Summations Only

That fails to address the issue. If you are claiming resting on darker tree trunks is a significant factor, then there is a need to show how often they rest on tree trunks so we can assess whether the claim is valid. The fact they merely rest on tree trunks is not sufficient.Also, it is not clear that this analysis includes other places of rest, such as the ground.

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.

Just list all the other potential factors that were considered, and how they were ruled out, or concede that attributing causality based on coorealation is faulty science. I particularly would like to see some analysis done on bat predation, considering bats are their primary predator, I believe.

Please list all the other potential factors and show why they are not considered causal.Dismissing asking for this as ad hoc doesn't work. You have to show you considered all potential causes, and you have not.Please do so.Also, you claim studies exist but refuse to cite them. Please back up your claims. The fact is all the studies do not agree with the initial claims such as the studies cited below. http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htmWhy did darker moths increase wildly in population to 80% of the moth population in areas with no substantial industrial pollution?Please explain that.What role did bats and bat populations play during this period?What are the differences besides coloring of these different moths? Do some moths fly differently, are quicker, etc,...?This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 11:50 PM

More. http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htmHow do you explain more increases in darker moths in areas with less pollution? That's the opposite of what the original claim was, and yet there are numerous studies verifying this.Talkorigins, I note, dismisses this with the claim, well, the fact is continent wide darker moths increased with more pollution, but isn't that simplistic?If non-polluted areas where trees are not darkened saw a greater increase in darker moths than sooted areas, isn't that data that contradicts the claims that soot on trees is the causal factor?Can you answer any of these questions without just saying you think they are ad hoc or some other nonsense?

finally did some homework...?I am sorry, but that's pathetic. You made claims that were not backed up. I knew they were not backed up, but rather than honestly back up your points, you refused to do so and insist I back up mine.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. It's just flat out wrong, the whole way you proceed to present something unsubstantiated and then demand someone like me do YOUR HOMEWORK, wasting my time and your's rather than when I bring up a point in response to your OP, you dig into it and support it.Take the bat issue. It's not up to me to figure out the role of bats and birds. It's your OP. You should do more than lightly dismiss the fact that the major predators are not mentioned in your studies.You need to dig into the issue, and respond to these points and try to figure out whether the issue is relevant or not. Heck, for all we know, bats prefer dark colored moths more for taste or whatever and there was a decline in bat population that caused all this.We don't know because your sources make unfounded claims that don't tell us. So do some real research and come back and tell us where these issues are addressed.I hope I am surprised tomorrow but I won't hold my breath.

And? You say the primary predator is of no consequence? How do you know that?Don't you have to offer real evidence for that?For example, maybe some bats preferred the lighter moths and could distinquish them by their flying patterns, or maybe they craved the melatin or whatever made the darker moths dark, and there was a reduction in the bat population and so the darker moths were not eaten as much by bats?How can you claim this is valid science without ruling out all the various potential causes?

I don't know. Do you? Presumably there is a chemical that makes some moths darker. Have the studies ruled out whether or not some bats or other predators crave darker moths based on whatever makes the moth dark.Also, it's not up to me to come up with data here. These are your claims. Where do the studies show they considered other possibilities?Isn't that what you have to do to make a scientific claim? Then what are you doing arguing on a thread discussing causation?

Here's some quotes on what evolutionists were saying about peppered moths. http://www3.telus.net/csabc/PepperedMoth.htmlSo evos claimed this was "evolution in action"? Well, was it? Did even speciation occur?The answer is no, it did not.Also, check this out where prominent evolutionists admit the studies are inaccurate and do not show natural selection. Desperately Defending The Peppered Myth | Discovery InstituteWhen I say I agree natural selection exists, that really isn't that the changing moth population has anything to do with soot. It's just that by definition, all changes can be considered natural selection. 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.You are not being honest in your approach. If you define evolution as mere change, then automatically evolution is proven, and all change has some cause and so since there is a cause, you can call all change natural selection in a loose sense.But when we debate "evolution", we are talking specific models of ToE, and so the fact you can define evolution or natural selection as any change does not mean that just because we accept change occurs, which is obvious by daily life not being identical, then it is dishonest to claim somehow evolution being verified in the sense of any change means evolution meaning ToE is somehow supported.This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 03:38 AM

