|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Peppered Moths and Natural Selection | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
First try A Critique of the "Evolution Essay" where Lithodid-Man issued you a challenge to defend your "essay" the last time you were here.
If you feel you are being ganged up on, then you can ask for it to be moved to the Great Debate. But you should make some effort to answer the rebuttals that have been posted about your misrepresentations and repeated falsehoods eh? abe: Just to be clear, what I am talking about is a demonstration of a willingness to debate in good faith, actually dealing with the issues raised, and answering them, rather than continued blind unsupported assertion after blind unsupported assertion -- it's the other half of the equation /abe Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : {abe} we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... creationists opperate under the assumption that 1+1≠2. sorry, my mistake. They also tend to think that there is a "creationist logic" that is different from "evolutionist logic" ...
(color mine for emPHAsis, capitals in the original ... false btw, assertion.) when what they are really up against is that their NON{logic}, such as using strawman arguments, arguments from incredulity and the like, ≠ {logic} -- whether actual logic is used on evolution, physics, chemistry, or day to day events, or whatever. Likewise logical fallacies are logical fallacies whether they are posted by creationists, evolutionists, tv ads, pollitical campaigns, etcetera. There are no special creationist or evolutionist subfields -- the arguments are either logical or not, and you don't make something logical by calling it so. Of course they also think that NOT{evolution} == {their creationism}, a basic logical fallacy of the first order.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Suddenly impatient?
A little less than two hours, Message 152 of 16509*08*2006 08:56 PM Message 157 of 16509*08*2006 10:52 PM ... when the post that has issued a challenge to you
A Critique of the "Evolution Essay"Message 1 of 22 06*11*2006 07:59 PM ... to defend your position (and which you still have NOT done) takes 3 months to get an answer. LOL. You had my conditions:
Message 154 If you feel you are being ganged up on, then you can ask for it to be moved to the Great Debate. But you should make some effort to answer the rebuttals that have been posted about your misrepresentations and repeated falsehoods eh? abe: Just to be clear, what I am talking about is a demonstration of a willingness to debate in good faith, actually dealing with the issues raised, and answering them, rather than continued blind unsupported assertion after blind unsupported assertion -- it's the other half of the equation /abe(1) And YOU didn't take them up. Can you tell me why one should 'debate' with a person who has failed to make corrections to something that is an obvious error and fails to acknowledge when they are wrong? That is not debate in good faith, as no matter what the {other person} says it is ignored. Enjoy.(1) - Edited by RAZD, 09*08*2006 10:13 PM -- before your impatient posting Edited by RAZD, : added abe time to quoted conditions edit. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... if someone has something about evolution, evidence, pepper moths, natural selection, etc,... Just one quick yes or no question:
Do you agree that the documented changes in the relative proportions of the {dark\light} variety populations of the peppered moths shows natural selection? Just a simple yes or no. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I’ve mainly three things to add and I hope they can be to some avail. And the third is ... ? (don't leave us hanging eh?) Seriously, thanks and welcome to the fray. Your take on the dogs is a little further than most would go. I would rather say they are in the process of transition but that it has not been demonstrated to the level of horse\mule\donkey yet (not that dogs get much opportunity to make those decisions ...) BUT The issue of dogs is discussed on other threads. See Can Domestic Selection cause Macroevolution? and Message 11 The issue of micro\macro differences is discussed on other threads. You might be interested in my beginning take on "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? and what I post on Message 180 on that thread. We'd like to keep this thread focused to a discussion of natural selection and whether the peppered moths are a good example of that. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added hot doggy links (dog on dog) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If evolution can be established creation is disproved. Logical fallacy? There are many creations, many with no problems with evolution (evolution is the mechanism used) The specifics of literal beliefs that are already invalidated include many things besides the way different kinds of organisms came to be on this particular planet. No world wide flood, an ancient earth, are both facts that some believers have trouble comprehending the significance of. But not all beliefs are invalidated by these either. AND again -- this thread is about natural selection of populations of peppered moths ... Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yes, I know, there is of cause the third option of migration that presupposes neither evolution nor creation but very intelligent moths! Careful now, you don't want to anger ... MOTHRA ... of the genesis account ... We should try to be specific of the types of creationists being discussed. Biblical literalist young earth creationists (BLYEC's)(There are some Islamic YEC's and some Jewish YEC's, but not as many as there are christian) There are also some old earth varieties (OEC's). BUT: none of the YEC's etc that I know have any problem with natural selection. That is what makes their position on the peppered moths so curious. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... so my posting here may be limited or just non existent. Understood, that is why I asked a simple yes or no question.
