Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
58 online now:
jar, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ramoss (6 members, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,324 Year: 5,970/14,102 Month: 118/438 Week: 50/112 Day: 5/8 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peppered Moths and Natural Selection
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 350 (261616)
11-20-2005 6:29 PM


pretty much nuggins nails it
And to be frank guys, I have a lot to do in life. I have fairly large family, a company to run, employees to make sure they get paid, etc....I do want to discuss science issues with people, but I grow tired of petty arguments.

I think it would not have been too difficult for anyone to see what my stance was, and not to misrepresent it, and I think the use of the peppered moth story continues not because it is a good example as evidence for evolution because there's not much real evolution taking place, just variation within the genome and variation that can switch back again. So it is very misleading, but imo, evolutionists are loathe to replace misleading material.

Why?

If the goal is education, then you don't want to create false impressions.

Maybe when all these arguments came to the fore, the real goal was not education but acceptance of evolutionary theory.

This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 06:30 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 6:32 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 9 of 350 (261622)
11-20-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
11-20-2005 6:32 PM


Re: but you missed answering the question ...
It's natural selection of existing traits. That's all, and from what I read, 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, and imo, totally inappropiate as basic evidence for evolution.

A similar process occurred when most of the Indians died due to epidemics the Europeans had built up more resistance having already been decimated, but if we were to speak of that as evolution, it would be seen as racist because it suggests speciation when racial differences are not speciation.

But frankly, if you can't see my point, I have no more interest in repeating it you ad nauseum. You are either capable of grasping the point, or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 6:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 6:48 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 11-20-2005 6:49 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Nighttrain, posted 11-20-2005 6:59 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 350 (261631)
11-20-2005 7:04 PM


ignorance is bliss for some evos
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,...

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.

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.

4. In reality, birds are not even the primary predator of peppered moths, but rather bats are. Bats method of sensing prey is totally different, and relies on sound waves and thus bats tend to capture moths in flight rather than while they are resting. This fact further makes the claims of the study to be somewhat fantastic in nature and without solid scientific standing.

5. 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.

I do find it amusing that RAZD is now quoting a creationist web-site as evidence, but on the whole, I don't think the OP addresses the basic problems with the study, nor the fact that it doesn't show speciation and is not therefore evidence of even microevolution giving rise to new species and therefore the way it is used is incorrect.

The best we can say is some very poorly done studies might suggest that there is a relationship between the pollutants of the industrial evolution and population sizes of peppered moths, but that other potential causal effects have not been ruled out, nor is there any reason to draw any strong conclusions to the peppered moth experiments as they did not involve peppered moths' primary predators and were riddled with gross errors and flaws.

In fact, to hold the peppered moth experiments as valid science is educational malpractice, presenting very poorly done and erroneous science as somehow something students should accept as valid.

It's a joke, and from my perspective darn near inexcusable for evos to continue to cling to such wildly erroneous uses of data, even moreso when these same evos blast critics like myself as if we are the ignorant ones here.

This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 07:10 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 11-20-2005 7:39 PM randman has responded
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 11-20-2005 8:01 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 8:40 PM randman has responded
 Message 36 by Belfry, posted 11-20-2005 9:57 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 17 of 350 (261655)
11-20-2005 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
11-20-2005 8:40 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selection?
RAZD, I am sorry but if at this point you cannot concede, yoy are beyond reason. The study has no relevance at all because it was not conducted relative to moths principal predators, nor do we know if industrial pollutants are the deciding factor because there are myriad other factors involved, and there is no reason to trust the methodologies involved either considering the error-ridden aspects of the study.

Your attempts to get around this are woefully weak. You cannot show that birds even are a significant enough predator to make a difference, and quoting a study that isn't even aware that peppered moths are nocturnal is hardly evidence of any standards of scientific rigor.

For example, are there any cases where birds actually do eat peppered moths that have been verified? What percentage of the peppered moths are eaten by birds?

What other factors could be involved to explain darker moths in one region and lighter ones in another? For example, are we to believe the 2 different regions and forests are absolutely equal? It could just be that something completely unrelated is involved, and that darker moths have some other differing trait along with that.

To make scientific claims based on a poorly done study as this, showing next to no knowledge of moths, birds, and bats, and then pass it off as science, is mere arrogance on your part and evolutionists' part in not wanting to admit the absurdities of your position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 8:40 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:03 PM randman has responded
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 9:25 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 19 of 350 (261660)
11-20-2005 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mark24
11-20-2005 7:39 PM


mere unfounded claims
We know that light moths on dark backgrounds are more likely to be taken than the other way around (& vice versa), so it stands to reason that predation is the cause of the proliferation of the moth variants.

Really. You know, eh? Based on what. Please explain how color affects bats hunting for prey.

Ad hoc. Do you never tire of committing logical fallacies? If you have a non ad hoc explanation, we'd be delighted to hear it.