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/appendix1.asp

Can you not see why this smacks of deception to me? Your stance is the evo stance, but honestly, science textbooks are not about evolution in this sense.Under that definition, Young Earth Creationists are evolutionists.To interchange a loose term "evolution" with a definite term for a specific scientific theory also called "evolution" all jumbled up together is something we critics object to and think is dishonest and misleading.What is under debate is ToE, which is universal common descent modeled based on evolutionary models. It's not "evolution" in the sense of just "change." No one has ever claimed the world doesn't change.So if there is no speciation, and really no macroevolution, then the peppered moth story is not "evolution in action" as evolutionists claim, and moreover, the premise is shown to be faulty.We all were taught the tree trunk story, and now we know that was wrong. Wrong too are a whole host of claims in the scenario. For example, studies also show that in some places with no pollution, the increase in darker moths was more prevalent.But getting back to your post, switching between the theory of evolution and then the theory that change happens since evolution is mere change, is inherently deceptive and just plain wrong.This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 04:26 AM

What is not clear is what is causing the natural selection. There really isn't evidence it was soot on tree trunks. Sometimes, there were more increases in darker moths where there was little pollution and no soot. The moths also did not rest on tree trunks.All we have solid evidence for is that the moth population changed, something that is not that unusual and is not specific evidence for evolutionary theories anymore than any other theory.

I look forward to your responses to the material, and yes, I have thrown out too many insults. My only defense is I did not draw "first blood" so to speak.

He's quoting studies that apparently convincingly make that case. Admittedly without access to the studies he cites, we cannot easily examine their methodologies, but bare assertions that "there is no reason to expect" is nothing but a bare assertion without documentation. He backs up his claim with a citation. It may not be accurate, but it is more than a bare assertion as your claim is. That's the point. There should be no shift in areas not polluted if sooty tree trunks is a determinative factor. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude bird predation changes due to sooty tree trunks are not the cause here. The point is there is not a coloration issue, and so darker tree trunks favoring darker moths could not be in play. Keep in mind this fact, darker moths grew in percentages of population in areas with no discoloration due to sooty trees. You dodged that whole point with several paragraphs that appear to me to be out of place. The results are reversed in some areas.Is this a situation where the data doesn't matter at all? You guys are going to insist the hypothesis is right no matter what the data? How does that favor darker moths? If anything, it would favor lighter moths. But you make a good point that bird vision is not mentioned. It may be indeed, or may not be. Too bad the original study does not take this into account, and that evos are so wed to the original study's claims that in arguing for it, they ignore this area.All that says to me is that there is no conclusive evidence one way or another that bird predation changes are a significant factor in the emergence of darker moths, especially since this occurred in wide regions with very little to no soot accumulating on trees.As you say, "it could be"?Too bad, evos haven't come up with anything conclusive here. That may be so, but I think we can safely rule out sooty tree trunks making lighter moths more visible to birds. Don't you agree?Otherwise, why did darker moths increase in areas with no sooty tree trunks? You mean like the fact vast swaths of land with no accumulation of soot on trees also experienced the same phenomena?You err and thinking Wells is like you. He is just being objective as a scientist and stating that there could still be some other selective pressure we don't know about, but he effectively rules out the sooty tree trunk story since it does not jive with the facts.Oh, and Occam's razor is not a fact. Moreover, the simplist explanation is that where there is no soot on trees, claiming sooty tree trunks led to increased bird predation of lightly colored moths is quite absurd.

The studies he cites suggests IF the scenario were true of increased bird predation feeding on lighter colored moths, that they should have died out in some areas. He doesn't state why the studies say that. I would venture a guess that due the rates of increase in darker moths, but unfortunately, unless one is extremely well verses and has read those studies, the article does not delve into the detail of them.