Message 167 ... if someone has something about evolution, evidence, pepper moths, natural selection, etc,... Just one quick yes or no question:
Do you agree that the documented changes in the relative proportions of the {dark\light} variety populations of the peppered moths shows natural selection? Just a simple yes or no. Enjoy. Easy right? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray, tuned2g (and I'll assume it's middle g ...)
Yes--the documented changes of coloration of peppered moths is an example of natural selection. And this is all it has ever been presented as evidence of: natural selection in action.
These peppered moths will always be peppered moths, no matter how much they mutate. They will need an entirely new genome to become something else. Even with a new genome they will still be peppered moths ... for further comments on this and the rest of your post involving {micro\macro}evolution, they have been addressed on a thread dedicated to that issue -- see Message 180 for some background and then Message 181 for details.. If the two varieties of peppered moths became reproductively isolated so that they became different species they would still both be peppered moths, but you would have one species of light peppered moths and one species of dark peppered moths. Then over time each species would develop different varieties within their species populations. So far this has not happened. They are still considered one species. As such the evidence of their population shifts -- from predominantly light with some dark, to predominantly dark with some light, and then back to predominantly light with some dark -- is clearly a result of preferential predation as a selection mechanism with the change being due to altered environment that change the relative fitness of the different varieties for blending into the predominant environment. And until speciation occurs this will only be evidence of natural selection in action. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : moved off topic comments to appropriate thread we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As far as I know this is only an unproven speculation. If Kettlewell glued death specimens on bark ... Then you need to read the rest of the experimental evidence. That would be the honest way to approach the information that is available, rather than to spout further nonsense based on your ignorance of the information. It is obvious from this post that you have not done that. Of course the fact that this one experiment invalidates your pet concept on mimicry wouldn't have anything to do with your denial of the evidence that exists would it? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I know - one of you darwinist send me even to library to read original Kettlewel researches! That would be a start. It's what a scientist would do, or a lay person interested in the truth. Or even an honest critic. Picking up a tid-bit from some creatortionista site and thinking you know more than the scientists that spent years in the field is just a little bit of hubris eh?Do you think only one study was done? Do you think Kettlewell was the only scientist to study the peppered moths? Do you think his work was not critically reviewed by subsequent scientists? Did you even read the OP? or Message 121 and any of the links that have been posted for you? Anyway - if you or anybody else have any photo/link to research of resting places of peppered moth I would appreciate it very. As noted in several posts and links the Majerus book has these photos. Even the link you postedIcon of Obfuscation has two graphs of different places the moths were found and their relative frequencies:http://www.talkorigins.org/...ls/images/majerus_table6_1.gif http://www.talkorigins.org/...ls/images/majerus_table6_2.gif And the fact remains, that the observed behavior of the birds was to preferentially select dark moths on light backgrounds and light moths on dark backgrounds -- showing a distinct, clear and unambiguous benefit to camouflage patterning, to mimicking a common background in the environment, as a result of selection pressure by predation. Not just in the glued moth experiments but in follow-up ones where moths were released and then recaptured and the differences in relative populations were counted. Regardless of whether photographs to your satisfaction are available, there is documentation of preferential predation of moths by birds. The first study establishes this point and no later study invalidates it, they document the same effect and final result. The documentation is sufficiently whelming that creatortionista websites do not contest this point:
John Morris, ICR writes: Remember that both varieties were present at the start, with the mix of genes producing lights favored over the mix of genes producing darks. As the environment changed, the dark variety had greater opportunity to pass on their genetic mix, and percentages changed. All the while, the two types were interfertile. No new genes were produced, and certainly no new species resulted. This is natural selection in action, but not evolution. I'm sure with a little effort you could find other creationist sites that also make such statements. So the question is why are you in such denial of the evidence? Perhaps because you have decided to believe something that is not true, and thus you need to reject any evidence that shows you are wrong. You want to believe there is no benefit to mimicry, and this study clearly shows there is a distinct and clear and unambiguous benefit. So either you accept that your concept is invalid or you need to deny the evidence that invalidates it to maintain your fantasy. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let's take the evidence of the Kettlewell studies eh?
