Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9057 total)
61 online now:
AZPaul3, Dm14174, jar, PaulK, Theodoric (4 members, 1 guest login, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,716 Year: 828/6,534 Month: 828/682 Week: 63/445 Day: 9/10 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peppered Moths and Natural Selection
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 350 (261386)
11-19-2005 9:47 PM


Take the famous 'peppered moths' of England. Creationists like to twist the truth about this moth, so I will go into both sides here:

(1) Creationist (ICR website) by Dr. John Morris, President of ICR

This is taken directly from the web site:

Here's the well-told scenario. In the early 1800s, nearly all of the individual peppered moths (Biston betularia) were of a light grey, speckled color. Active mostly at night, they needed to hide by day from predatory birds. Since trees and rocks were typically covered with mottled light green, gray lichens, the moths were effectively camouflaged. A rare peppered moth exhibited a dark color and was easily seen by birds; thus they seldom survived. On average, over 98% of all the species were of the light variety, yet with both dark and light were of the same species and were fully interfertile.

Then came the industrial revolution and the air filled 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 dark. When English medical doctor Bernard Kettlewell studied the phenomena in the 1950s, it became "Darwin's Missing Evidence"—natural selection in action.

Remember that both varieties were present at the start, with the mix of genes producing lights favored over the mix of genes producing darks. As the environment changed, the dark variety had greater opportunity to pass on their genetic mix, and percentages changed. All the while, the two types were interfertile. No new genes were produced, and certainly no new species resulted. This is natural selection in action, but not evolution. Adaptation happens, but the changes are limited.

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 selectionspeciation
theory testedyesno
theory validatedyesno
theory invalidatednono

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.

There are also some valid claims about some bad science done on this issue in early studies, and we will look at that issue below as well.

(2) Evolution and Natural Selection by Dr. Ken Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University, RI, with additional material by Dr. Bruce Grant, Professor at the College of William and Mary.

We start with Ken Miller's website (Brown University website):

Note first off that this article refers to the two varieties of the moth:


  • Biston betularia typica (the light color version) and
  • Biston betularia carbonaria (the dark color version)

In the scientific name structure (for those unfamiliar with it) we have family (Biston) species (betularia) and variety (typica or carbonaria) designations.

An important distinction is made between 'species' and 'variety' and that is that 'varieties' can interbreed: when the genetic difference is great enough that no viable offspring are created then we would then have a different 'species' - this is the scientific distinction. As we are not talking about species differentiation at this point in this scenario, the speciation part of the theory of evolution is not tested, per se.

From BIOLOGY by Miller & Levine, page 298:

"Kettlewell found that in unpolluted areas, more of his light-colored moths had survived. In soot-blacked areas, more of the dark-colored moths had survived. Thus Kettlewell showed that in each environment the moths that were better camoflaged had the higher survival rate. It was logical to conclude that when soot darkened the tree trunks in the area, natural selection caused the dark-colored moths to become more common. Today Kettlewell's work is considered to be a classic demonstration of natural selection in action."

Please note: "a classic demonstration of natural selection in action." Both websites agree on this.

Now lets look at a scientific critique / review of the original / early studies:

... in 1998, Michael E. N. Majerus of the Department of Genetics at the University of Cambridge carefully re-examined Kettlewell's studies, as well as many others that have since appeared. What he reported, first of all, was that Kettlewell's experiments, indicating that moth survival depends upon color-related camoflage, were generally correct:
"Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence on the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth."

(P. 116, Melanism - Evolution in Action, M. E. N. Majerus, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998).

However, Majerus also discovered that many of Kettlewell's experiments didn't really test the elements of the story as well as they should have. For example, in testing how likely light and dark moths were to be eaten, he placed moths on the sides of tree trunks, a place where they rarely perch in nature. He also records how well camouflaged the moths seemed to be by visual inspection. This might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but since his work it has become clear that birds see ultraviolet much better than we do, and therefore what seems well-camouflaged to the human eye may not be to a bird. In addition, neither Kettlewell nor those who checked his work were able to compensate for the degree to which migration of moths from surrounding areas might have affected the actual numbers of light and dark moths he counted in various regions of the countryside.

These criticisms have led some critics of evolution to charge that the peppered moth story is "faked," or is "known to be wrong."

