So evos claimed this was "evolution in action"? Well, was it? Did even speciation occur?
Do evos claim this is 'speciation in action'? Does speciation have to occur for alelle frequencies to change? Why do you insist that a speciation event had to occur? This is not a study about reproductive isolation, or population genetics which are seperate details of evolutionary theory. This is a real life, practical example of natural selection. One (very major) detail of evolutionary theory.
Also, check this out where prominent evolutionists admit the studies are inaccurate and do not show natural selection...
Irrelevant to the sub-discussion we are having. Others have discussed repeated experiments, and the habits of moths using science papers rather than quote mining a popular press book. Perhaps you can raise this issue with them?
When I say I agree natural selection exists, that really isn't that the changing moth population has anything to do with soot
OK, so natural selection exists. That's a start. Maybe it isn't, there
could be some other factor at play, and science in its tentativity is open to that. However, the correlation does exist which leads many to accept that this is an example of natural selection. That is how it is presented.
It's a little dishonest therefore to try to take that concession as some sort of agreement with evolution, and that's the problem with you evos here.
The problem with you, randman, is that you seem to be fanatically paranoid. I've never taken your concession that natural selection exists as an agreement with evolution. All I am saying is that the moth population changed in areas with heavy pollution. The correlation is strong and it suggests that the change was caused by natural selection. The vector for this selection is generally credited as birds preying on resting moths.
All that is being said is that the peppered moth is a great example of natural selection, if you accept that, we can move on to discuss whether or not the confirmation of the existence of natural selection causing population change is evidence for evolution or not.
You are not being honest in your approach.
How dare you question my integrity! All I have done, randman, is try to find the areas we agree on, and the areas we disagree on. You have accused me of dishonesty, which is extremely bad manners. I ask you politely for an apology.
How can somebody be dishonest when their post comprises of
a) A question
b) A statement that natural selection is a possible falsification of ToE
c) My difficulty finding any references to peppered moth that says anything other than it being an example of natural selection.
d) My stating you accept natural selection and that you accept ToE requires natural selection
e) Finally, a request you post an example usage that you find problematic.
What on earth is dishonest about ANY of that???
it is dishonest to claim somehow evolution being verified in the sense of any change means evolution meaning ToE is somehow supported.
Not claiming that. I am claiming that if natural selection did not exist then that would falsify ToE. I will claim now that any time a theory passes a falsification test, it grows in strength, but I never stated anything about support for ToE in my original post. If anyone's honesty should be in question, randman, I don't think it is me.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 21-November-2005 11:56 AM