Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
30 online now:
caffeine, dwise1, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (5 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,354 Year: 20,390/19,786 Month: 787/2,023 Week: 295/392 Day: 26/129 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving New Information
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20237
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 174 of 458 (520824)
08-24-2009 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by greyseal
08-15-2009 12:44 PM


moth myth information -- getting it right
Hi greyseal

The only people claiming stapling of moths to trees and other such utter rubbish ever happened are the IDiots. It didn't.
Seriously, it was a beneficial point mutation.

Sorry, wrong on both counts. See Peppered Moths and Natural Selection.

The melanic version was a pre-existing variety before the Industrial Revolution, and yes Kettlewell - in ONE of his experiments - fastened dead moths to a tree trunk to ascertain differential selection.

The Peppered Moths are examples of Natural Selection, not of mutation.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by greyseal, posted 08-15-2009 12:44 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by greyseal, posted 08-25-2009 7:27 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20237
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 188 of 458 (520899)
08-24-2009 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Percy
08-24-2009 6:42 PM


live birth numbers depend on where you start from
Wiki apparently is only considering those cases where a zygote has implanted, to actually start a pregnancy, as the starting point of their 30% figure. Something like 55% of zygotes miss implanting, so 60% of 45% leaves 27%% of total zygotes reaching development stages capable of live births.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_abortion

quote:
Miscarriage or spontaneous abortion is the spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or fetus is incapable of surviving, generally defined in humans at prior to 20 weeks of gestation. Miscarriage is the most common complication of early pregnancy.[1]

A fetus that dies while in the uterus after about the 20–24th week of pregnancy is termed a "stillbirth"; the precise gestational age definition varies by country. Premature births or stillbirths are not generally considered miscarriages, though usage of the terms and causes of these events may overlap.

Labour resulting in live birth before the 37th week of pregnancy is termed "premature birth", even if the infant dies shortly afterward. The limit of viability at which 50% of fetus/infants survive longterm is around 24 weeks, with moderate or major neurological disability dropping to 50% only by 26 weeks.[5] Although long-term survival has never been reported for infants born from pregnancy shorter than 21 weeks and 5 days,[6] infants born as early as the 16th week of pregnancy may sometimes live for some minutes after birth.[7]


(NOTE: this thread is NOT about abortions - see Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion Message 45 - this information was provided):

quote:
day 7 - 9: Blastocyst implants in wall of uterus (55% of Zygotes never reach this stage.)
{and further down:} 15 % of pregnancies miscarry during weeks 4-12

With just those two figures you are down to 75% of 45% = 33.75%, or a 1/3rd natural "success" to that point: 65% of zygotes never make it to week 12 normally.

Those numbers are missing the spontaneous abortions\misscarriages that occur between week 12 and week 20, so that could easily account for the difference in the numbers.

Looks like a 1/3 to 1/4 success rate overall, but not sure it is reasonable to include the implant missing zygotes, as it is hard to say if the reason for missing implantation is a genetic disorder or just bad luck, however, this might be the cause of thinking the numbers were higher.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Percy, posted 08-24-2009 6:42 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20237
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 205 of 458 (521091)
08-25-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by greyseal
08-25-2009 7:27 AM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
Hi again greyseal

Ah, I see they DID glue (not staple) moths to trees...but (from what it seems to say) to test whether moth colour and environment colour affects predation levels, yes?

So are you Canadian or English? (nevermind).

Yes, and no matter what else is said about birds seeing in 5 or 6 primary colors, including ultraviolet, it does show that the white moths were camouflaged against the white trunks and the dark moths were camouflaged against the dark trunks. Daytime predation was thereby reduced for the camouflaged moths in either environment. This doesn't account for all predation, but nightime predation by bats would be unaffected by coloring, so we end up with a slight benefit to be adapted for camouflage in either case, and this is sufficient to tilt selection for the camouflaged variety and shift the alleles in the population from one to the other.

oh well now I have to disagree, to a certain extent - after all, natural selection favouring one mutation over the other due to a change in the breeding locale causing a shift in the allele density in a population...and that's not evolution?