Neither is true. In fact, the basic elements of the peppered moth story are quite correct. The population of dark moths rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution, and the percentage of dark moths in the population was clearly highest in regions of the countryside that were most polluted. As Majerus, the principal scientific critic of Kettlewell's work wrote, "My view of the rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarily responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors."

Next, from Dr. Bruce Grant by linked article "Fine Tuning the Peppered Moth Paradigm" (pdf):

In his 34 years of moth hunting, Majerus has discovered 47 peppered moths at rest by day in the wild. ... Majerus separates into categories the position on trees where the moths were located (trunk, trunk/branch joint, branches). While the trunk/branch joint was the most common site, his data indicate that the moths do not all rest in the same place. As Clarke et al. (1994) put it: "Moths habitually resting in only one place will be habitually sought there." ... In truth, we still don't know the natural hiding places of peppered moths.

Morph Specific Behavior. Kettlewell proposed that pale and melanic forms of peppered moths actively seek out different resting sites. To test this idea, he put typicals and carbonaria into a barrel lined with black and white strips of card, and he recorded where they had settled. (The moths are active at night, but remain motionless, unless disturbed, during the day.) From these "barrel" experiments, Kettlewell (1955b) reported morph specific behaviors: carbonaria tended to settle on black, and the typicals tended to settle on white. Kettlewell suggested that the moths accomplish this by comparing the darkness of their body scales to the surface reflectance of the immediately available substrates and that they come to rest where the contrast between the scales and the substrate is least "conflicting."

Despite design problems, Kettlewell’s predation experiments are still instructive. He used the same procedures in two distinctly different places, a habitat disturbed by pollution and an unpolluted habitat, and he got complementary results. His data, in both directions, were in complete accord with the directions predicted by the incidence of melanism in the regions. So, if he was wrong to use the trunks of trees in Birmingham, he was consistently wrong to use the trunks of trees in Dorset. If he was wrong to release the moths during the daylight hours in Birmingham, he was consistently wrong to release the moths at the same time in Dorset. His data, however, show that the variable of regional pollution made a significant difference as to which phenotypes of the moths better survived the conditions imposed by the experiments.

Kettlewell's aren't the only experiments that show this. Majerus recounts five other studies, using variously modified experimental designs, that corroborate fitness differences between the morphs in polluted and unpolluted regions. He also reviews some exceptions. Hindsight has enabled us to find fault with all of these experiments to varying degrees and has helped us to suggest future work. It is not true, however, that these experiments are so seriously flawed that their conclusions are invalid. The conclusion that conspicuous moths are more readily eaten by birds than are inconspicuous moths has been repeatedly confirmed. The findings from the grand bulk of the predation experiments are in qualitative agreement with the direction of changes in melanic frequencies documented among geographically separated populations of peppered moths.

Again, note "While the trunk/branch joint was the most common site" showing that moths do, in fact, rest on portions of the tree trunks. While we cannot say what actual proportion of time is spent in various locations at various times of the day and night, it is absolutely false to claim that peppered moths never rest on the bark of the trees or other locations where the camouflage effect would come into action. Nor can it be argued that the moths are not cognizant at some level of the background they chose to rest on. Focusing on just the main trunk or rocks of the experiments done by Kettlewell is a strawman argument as it does not represent the range of possible resting sites that do involve contrasting visibility or on the other experiments he conducted that showed a preference for camouflaged resting sites, nor does it address the issue of the moths being glued in specific sites to test the differential predation of the insects by birds or that other experiments that were conducted with released moths. Kettlewell's experiments determined (a) that peppered moths apparently selected backgrounds for resting sites that matched their coloring and (b) that birds differentially found and ate moths that were more conspicuous by lack of camouflage first and (c) that there were in fact population shifts between polluted (dark) areas and non-polluted (light) areas.

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 website by Ken Miller ends with some recommended Background Reading:

The web page of Bruce Grant, Professor at the College of William and Mary, and especially his paper, "Fine Tuning the Peppered Moth Paradigm." (pdf)

Prof. Grant has also written to rebut charges that the Peppered moth story is fraudulent: "Charges of Fraud Misleading."

Also: William Majerus' book "Melanism - Evolution in Action" can be found on many library shelves. He has a new book about to be published: "Moths."

Enjoy.