http://bsgran.people.wm.edu/melanism.pdf:
quote: We can probably agree that human eyes do not see like bird eyes so the relevance of STUDY (1) is somewhat moot, that at first blush it at best indicates a tendency for different appearance to birds. Yes? STUDY (2) though, clearly, distinctly and unambiguously demonstrated that birds preferentially ate dark moths on light trees and light moths on dark trees. This alone is sufficient, btw, to invalidate your pet concept as it demonstrates the benefits of {camouflage\mimicry} without any of the rest of the studies being needed. Note too that this actually confirms the results of STUDY (1) - it demonstrates that the birds do in fact more easily distinguish dark moths on light backgrounds and light moths on dark backgrounds, as noted by Grant in the above linked article:
quote:(color for emPHAsis) Study (3) demonstrated that moths released and then recaptured also suffered the same pattern of loss -- regardless of where they actually perched during the day -- with dark moths being preferentially reduced in numbers by predation in unpolluted (light) forests and light moths being preferentially reduced in numbers by predation in polluted (dark) forests. Note that the same proceedure was used in each type of forest so that the only difference in the results is due to the relative predation of the diffeent varieties of moths during the period between release and capture, and the only difference between the two release and capture programs was the different relative camouflage one variety of moth versus the other. In both cases the variety that more closely mimicked the prevalent bark coloration survived in greater numbers than the variety that didn't match the prevalent bark color.
47 observed moths during years 1964-1996 (1,5 observed moths/year) Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. A response in kind would be on the order of: Have you ever tried to find moths in the wild in a woods during the day? Ones that are normally well camouflaged? The first question for you to answer, then, is where did they rest if not in the trees? The second question is two part:
So far no other mechanism has been proposed that explains the evidence. Until such a mechanism is proposed and tested then complaining about the actual numbers of moths sighted in various locations is just clutching at straws in the light of the abundant, clear, distinct and unambiguous evidence of preferential predation by birds. Also note that not all the moths need to rest on the bark for the pattern of preferential predation to be observed, just enough of them that the overal population shows preferential predation. This is the validity of the different proportions of moth sighting in different locations -- it shows some known variations in places naturally chosen by moths for resting and that SOME are on bark. The proportion that naturally rest on bark could in fact be substantially higher if (1) even experienced observers have trouble distinguishing immobile well camouflaged moths and (2) moths that are not that well camouflaged have already been consumed (by the proverbial early bird eh?).
About second example near traps I do not know more details ... so I preliminary restrict to the first one that seems to be more connected with real conditions. Light was used to attract the moths (a well known tactic eh?) so the population of moths was artificially concentrated around the lights. Within that concentrated pattern there were more moths found than in the wild. This could just be a measure of a greater dispersal of the moths in a natural environment versus a lit one, but doesn't mean that the moths were perched in "un-natural" locations around the lights -- the fact remains that the basic pattern is the same between Majerus's 47 finds and the light concentrated 203 finds, and in both cases the predominant resting place was on bark.
Surely I would appreciate if you instead of common discourtesy and emphasizing your unfounded propositions with highlited letters give some scientific relevant links/facts ... Courtesy also involves dealing with the evidence provided, the links for further investigation, and answering points that make your pet concept invalid. Seeing as all the colored highlights are well backed up by references and are highlighted to emphasize the points that you are trying desperately to deny, there is nothing "discourteous" in pointing out such denials and oversights. The peppered moths are an example of natural selection based on the preferential predation of less camouflaged moths, and this shows a clear, distinct and unambiguous survival benefit to moths that better mimic parts of the environment. Now you could be courteous and acknowledge that your concept is indeed invalid, and that there is in fact a demonstrated benefit to mimicry, that such mimicry can indeed be selected for through natural selection mechanisms and that this is sufficient to explain the population shifts in the peppered moths in particular, and the development of other mimicry patterns in general. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
With this explanation I can hardly agree. Of course you can ... unless you are intellectually incapable of seeing\believing that your pet concpet is really invalid eh? So you are saying the experiments do NOT show preferential predation? Have you developed an alternative explanation for all the evidence yet?
What evidence? The evidence of changes in population proportions, not just in the overall observed numbers, or in the Kettlewell experiments, but in ALL the experiments and observations, including the ones that link it to (a) bird predation and (b) camouflage ability. According to Grant (Fine Tuning):
quote:(color mine for empHASis again) The information is there.