Curiously, I didn't say it wasn't evolution, just that it was not an example of a mutation arising that shows a benefit -- the mutation was already extant in the population, and the melanic variety was known about well before hand.

It wasn't some sort of darwinist plot to..do..something..actually why are creationists against the idea of the peppered moth and it's varieties?

They aren't really -- when you read their articles for content they concede micro-evolution occurs and note that this is a case of adaptation etcetcetc. What they like to do is play hide-the-pea to keep you distracted while they shift the goal-posts to claim that this is not an example of evolution -- meaning evolution of new features. It's the usual dishonesty approach pretending to be reasonable (you know, the old saw about the best lies have a grain of truth).

oceans made of drops, yada yada, journey begins with one footstep, etc, etc.

Yeah, but they don't add new information, all the mutations already existed in the DNA in some stored format yada yada.

Welcome to the fray.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by greyseal, posted 08-25-2009 7:27 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Dr Jack, posted 08-26-2009 6:21 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 227 by greyseal, posted 08-27-2009 8:52 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20237
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 207 of 458 (521096)
08-25-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Arphy
08-25-2009 8:53 PM


What's the controversy?
Hi Arphy, welcome to the fray.

exactly, i'm not saying that natural selection didn't occur, but rather because of the controversial nature of the way the research was carried out I think it is best to stick to examples where the research isn't so controversial.

So, if you admit that natural selection occurred, then what is controversial about the Peppered Moths being an example of Natural Selection?

Or do you think you can create a controversy by ignoring what the real evidence and scientific experiments show and instead focus on creationist lies and misrepresentations?

Message 1 compares the creationist arguments to the actual experiments done by Kettlewell and subsequently by Majerus, starting with the creationist claims, and it shows that there are several basic falsehoods in the creationist arguments:

quote:
Please note that this is a creationist site and they have just said that "This is natural selection in action, but not evolution."

He goes on to imply that this disproves evolution because the moth varieties are not now different species. But lets look at this claim:

...........................natural selection.......speciation
theory tested..................yes.....................no.....
theory validated..............yes.....................no.....
theory invalidated............no......................no.....

Because speciation is not tested in this scenario, the results cannot be used to invalidate the theory.

Please note how this creationist website shows you exactly how the mechanism of color change in a population works. The moths did not decide to change color: there were existing genetic variations that made one population more able to survive under one condition and the other population more able to survive under a changed condition.
...
Thus the claims on the creationist site:

  • "that Kettlewell's compelling argument has not been verified by other investigators" is outright wrong - it is verified by M. E. N. Majerus, in his book Melanism - Evolution in Action (Oxford University Press, New York, 1998) and by others that followed Kettlewell.
  • "Furthermore, we now know that neither dark nor light moths ever spend their days on exposed tree trunks or rocks as depicted in the famous textbook pictures. His original associates have even admitted that the photographs were faked, that the moths were glued onto the tree." And this issue has been discussed above and answered - yes some of the initial science was not done as properly as it would be done today, but the different studies isolated different aspects of the situation, the overall conclusion has been validated, and the effect is confirmed by others.

POINTS IN AGREEMENT

  • there were two varieties of the moth Biston betularia in England before the 'Industrial Revolution' and on average, over 98% of all the species were of the light variety, if not more (the dark variety was first noticed in the early 1800's)
  • the 'Industrial Revolution' filled the air with soot, covering the trees and rocks with a toxic film, killing the lichens and darkening the trees
  • soon the light variety of moth was easily seen while the darker were camouflaged.
  • by the turn of the century, 98% of the moths were of the dark variety, and finally
  • the change in populations was due to predation of the more visible variety.
And thus we see agreement that this example is about the Natural Selection part of evolution, and not about speciation, and further that it cannot be about speciation because it is talking about the relative size of populations of two varieties of the same species of moth.

