rick Rose, posted 05-18-2004 12:15 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 88 (108951)
05-18-2004 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by NosyNed
05-17-2004 3:10 PM


Re: Change in Population
As such Ned, I accept natural selection.

rickrose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 05-17-2004 3:10 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 88 (108967)
05-18-2004 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rick Rose
05-17-2004 2:35 PM


So frequency of population changed, but genetic structure of black or white moth did not change.

Not as a result of pollution, no. But we presume that a genetic structure change did occur at some point prior to the selection event - the mutation that created black moths in the first place.

We presume this because mutation is the only observed source of new alleles.

What we observed with the moths is natural selection, yes. Combined with the mutation that must have occured, that represents evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rick Rose, posted 05-17-2004 2:35 PM Rick Rose has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Rick Rose, posted 05-18-2004 1:57 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 88 (109046)
05-18-2004 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
05-18-2004 1:37 AM


Mutation is a deep well.

rickrose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 05-18-2004 1:37 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NosyNed, posted 05-18-2004 4:19 PM Rick Rose has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 56 of 88 (109072)
05-18-2004 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rick Rose
05-18-2004 1:57 PM


How right you are!
Mutation is a deep well.

From which an astronomical number of variations can be drawn.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Rick Rose, posted 05-18-2004 1:57 PM Rick Rose has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rick Rose, posted 05-18-2004 10:06 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 88 (109146)
05-18-2004 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by NosyNed
05-18-2004 4:19 PM


Re: How right you are!
You don't miss a lick. Great pun.

rickrose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NosyNed, posted 05-18-2004 4:19 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Ediacaran
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 88 (110784)
05-26-2004 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by cromwell
04-27-2004 5:44 AM


Re: The pepped -up myth
Deleted duplicate

This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 05-26-2004 10:25 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by cromwell, posted 04-27-2004 5:44 AM cromwell has not yet responded

  
Ediacaran
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 88 (110785)
05-26-2004 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by cromwell
04-27-2004 5:44 AM


Re: The pepped -up myth
Cromwell writes:
The 20 page chapter from Jonathan Wells book “The icons of evolution ”touch on many other aspects used to back up his assertions.However he has made a sweeping statement,but he is not far off the mark. In this book Wells makes the statement on page 140 >> “What the text books don’t explain,however,is that biologists have known since 1980’s that the classical story has some serious flaws-The peppered moths in the wild do not even rest on tree trunks. <<
...
Majerus observed the peppered moth over a period of 32 years.If you look at his pie chart for peppered moths found in the wild,you will notice that he only observed 47 moths resting on various points of the trees.Only 12 of these in this period rested on various appropriate parts of the tree trunks.This is equivalent to around 1 moth every three years.

[End of excerpt from Cromwell's post]

So, according to Majerus' data, when moths are observed to rest in trees in the wild, under normal conditions, they rest on the trunks about 25% of the time, a substantial percentage. On p. 260 of Wells' book, one of Wells' suggested "warning labels for biology textbooks" reads:

"WARNING: Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks in the wild, and photos showing them on tree trunks have been staged; Kettlewell's experiments are now being questioned."

- and you assert that Wells was "not far off the mark"?!?

Clearly, Wells is a bald-faced liar.

Wells didn't seem to have any moral objections to staged photos in his dissertation on frog embryos. He should make up a disclaimer for it:

"WARNING: Xenopus frog ovulation is not induced with human chorionic gonadotropin in the wild, and photos of frog embryos stained with Nile Red are staged; John [aka Jonathan] Corrigan Wells' integrity is now being questioned."

Of course, this would be uncharacteristic of Wells, since all the points in the latter warning are true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by cromwell, posted 04-27-2004 5:44 AM cromwell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by cromwell, posted 06-05-2004 8:09 PM Ediacaran has responded

  
Ediacaran
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 88 (110786)
05-26-2004 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by cromwell
04-27-2004 5:44 AM


Re: The pepped -up myth
Deleted triplicate.

This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 05-26-2004 10:33 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by cromwell, posted 04-27-2004 5:44 AM cromwell has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019