Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9057 total)
82 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, kjsimons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 77 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,751 Year: 863/6,534 Month: 863/682 Week: 98/445 Day: 14/30 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peppered Moths and Natural Selection
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 191 of 350 (352268)
09-25-2006 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by MartinV
09-25-2006 2:35 PM


Re: yes or no?
As far as I know this is only an unproven speculation. If Kettlewell glued death specimens on bark it does not necessary means, that dark-colored moths are hidden better.

He didn't glue moths to trees. That was an entirely different research team.

Details of Kettlewell's experiments can be found here

As we still do not know, where exactly pepperd moths rest during day ...

Speak for yourself.

Of peppered moths observed in the wild, about a quarter were indeed sighted on tree trunks. (see M.E.N. Majerus: Melanism: Evolution in Action, Oxford University Press) (details here).

Is there anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by MartinV, posted 09-25-2006 2:35 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 193 of 350 (352384)
09-26-2006 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by MartinV
09-26-2006 11:57 AM


... by some relevant research (not only 47 moths with the naked eye during more than 30 years) as to the resting places of peppered moths.

The total set of observations of the resting places of peppered moths is the relevant research. What other research could be relevant?

Why you complain that these observations were made with the naked eye, I have no idea. How else would you observe a moth?

And surely I am not asking so much at the beginning of 21 century, when we see from satelites smallest details on Earth.

You want satelite images of moths?

In the first place, satelites can't resolve that level of detail, and in the second place, even if they could, they wouldn't pick up moths on tree trunks, because the crown of the tree would get in the way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by MartinV, posted 09-26-2006 11:57 AM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by MartinV, posted 09-26-2006 12:47 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 195 of 350 (352428)
09-26-2006 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by MartinV
09-26-2006 12:47 PM


Oops, double post.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by MartinV, posted 09-26-2006 12:47 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 196 of 350 (352429)
09-26-2006 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by MartinV
09-26-2006 12:47 PM


Than it is necessary to make serious research where moths really rest, while in a green foliage it is much difficult to see any cryptic advantage of melanism as in a poluted bark.

http://www.weloennig.de/BistonA.html#1a

As your link points out, their most common resting position is on the underside of branches, where the same camouflage would be useful as on trunks.

Please note also that this whole question of whether they roost on trunks is irrelevant to most of the studies, including all of Kettlewell's studies, none of which involved the fixing of moths to tree-trunks.


"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." --- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by MartinV, posted 09-26-2006 12:47 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 212 of 350 (354820)
10-06-2006 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by MartinV
10-06-2006 1:46 PM


Yet it seems to me improbable that this one - melanic - just coincided with industrial revolution to survive.

No-one said it did; the claim was that natural selection increased the frequency of the form. This is evidence of natural selection, not of a novel mutation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by MartinV, posted 10-06-2006 1:46 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 268 of 350 (438085)
12-02-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by MartinV
09-06-2007 1:01 AM


Re: PPT file and data now available
The link that you have given shows an intersting photo of "A female parasitoid wasp ovipositing into a 7-spot ladybird". Obviously ladybird has enemies and red colors have no aposematic function as darwinists claim - opposite is more plausible in the case. Wasps should be happy about coloration of ladybirds. The color play obviously no role in "fitness" or "natural selection" in this case.

The title of this thread is not "MartinV whines about aposematism again".

As to the peppered moth I do not see in your extraction any mention of lichens. It is important to notice in which background typica/carbonaria rests during day. Anyway it is positive that Majerus reserched more closely resting place of moths. Darwinists claim more than 100 years that selection of peppered moths has led to difference in their coloration rate without any study where they rest.

This is not true, and we know it's not true, and you know it's not true, and you know we know it's not true, and we know you know it's not true, and you know we know you know it's not true.

So why bother saying it?

If those questions are not answered I am afraid we are still as we were 50 years ago when Kettlewel started his "experiments".

Actually, no. Majerus' results will continue to be meaningful whether or not you can be bothered to look up all the things you don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by MartinV, posted 09-06-2007 1:01 AM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 302 of 350 (612733)
04-18-2011 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by OliverChant
04-17-2011 3:38 PM


Re: You guys do realise that :
If you'd bothered to read the thing you C&P'd you'd notice that the results Harrison reported couldn't be replicated.

You would also have noticed, if you'd read as much as four sentences into your C&P, that Harrison's experiments weren't on peppered moths.

So what we have here is an experiment not on peppered moths, which no-one could replicate, and the supposed implications of which for peppered moths have been utterly refuted by ... well, all the work ever done on the moths since the 1920s.

But I'm not sure why I bother telling you this. If you're too lazy to read your own posts, I have little hope that you'll make the effort to read mine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by OliverChant, posted 04-17-2011 3:38 PM OliverChant has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 307 of 350 (670618)
08-16-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Big_Al35
08-16-2012 8:49 AM


Like NoNukes, I fear that you have grasped entirely the wrong end of the stick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Big_Al35, posted 08-16-2012 8:49 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 328 of 350 (670806)
08-19-2012 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Big_Al35
08-19-2012 10:02 AM


Classic evolutionary tautology. The reproductive success of organisms that have traits which promote reproductive success. The reason this is nonsense is because it contains no information. Reproductive success (not quantified) used twice and traits (quantified only by reproductive success which remains undefined).

Classic creationist blunder. The reproductive advantage of traits can be assessed a priori, not merely a posteriori: for example, it is evident that the better-camouflaged moth has a trait which promotes reproductive success, namely better camouflage, which we would expect to keep it from being eaten by predators.

The statement that such traits will in fact spread through the gene pool is not at all tautologous, since we can imagine circumstances (such as the miraculous intervention of a vengeful god with a grudge against mutants) under which this would not occur, despite our a priori judgement that the trait is favorable.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Big_Al35, posted 08-19-2012 10:02 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 330 of 350 (670809)
08-19-2012 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by pandion
08-19-2012 12:57 PM


The definition, "survival of the fittest," is most definitely a tautology.

Not necessarily, and for the same reason --- we can assess fitness a priori. Other things being equal, the well-camouflaged moth is fitter than the poorly-camouflaged moth, the more streamlined fish is fitter than the less streamlined fish, the faster gazelle is fitter than the slower, the bacterium resistant to our antibiotics is fitter than the one that isn't.

And again we can imagine a world in which a malevolent deity (or some other hypothetical mechanism) thwarts our a priori expectations of their relative likelihood of success and failure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by pandion, posted 08-19-2012 12:57 PM pandion has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 334 of 350 (670830)
08-20-2012 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Big_Al35
08-20-2012 4:21 AM


Actually, now that we covered the fact that some traits are offered a degree of protection from extinction by being recessive ...

"A degree of protection" is a bit ambiguous: they'll still go extinct, it just takes longer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Big_Al35, posted 08-20-2012 4:21 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 345 of 350 (670972)
08-21-2012 12:00 PM


Summation
I have written before about the absence of a creationist world-view. Their nonsense about peppered moths is a case in point. It is one of their rituals to recite that they "don't deny microevolution". But they do in fact deny it in every particular case. They lie about peppered moths, they lie about fruit flies, they lie about antibiotic resistance in bacteria, they lie about Lenski's experiments: you show them any example of microevolution and they will in fact deny it.

In the case of peppered moths, it has been observed that natural selection prefers one allele over another. This is plainly, obviously true --- and what's more, this fact would not bring the whole Book of Genesis tumbling down. But they still find the need to lie about it.

I really don't know why. I can observe the phenomenon of creationist behavior, but I can't explain it.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022