The creationist claim that it does not show speciation is the lie of misdirection - it was never claimed to be an example of speciation. The creationist claim that Kettlewell's work has not been validated by other scientists is shown to be a falsehood, and the creationist claim that "we now know that neither dark nor light moths ever spend their days on exposed tree trunks" is also shown to be false.

Aside from those falsehoods there is full and complete agreement in the moths showing natural selection.

What's the controversy? Between truth and falsehood? Shouldn't that be resolved by using the truth? The evidence is unequivocal that the population changed, and then changed back, in response to changing ecology and preferential predation. Curiously, the only "controversy" appears to be the fact that creationists are lying about the evidence and the science.

Should lies be taught in school?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 8:53 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20237
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 321 of 458 (523208)
09-08-2009 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by traderdrew
09-08-2009 5:47 PM


back up the reference bus -- don't you learn?
Hi traderdrew,

Conduct a google search with these terms - "James Shapiro natural genetic engineering" and click the fifth link down.

You could have just posted the link ... which is more accurate than this (google popularity is based on use and links)

I get http://www.iscid.org/brig-klyce-chat.php

The "The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID)" website link is not a direct link to Shapiro, and the article in question only mentions him briefly, by the moderator.

You just got lambasted for posting information from a person that told falsehoods, and it appears you have not learned anything from it.

Post a link to Shapiro, and let's see what HE says, not what some anonymous IDist SAYS he says.

University of Chicago, James A Shapiro

quote:
Research Summary / Selected Publications

My current research deals with understanding how cells regulate the natural genetic engineering systems that produce DNA rearrangements and formulating a new conceptual basis for genome evolution consistent with molecular genetics. I also collaborate with colleagues who study multicellular pattern formation in bacterial colonies.


Any bets that what he says is taken out of context by the ID crowd?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by traderdrew, posted 09-08-2009 5:47 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by traderdrew, posted 09-09-2009 11:26 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20237
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 337 of 458 (523395)
09-09-2009 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by traderdrew
09-09-2009 11:26 AM


Re: back up the reference bus -- don't you learn?
Hi traderdrew: exactly what I expected.

You didn't find it. Here it is.

Which is WHY providing a reference to the fifth listing on google is silly when you could have provided the link.

You just got lambasted for posting information from a person that told falsehoods, and it appears you have not learned anything from it.

If James Shapiro told falsehoods ...

I did exactly what you said to do, except that the fifth link was not to Shapiro, but to some IDist website.

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by traderdrew, posted 09-09-2009 11:26 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20237
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 362 of 458 (524755)
09-18-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by NosyNed
09-18-2009 11:08 AM


Re: Benefits vs Problems
Hi Nosyned,

In fact, it has a net benefit to a population in the right circumstances. This is enough to bring the single copy up to about 1/3 of a population. Higher than this and there are too many two copy individuals born.

Doesn't the proportion in the population depends on the incidence of malaria in the environment of the individuals?

Mating people with 1 copy (SN) to people with no copy (NN) we get:

      S   |   N   
N NS | NN
N NS | NN

So ~half would be new carriers, and ~half would be no carriers. With no malaria in the environment all would survive, with endemic malaria infecting the whole population nearly all the no carriers would die leaving mostly new carriers.

Mating people with 1 copy (SN) to people with other with 1 copy (SN) we get:

      S   |   N   
S SS | SN
N NS | NN

So again ~1/2 would be new carriers, ~1/4 would be no carriers and ~1/4 would be double carriers. Double carriers normally die before reaching reproductive age, so in areas with no malaria in the environment the no carriers and single carriers would survive, with single carriers making up ~2/3's of the population, while with endemic malaria infecting the whole population nearly all the no carriers would die in addition to all the double carriers, leaving mostly new carriers.

Thus where malaria is endemic the population would quickly shift to mostly single carriers, while in areas with no malaria the proportion would be gradually reduced by the survival of the no carriers.

This would be similar to the peppered moths with a change in the environment affecting the distribution and frequency of the existing mutations with the population.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : corrected table, clarity


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by NosyNed, posted 09-18-2009 11:08 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019