Note to ADMIN:

I know there is another thread on the peppered moths, but it relates more to Wells and his "icons" issue. This one addresses creationist implications of lies and fraud, an issue recently asserted by randman, and thus it is topical once more. Let's start clean and not involve Wells in this issue here.

Either {Biological Evolution} or {is it Science} would be okay.

Edited by RAZD, : tyop Maherus fixed

Edited by RAZD, : fixed ICR link

Edited by RAZD, : fixed Ken Miller link

Edited by RAZD, : replaced text block with table


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) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 7:59 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 9:24 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 350 (261487)
11-20-2005 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
11-19-2005 9:47 PM


bump for randman
randman is talking about peppered moths again but has not responded to this thread. From
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1135&m=145#145

the old tree trunk peppered moth claim

Biologists soon noticed that in industrialized regions where the dark moths were common, the tree trunks were darkened almost black by the soot of pollution. Dark moths were much less conspicuous resting on them than were light moths. In addition, the air pollution that was spreading in the industrialized regions had killed many of the light-colored lichens on tree trunks, making the trunks darker.

http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage07.html

What is the error in this information please?

What invalidates the observed natural selection of the moths in this area due to the pollution factors?

{edited to be more specific}

Enjoy.

This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*20*2005 09:33 AM


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2005 9:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 350 (261509)
11-20-2005 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
11-19-2005 9:47 PM


Randman: can you show the moths are NOT an example of natural selection?
Randman in this post on the {Talking some sense into randman} thread
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1135&m=158#158

Despite the rigged pictures and the over simplication of the events. If you have to teach a 5th grader about natural selection, the moths do make for a good example.

But this is what is taught to college students, not just 5th graders. There is, in fact, a whole litany list of traditional arguments listed for evolution that are just flat out wrong, and have been shown to be wrong for decades, but they are still there.

Why?

It's not ignorant people teaching this stuff, or writing this stuff. This is put out by college professors.

To make this claim that it is "just flat out wrong" randman needs to demonstrate that the moths are not an example of natural selection.

I await his demonstration of this.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2005 9:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 11-20-2005 5:42 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 350 (261617)
11-20-2005 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
11-20-2005 6:29 PM


but you missed answering the question ...
because there's not much real evolution taking place, just variation within the genome and variation that can switch back again

Is this or is this not natural selection in operation?

Yes or No.

Thanks for your limited time.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:29 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:40 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 10 of 350 (261626)
11-20-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
11-20-2005 6:40 PM


So it is natural selection ...
It's natural selection of existing traits.

That's all natural selection is. This is part of evolution -- the selection mechanism.

So you do agree that this is an example of natural selection, and therefor of the selection mechanism of evolution.

the whole tree trunk claim is way overstated since reportedly they don't hang out so much on trees, and furthermore, bird vision is a little different spectrum so there's a lot to criticize. It's very misleading,

The various studies have shown that the defining difference between the areas where the light variation were predominant were pollution free and the areas where the cark variation were predominant were polluted. Do you disagree with that?

Would you agree or disagree that the only difference in the areas was the sooty pollution and its effects on the environment?

{changed subtitle}

This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*20*2005 06:53 PM


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:40 PM randman has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 350 (261654)
11-20-2005 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
11-20-2005 7:04 PM


If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selection?
1. First off, no the study does not rule out all the various factors that could have influenced whether lightly colored or darkly colored moths became more dominant as a result of soot. It could be something else entirely, perhaps another aspect of pollution, coincidence, etc,...

Do you deny that the single difference between the locations of predominantly dark moth populations and the ones with predominantly light moth populations is that one type was polluted and the other was not?

Yes or No (second time asked btw).

2. Secondly, birds have the ability to see in the UV spectrum and the ignorance of that basic fact renders moot any conclusions about what birds actually see in this instance.

Now demonstrate how this makes a difference to the conclusions based on the observed and recorded behavior of the birds? If there is no observed behavioral difference then this cannot be a significant factor eh?

So far the evidence is that UV vision does not play a factor in the natural selection of dark moths to survive better in dark areas and light moths to survive better in light areas.

3. Peppered moths are nocturnal and so releasing them in the day-time to draw conclusions about their behaviour also makes the study based on faulty data.

But the study was consistently "faulty" in doing this and still recorded data that showed a preferential selection of dark moths to survive in dark areas and light moths to survive in light areas.