I am sorry, but it's not my fault you are so poorly educated that you cannot grasp the difference between 2 things occuring at the same time, and establishing causal relationships. It is not ad hoc to ask that any study show a causal relationship when it makes claims of something causing something, and part of that is ruling out other potential causes.

Where does the study rule out other potential causes?

Moreover, the study seems to focus on birds as predators of the moths, but fails to establish this because it erroneously tests for moths behaviour during the day-time, releasing them into the day-light in a manner that is not consistent with their normal behaviours. For example, if you drop someone into very cold water when they do not expect it, some people will drown that would otherwise live if they were prepared for the shock of entering cold water and could do so under their own, normal behavious patterns.

The fact the study seems blissfully ignorant of bats as predators calls into questions the basic level of knowledge and logic by those doing the study.

Given that birds pick off the light moths on dark backgrounds far easier than the other way around, & vice versa, I fail to see what your point is?

Have you ever been in a forest surrounding an area with a lot of soot and pollution? The study places great emphasis on the moths resting on tree trunks, but once again, the study assumes something that is not true, namely that moths typically rest on tree trunks. If you cannot see why basing conclusions on faulty assumptions makes the study erroneous, we have little to talk about.

I would still wager that there are plenty of lightly colored items such as leaves in a forest next to industrial soot pollution. The study, emphasizing only tree trunks, is just plain bad science.

Obviously the moths are not camouflaged when they are flying at night, but during the daytime when they are at rest. This is when the selective advantage is evident.

So don't you think that just maybe the moths typically hide on something colored more like them in the day-time and thus the fact tree trunks are darker is a moot point?

Also, is there any evidence that moths are primarily eaten during the day-time?

Irrelevant.

So you consider the fact moths are mainly eaten by bats to be irrevalent? Maybe one type of bat prefers the darker colored moths and another the lightly colored moths, and can distinquish them by their flying patterns, and thus differing bat populations are to explain differences in types of moths found?

That's not ad hoc by the way. That's asking for reasonable evidence to rule out other factors that are likely to be in play. To claim that bird predation is a significant factor without even mentioning bats shows the study is not comprehensive enough to be presented as conclusive.

You also ignore the fact that the patterns of increasing melanin are not consistent in many areas with more pollution.

This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 09:14 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 11-20-2005 7:39 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Nuggin, posted 11-20-2005 9:12 PM randman has responded
 Message 64 by mark24, posted 11-21-2005 3:59 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 75 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 8:04 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 21 of 350 (261663)
11-20-2005 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Nuggin
11-20-2005 9:12 PM


Re: mere unfounded claims
And of course, natural selection is neither here nor there since this is presented as evidence for evolution, not just natural selection. In fact, trying to pass off natural selection as some sort of magical thing to create evolution is inherently dishonest, imo.

Of course, species change, die off, etc,....but that doesn't on it's own even show speciation, much less macro-evolution.

Truthfully, everything that ever happens can be considered natural selection, but that still is not some sort of real evidence for ToE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Nuggin, posted 11-20-2005 9:12 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:20 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Modulous, posted 11-21-2005 3:16 AM randman has responded
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 11-21-2005 4:14 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 24 of 350 (261666)
11-20-2005 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia
11-20-2005 9:03 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
Your snide tone is to be expected, totally dishonest in it's connotations I might add.

Clearly, I answered the direct question here in as much as I can.

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,...

I am not actually positive, but taking evo's word, increases in melanin during this period appear to have occured. From what I have read, the increases occurred in non-polluting areas as well. So I think it is fair to say, along with the other factors I mentioned, that the fact moths overall grew darker during this period could be attributed to any number of things.

I realize you and others in your simplicity, think the fact something occurs during a particular period establishes causality, but that's not a scientific approach.

For example, does the study detail the nature of the predators at that time overall. It could well be that what occurred is the species that prefers to eat black moths went extinct for some reason, and the increase had nothing to do with industrial pollutants.

The truth is you guys would slam this study all day long if it was a creationist study because it is so faulty, but you defend it because you are not being honest and want to defend the practices of evolutionists.

The simple fact more dark colored moths emerged during the industrial revolution, assuming that is true, means absolutely nothing in terms of attributing industrial pollution to the cause of more darker colored moths, and in reality, it is a superstitious approach sort of like a coach thinking he has a lucky jacket.

The reason is the relationships between darker tree trunks, bird predation, and darker moths has not been well-established due to serious flaws in the study.

This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 09:26 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:03 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:34 PM randman has responded
 Message 76 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 8:07 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 350 (261668)
11-20-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
11-20-2005 9:25 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
These followup studies were done without the problems of glued moths and daytime releases, but which still validated the results of the initial study.

They cannot validate the study's conclusions without considering all of the potential causes of darker moth coloration, such as bats, weather patterns affecting predator populations, etc, etc,...

You have not shown even an awareness that these other factors need to be seriously considered, much less provided any data showing these factors were ruled out. In fact, you throw out ad hoc arguments saying, well, bird predation on tree trunks is significant, but show nothing to prove that.