Because we do not know where peppered moths rest, no experiment has scientific value Logically false. We may not know where they rest all of the time but we do know where they rest some of the time. Why? because at least 47 moths have been found in those locations in a totally wild environment and 203 moths have been found in those locations after being attracted by light traps to the general area (concentrated). We don't need to know ALL the locations, only that SOME are used that have the properties in question where the effect has actually clearly, distinctly and unambiguously been shown to occur. We also know that they use a variety of resting locations, and that there is a very good reason for using a variety of locations (Grant again, same source):
quote: The predators would learn the common resting places, whether it was holes or any other location you can think of. From Majerus himself in Re: Peppered Moths - in black and white (part 2 of 2) (you may also want to read Re: Peppered Moths - in black and white (part 1 of 2) and A Peppered Epilogue):
quote:(color mine for empHASis, capitals his in the original.) The fact is still that the evidence clearly, distinctly and unambiguously, shows preferential predation by birds of moths dependant on their different camouflage ability. Denial does not make the evidence go away. Clutching at straws does not make the evidence go away. If you want the evidence to go away you need to provide an alternative mechanism that explains the evidence -- so far all you have is hand waving shuck and jive. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ptyo we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
By the way it seems to me very strange, that Majerus during 33 years found only 12 moths resting on trunks in free nature (25% of 47) - and this is the only argument supporting thesis, that they rest on trunks at all. Oops, your denial is showing again. Lets check the facts again eh? http://www.talkorigins.org/...ls/images/majerus_table6_1.gif
You also seem to invest a lot of personal incredulity in the fact that he only found 47 in 33 years of study. Nowhere does it say that he was doing a population survey to find all the places, so these would be happenchance findings during the course of the studies. He also does not claim that these are the only places they rest. Ever gone looking for moths yourself? We (2 bros + dad) used to have a {butterfly\moth\bug} collection when I was a kid that covered a 4ft X 8ft board. Not one of the moths was found resting immobile on a tree. You don't notice things that don't move particularly if they are camoflaged. Let's also look at the other data from the 203 moths found in one year near the light traps:
Now let's deduct the man-made surfaces moths from the data to see the relative proportions of natural resting areas chosen by the remaining 178 moths:
As noted previously all that is needed is for SOME of the moths to rest on lichen covered bark areas for there to be a benefit to the camoflage, and in these data we see 7 out of 8 moths resting in such areas. That's more than "some" of the moths, that's "most" of the moths eh? Note (1) that ALL of the released moths flew up into trees in the moth release studies, and (2) that 7 out of 8 moths chose resting places on lichen covered bark surfaces of ALL the available surfaces in the nearby trees.
Because according another source - Mikola: (1979, p. 86) Of about 100 lepidopterists present at a monthly meeting of the Finnish Lepidopterological Society, nobody had ever found the species in day-rest on tree trunks. Similarly, lepidopterists in Germany have wondered why the species is hardly ever found on trunks, if these constitute the main resting place of the species (G. Ebert and S. Wagner, oral comm.). Note that they only address tree trunks, and do not discuss at all the trunk\branch joints, branches and foilage -- a sin of ommission and thus a logical fallacy (red herring). Note that 75% of Majerus's moths were found on bark areas that were not trunks and 48% of the light trap local moths were found on bark areas that were not tree trunks ...
... ie -- it is entirely possible to have zero moths on trunks and still have the selective effect because of the moths resting on non-trunk lichen covered bark areas (or other lichen covered areas), ... because the issue is that the camouflage is like the lichen covered bark (or other lichen covered areas) -- where ever there is lichen covered bark (or other lichen covered areas). Focusing on just the trunks ...
So if somebody believe, that they rest on truks, it is only darwinian faith with no serious scientifical backround.
... is called the logical fallacy of the straw man argument. The issue is NOT whether they rest on trunks but on lichen covered surfaces. They do. See data above that demonstrates clearly, distinctly and unambiguously that they do in fact rest on lichen covered bark surfaces. (They may also rest on other lichen covered areas ... lichens don't only grow on trees eh?)
Do you see that saltus, that while "are too rapid to be accounted for by random genetic drift" than it must be due selection? The rate of change is faster than has been observed for any population undergoing genetic drift, much faster. Waaay much faster.