The moths were not "swarmed" by hordes of hungry birds, but were able to dispurse in each type of area to find refuge\resting spots. Agreed they may not have been optimum spots, but the fact remains that they were treated the same in both areas.

If the study was "faulty" then how come the data is consistent?

birds are not even the primary predator of peppered moths, but rather bats are.

(1) Substantiate this. and when you do

(2) Show that bats would preferentially select light moths in dark areas and dark moths in light areas.

If bats are non-selective in their feeding habits then they do not contribute to the selection process that was observed, and that leaves the birds as the predator that the selection process reacted to. That makes bat predation irrelevant to the overall selection of dark moths to survive better in dark areas and light moths to survive in light areas.

I have heard but not verified that these same experiments were repeated elsewhere in the world with the opposite results.

False as already noted. It was repeated with the recovery of light moths after clear air acts were passed, and it was also repeated in the US (where lichen was not a factor). Of course if you actually tried to substantiate your positions you would probably have discovered that on your own.

I do find it amusing that RAZD is now quoting a creationist web-site as evidence

What the creationist website shows is that they also concur that natural selection occured.

What this shows is an open mind to look at information from a number of sources to see what is really the truth of the matter.

I noted that you claimed in another post that the peppered moths were "just flat out wrong" -- a point that you have failed to make in the slightest so far.

In fact you agreed that it was natural selection in Message 9 or are you equivocating on that answer now?

In order for this to be flat out wrong it has to fail as an example of natural selection. That is not the case.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 7:04 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 8:51 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 350 (261667)
11-20-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
11-20-2005 8:51 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
This is not about ONE study but a whole bunch of studies, not just by Kettlewell but others that followed - and which are still continuing.

You are the one ignoring the followup studies of those same areas as the pollution was abated and they returned to their pre-pollution status and the light moths once again became the predominant form. That takes care of "other factors" as these are the same areas both before during and after the pollution effect was observed.

These followup studies were done without the problems of glued moths and daytime releases, but which still validated the results of the initial study.

You have failed to show that (1) this is NOT natural selection in action (and actually admit that it was) NOR (2) that the cause of the selection was the sooty pollution that favored first the dark moths as the pollution became the predominant factor and then the light moths when it abated.

Your absolute failure to do this shows that your statement as recorded in Message 4 (copied from another thread) was a false and misleading statement.

What we see here is that once again you make superficial assertions and when challenged, fail to substantiate them with any actual facts, choosing instead to make more ad hoc assumptions without establishing their validity.

The fact remains that not only are the peppered moths an example of natural selection in action, but they are a good example of this factor of evolution in action, demonstrated both during the increase in sooty pollution and again during the abatement of it with clean air legislation actions.

Do you deny natural selection occured? (you've already concede this one)

Do you deny that it was a result of industrial pollution changing the environment (from clean to sooty and back to clean)?

Do you deny that the selection was due to predation of the more visible moths?

Do you deny that no other dominant predators of the moths have been identified in those areas other than the birds by the people doing the studies?

These are yes or no questions and do not require a paragraph to explain. What do you concede and what do you deny?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 8:51 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:33 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 28 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:39 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 350 (261684)
11-20-2005 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
11-20-2005 9:39 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
but that means very little as far as claiming this as evidence for evolution. No speciation occured.

Do you deny no speciation occured?

Read the OP, it is stated very clearly. I have stated this elsewhere and shouldn't need to repeat myself.

Natural Selection is a part of evolution. Claiming that it is not evolution because it does not involve speciation is a stawman argument based on part for the whole. Another logical fallacy by randman.

Do you deny that it was a result of industrial pollution changing the environment (from clean to sooty and back to clean)?

Yes, in the sense that there is no conclusive evidence of this.

No conclusive evidence of the pollution? It is well documented. No conclusive evidence of the population change in the moths? Again this is well documented. No conclusive evidence that the population shift was a result of the pollution? Just a massive correlation of populations with dark wings in polluted areas and populations with light wings in non-polluted areas.

Actually the evidence is overwhelming and even AiG accepts it as such, so that kind of leaves you out in the wilderness on this one. Denial is like that.

Do you deny that the selection was due to predation of the more visible moths?

Once again, there is no conclusive evidence of this. It is a totally unproven hypothesis.

