Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,249 Year: 5,506/9,624 Month: 531/323 Week: 28/143 Day: 1/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peppered Moths and Natural Selection
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 31 of 350 (261673)
11-20-2005 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by randman
11-20-2005 9:43 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.
we haven't gotten to causality yet. actually, we're not going to get to causality.
you already agree that natural selection occurs all the time. is this an example of natural selection? yes or no.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:43 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:48 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5015 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 replied

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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5015 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 replied

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

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 34 of 350 (261676)
11-20-2005 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by randman
11-20-2005 9:46 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.
natural selection was part of darwin's predicted result: it was the machanism he proposed. do you agree that evidence that this mechanism is real is evidence in favor of evolution? yes or no?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:46 PM randman has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 35 of 350 (261678)
11-20-2005 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by randman
11-20-2005 9:48 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.
i did not ask causation. is it an example of natural selection? yes or no.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:48 PM randman has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5202 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 36 of 350 (261681)
11-20-2005 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
11-20-2005 7:04 PM


Re: ignorance is bliss for some evos
One more thing to add, re:
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.
Check this out:
Majerus M.E.N.; Brunton C.F.A.; Stalker J. A bird’s eye view of the peppered moth. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Volume 13, Number 2, March 2000, pp. 155-159(5)
...One important aspect of early work evaluating the relative crypsis of the forms of B. betularia on tree trunks with different lichen flora was the reliance on human observers. Humans, however, do not have the same visual capabilities as birds. Birds have well-developed ultraviolet (UV) vision, an important component of their colour processing system that affects many aspects of behaviour, including prey detection. 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. Against crustose lichens, typica was less visible than carbonaria in both visible and UV light. These findings are considered in relation to the distribution and recolonization of trees by lichens and the resting behaviour of B. betularia.
There have also been studies showing that these moths do rest on tree branches during the day, and that they preferentially choose resting locations where they camouflage well. I can provide citations if necessary.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 10:28 PM Belfry has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 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 replied

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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5015 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 replied

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

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 39 of 350 (261687)
11-20-2005 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by randman
11-20-2005 10:28 PM


Re: ignorance is bliss for some evos
no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 10:28 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5015 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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 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 replied

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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5015 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 replied
 Message 70 by Nuggin, posted 11-21-2005 4:34 AM randman has not replied
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 8:46 AM randman has not replied
 Message 86 by JonF, posted 11-21-2005 9:43 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5015 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 43 of 350 (261695)
11-20-2005 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
11-20-2005 10:39 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 10:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2005 11:09 PM randman has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 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 replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 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 replied

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024