Do lightly colored moths normally rest on tree trunks? How often? Do they know to rest on more similar colored areas?

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

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

I see none of the basic requirements necessary to make a solid conclusion, and moreover, you gloss over the fact that darker colored moths also increased in areas with very little pollution?

How do you explain that? That suggests something besides air pollution was the determining factor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 9:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 10:39 PM randman has responded
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 11-21-2005 4:06 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 350 (261670)
11-20-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
11-20-2005 9:25 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
Do you deny natural selection occured? (you've already concede this one)

Natural selection always occurs. It's part of reproduction, but that means very little as far as claiming this as evidence for evolution. No speciation occured.

Do you deny no speciation occured?

Additionally, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude bird predation has anything at all to do with more darker moths.

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.

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.

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. The fact they are unaware that bats are a more signicant predator is actually a point in my favor, not your's.

This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 09:40 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 9:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:43 PM randman has responded
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 10:11 PM randman has responded
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 11-21-2005 8:30 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 350 (261671)
11-20-2005 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by arachnophilia
11-20-2005 9:34 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
The were reported more darker moths emerging during the Industrial revolution, sure.

But that is coorelation not causality, which is the subject of this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:34 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:45 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 350 (261674)
11-20-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by arachnophilia
11-20-2005 9:43 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
Peppered moths are presented as evidence for evolution, as an example of evolution occuring. That's a patently false claim because natural selection alone does not equal evolution in the sense of of the ToE being true.

Moreover, the claims are overstated, but passing off overstatements as facts is par for the course for evolutionists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:43 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:52 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 78 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 8:33 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 11-21-2005 8:38 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 33 of 350 (261675)
11-20-2005 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by arachnophilia
11-20-2005 9:45 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
Not necessarily natural selection related to bird predation, no.

The fact there are more caucasians in North America now and there used to be more Indians is also natural selection, and so is the fact species are going extinct, but none of that is relative here.

Natural selection does not equal evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:45 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 9:53 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 38 of 350 (261686)
11-20-2005 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Belfry
11-20-2005 9:57 PM


Re: ignorance is bliss for some evos
We examined the UV characteristics of the two forms of B. betularia and a number of foliose and crustose lichens. In human visible light the speckled form typica appeared cyptic when seen against a background of foliose lichen, whereas the dark form carbonaria was conspicuous. Under UV light the situation was reversed. The foliose lichens absorbed UV and appeared dark as did carbonaria. Typica, however, reflected UV and was conspicuous.

So does this mean a darker moth is actually more visible to birds on a sooty tree trunk?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Belfry, posted 11-20-2005 9:57 PM Belfry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by arachnophilia, posted 11-20-2005 10:33 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 40 of 350 (261690)
11-20-2005 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
11-20-2005 10:11 PM


Re: If it is natural selection, what is false about protraying it as natural selectio
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.

You know, it's amazing you can claim that. The logical fallacy here is to claim demonstrating natural selection alone is demonstrating evolution, and moreover to put forth a claim as faulty as peppered moths being selected for due to darker tree trunks is valid when there is no conclusive evidence to show that.

The fact you cannot see ignoring things like bat predation as necessary for a proper analysis shows how incredibly closed to basic reason you are here. There is no way you would not be all over this, slamming these studies as totally worthless, if there were presented on the creationist side.

At this point, there is not much else to say. Imo, I feel like I trying to convince a KLansmen that it's OK if his daughter marries a black guy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 10:11 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 11:12 PM randman has responded
 Message 67 by Nuggin, posted 11-21-2005 4:19 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 42 of 350 (261693)
11-20-2005 10:41 PM


my response
I think I answered the fallacy of the study quite well, and do not see any rebuttals based on reasonable, factual analysis. So here is the same post I think adequately deals a deathblow to the OP.

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

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,...

Unless someone can show where all of the other potential factors have been ruled out, please don't respond until you (evos here) provide that.

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.

It appears one study indicates UV vision reverses things, but perhaps I am misreading that. If you want to get into this subtopic, I'll answer you in that regard.

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.

Please cite the studies that show statistics related to bird versus bat predation, day-light habits, etc....Releasing moths into the day-light where they are stunned by the change is not a valid approach.

4. In reality, birds are not even the primary predator of peppered moths, but rather bats are. Bats method of sensing prey is totally different, and relies on sound waves and thus bats tend to capture moths in flight rather than while they are resting. This fact further makes the claims of the study to be somewhat fantastic in nature and without solid scientific standing.

Please cite where bat predation factors are accounted for.

5. 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.

Further posts ignoring the need for data to answer these questions will be ignored by me until they are dealt with. it is obviously unfruitful to continue if you guys are not willing to honestly deal with basic facts, such as considering bat predation versus bird predation, species changes among predators, etc,...

This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 10:46 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 11:42 PM randman has responded
 Message 70 by Nuggin, posted 11-21-2005 4:34 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 8:46 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 86 by JonF, posted 11-21-2005 9:43 AM randman 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 © 2021