Your confidence in your position of denial is noted.

You fail to account for people that have studied the moths in all the intervening years since ~1850 that have not uncovered other factors than predation, several of whom were intent on disproving Kettlewell. As I noted above you have failed to account for all the other studies that have validated the conclusions.

Your ignorance of these other studies lets you dismiss one, but it does not allow you to call your position informed.

Do you deny that no other dominant predators of the moths have been identified in those areas other than the birds by the people doing the studies?

No, I don't deny it. Heck, I admit the studies seem to be blissfully ignorant of moth predators.

Blissfully ignorant? Or confident that they have accounted for other predators - including bats - and found them to be insignificant to the selection process? Again you are blissfully dismissing the followup studies that tried to disprove Kettlewell, ones ongoing to this day, ones in other areas.

Again, (1) if the other predators react to the colors of the moths then the selection process is still valid and they are part of it, and (2) if the other predators do not react to the colors of the moths then the only ones that act in the selection process are the birds and the others are irrelevant to the selection process.

Either way, natural selection as a result of differential predation based on perceived visibility of the moths {occured \ occurs \ will occur}.

This still leave the peppered moths as good examples of natural selection in action as a selection mechanism for evolution.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:39 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 10:36 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 350 (261692)
11-20-2005 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
11-20-2005 9:33 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
Do lightly colored moths normally rest on tree trunks? How often? Do they know to rest on more similar colored areas?

If you read the OP you would see that of the moths found resting naturally the greatest number were found in the trunk\branch crotch.

While this is not an absolute number percentage, it does show that they do in fact rest in these locations naturally.

How about at the caterpillar stage? Are there differences between light and darker moths that can affect their survivability?

If you read the linked material you would see that this was eliminated as a factor. The genetics control the color of the adult moths, and other than color there is not significant difference in the two varieties, either as adults or as caterpillers..

For example, have they shown whether one breed of moths are more susceptible to diseases than the other?

Which would explain why one population is predominant in one area and the other is predominant in another area? Sorry, but that would only explain why one was predominant in both areas.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:33 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 10:50 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 350 (261707)
11-20-2005 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by randman
11-20-2005 10:50 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
That fails to address the issue.

False. It does show that they sometimes rest on the trunk parts of the trees. A correlation with birches was noted in one study, btw.

All that is really needed is that they rest on bark anywhere on the tree for the claim to be valid.

It addresses the issue with the best information available. The number of samples is too low to make valid conclusion however, as noted in the OP.

But they can also rest on any other surfaces that are likewise darkened by the soot in polluted areas and not in the other areas.

And it does not alter the fact that the populations matched the environments in both light and dark areas.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 10:50 PM randman has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 350 (261708)
11-20-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
11-20-2005 10:36 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
You know, it's amazing you can claim that.

Just pointing out the facts randman. Sorry you don't like them.

Imo, I feel like I trying to convince a KLansmen that it's OK if his daughter marries a black guy.

Another irrelevant analogy that fails to explain why you cannot answer simple yes or no questions without dodging and creating crazy analogies as excuses.

It's not me - its the information that you are not addressing.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 10:36 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:13 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 350 (261721)
11-20-2005 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
11-20-2005 10:41 PM


Re: my response, bad as it was the first time and worse for repetition.
I think I answered the fallacy of the study quite well,

In your usual way, no substantiation of your assertions but followed by repetition of them as if they were not challenged by the facts.

Petty demands of "yes, no" questions will be ignored because you are ignoring the points I raised.

Or in other words you won't answer them because either you answer in the affirmative and agree that this is an excelent example of natural selection or you answer in the negative, going against massive amounts of data from numerous studies that all validate a conclusion you are in denial of ... better to avoid that and equivocate and duck and dodge instead.

Each of your points has been answered already, and we shouldn't have to repeat ourselves everytime you bring up this information. You have failed to refute the answers so reposting this is just an admission that you have failed to make the case. This is just as dishonest as you claim textbooks are that show Haeckle's drawings or any of your other pet peeves.

Note in particular that your reference to bats is specious at best, and irrelevant to the selection process at worst.

For the record, again, once more: bat predation - by sound and at night - is color blind and thus does not contribute to the selection process. It would have no effect at all on which variety of moth was selected.

This means that bat predation plays no part in the change in populations, none, zero, nada, zip: it is irrelevant to the change in populations that was observed.

Thus even if it is the predominant predator, it is irrelevant to the selection process.

The selection process is confirmed by numerous studies as well as the fact of bird predation based on differential selection of the different colored moths. This makes the birds the dominant players in the selection process regardless of the relative predation by bats.

Denial of this is denial of the facts.

As far as birds seeing UV that too has been addressed, and still the predominant evidence is that birds preferentially {select\find\consume} dark moths in light areas and light moths in dark areas because they are easier to see.

I have heard but not verified that these same experiments were repeated elsewhere in the world with the opposite results. As such, since the experiment is not repeatable, it falls down on that merit as well.

This has been refuted by the citing of studies in other areas that validate the original study. Your failure to substantiate this claim (of anonymous authority fallacy btw) just shows that you do not take the time and effort to determine the facts.

There was a similar set of experiments done in the US with similar results.

And again, there have been numerous other studies of these moths, several of which were attempts to disprove the selection by birds, and others that tried to disprove the connection to pollution. The original study is still validated.

Again your repetition of this even though it has been falsified puts you on the same plane as your claim of Haeckle's drawings: you are intentionally repeating misinformation that has been falsified.

Enjoy your fantasy randman, but don't call it reason.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 10:41 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:45 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 350 (261723)
11-20-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
11-20-2005 11:13 PM


Repeated claims do not make em more valid,
I've already answered this several times. Repeating this serves no additional purpose other than to appear to yourself that you are debating the issue instead of dodging it.

Enjoy your fantasy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:13 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:54 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 8:55 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 350 (261727)
11-21-2005 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
11-20-2005 11:45 PM


Re: my response, bad as it was the first time and worse for repetition.
LOL

Dismissing asking for this as ad hoc doesn't work. You have to show you considered all potential causes, and you have not.

I did not dismiss it ad hoc but in detail. You have not responded how bats figure into the equation when they act as a colorblind predator.

looks like you finally did some homework. I will look at this tommorrow when I have more time.

This is my last post tonight, as I do actually work on work days. I would appreciate you not taking this thread into the hundreds in the interim with repeatitious claims.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:45 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 12:29 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 96 of 350 (262161)
11-21-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
11-21-2005 12:29 AM


Re: homework, insults and substantiation
Yes homework. This is your 22nd post in this thread and that was the first one where you provided substantiation for you position. If you had provided this at the start then your position would be better.

I intend to do my homework before answering. I do not consider it an insult to research the facts before making a post.

Pretty much, I would expect a full retraction and apology, but frankly, I don't think you have the integrity within you to do so, and yes, I am more than a little ticked off.

Let's see, you have compared me to a racist white supremacist, but you are insulted at the thought that you provide substantiation for your positions? You throw out gratuitous ad hominems everywhere but can't be bothered to do the research behind your position?

You really think this is insulting????? I don't. I consider it part of putting together a good post. Do you think I set up the OP without doing my homework?

Take the bat issue. It's not up to me to figure out the role of bats and birds. It's your OP.

Absolutely false: it is YOUR assertion that bats are a significant factor that makes the bird data irrelevant -- it IS up to you to demonstrate how that can possibly be if for no other reason than other people cannot know what you want to accomplish with your post.

I consider the bat issue totally and completely refuted, btw, and that your continued reiteration of it is unreasonable without some form of justification ... from you. Everyone else can clearly see that a colorblind predator in the mix has no selective value on the color distribution of the population as a whole, so that when predation -- demonstrated by the recovery studies -- shows a distinct and substantial selection of one variety over the other, the only valid conclusion is that some predator is selecting the moths based on the difference between the varieties -- a difference that is genetic and results in color differences in the wings.

This means that whatever is making the selection difference it is NOT the bats.

Bat predation is therefore totally irrelevant to the selection issue.

Meanwhile, other studies demonstrated that birds did display differential selection of the varieties in both areas consistent with the recovery studies.

If you disagree with the conclusion it is UP TO YOU to show how and where and why it is wrong and to BACK IT UP with data, not just opinions.

That means doing your homework and not just making stuff up.

I hope I am surprised tomorrow but I won't hold my breath.

I will get back to you when I have done my homework, and not before.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 12:29 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 8:18 PM RAZD has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022