Even if I agree - and I do not have problem to - with all 4 propostions I do not see implication. If you have a problem with the logical development of the argument then dissect the logic and show where the error lies. If you CANNOT dissect the logic then you CANNOT challenge the conclusion based solely on your ignorance and incredulity. This is the same as claiming that the sun orbits the earth as far as validity goes. You state you have no problem with "all 4 propositions" therefore you admit that the conclusion is valid, but then you still deny it. This is the mark of delusion eh?
quote: Belief in something in spite of evidence to the contrary is delusion. One can be deluded by others, however when one is confronted with the facts, the evidence, the truth, of the matter and still holds a belief in denial of the {facts\evidence\truth}, then one is psychologically deluded - living in a state of delusion about the reality of the world. See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for a further discussion of this element of thinking, and then consider your position. Do you have any alternative theory that explains the facts? Do you have any legitimate criticism of the logic of the argument? If the answer is no to both and you still maintain that the conclusions based on the evidence is false, then it is not because you have any rational cause based on the evaluation of the evidence and the logic.
No proof, no cited experiments, only the claim. Proof. ![]() Not ONE of the studies (each a test of the theory) involved has invalidated the theory that the change in population is due to preferential predation of the different varieties of moths by birds due to their differing camouflage ability in the different environments. Note the way Majerus states his conclusion:
quote: That is the logical conclusion based on the evidence available to date. He knows the experiments and the data even if you don't eh? Heck, even AIG reach the same conclusion.
Majerus gives there also some interesting facts I did not know before: 1) That according Kettlewell 90% of eaten moths are eaten by bats. So? Unless they are able to distinguish Biston betularia typica from Biston betularia carbonaria (please notice that BOTH are "betularia" -- that is the species name), such predation will have no preferential effect on the population but will consume moths in proportion to their populations and cause no change in population proportions. Seeing as any such ability would work in the SAME direction for preferential predation of flying moths, then there would be no DIFFERENCE in the population change results for the two opposite changes in environment, both would end up with either mostly typica or mostly carbonaria: seeing as this is not the case, this hypothesis is invalidated. By the evidence. Therefore bats are not a factor in the observed change in population proportions. (See how that works eh?) All that is needed is for preferential predation by birds of SOME of the moths for it to affect the population proportions. That too is what the evidence shows. Does that "prove" the case? No, because science doesn't prove theories. Does that validate the theory? Yes.
2) Majerus supports Kettlewel claim, that carbonaria and betularia search crzptic position during day - acrbonaria dark backround, betularia pale. So. Now you are essentially using the fact that moths rest on lichen covered bark to show that they don't rest on lichen covered bark?
As to the second point it is necessary to appreciate it if true - it means, that for birds it would be more difficult to find them as when they rest on same backround - selective pressure would be diminished. Except you are assuming they can FIND suitable resting places eh? You of course realize that in a polluted forest there is virtually NO light background area for typica moths to rest on, no matter what their 'preference' is in the matter? You also realize, of course, that in a non-polluted forest of the kind studied there is very little dark background area for carbonaria moths to rest on, no matter what their preference is in the matter? And you -- of course -- realize that this leaves the non-camouflaged variety in each case ill equiped to evade preferential predation by birds during the daylight hours regardless of how many moths are eaten by bats.
This is, after all, the issue -- that the environment changed ... ... changed such that the population that previously enjoyed a selective advantage for better suited camouflage for the predominant environment found they were no longer better adapted to the prevalent environment and were vulnerable ... ... changed such that the population that previously lived in the fringes of the other population with less well adapted camouflage found they were now better adapted to the prevalent environment and now THEY enjoyed a selective advantage for being better suited. And what if another proposition is right that moths on trunks rest very scarcely, or not at all and for instance 95% of them rested on foliage in canopy? What then? You still have SOME moths resting on lichen covered bark areas where they are clearly, distinctly and unambiguously subjected to preferential predation by birds during the day. Even if the only ones resting there are ones well camouflaged for the particular environment -- typica in light unpolluted forests and carbonaria in dark polluted forests and all the others (both varieties) are resting in the canopy. You have still not invalidated the theory or the conclusions, all you have done is repeated your personal incredulity and ignorance ... and denial. AND, if you are interested in science, then what you do is come up with an alternative theory for what was going on that equally explains the data that was observed for the population changing proportions to match the prevaling environment, and then you go out and test that theory. That is if you are intersted in science. There is still a complete VOID of alternative explanation for the observed change in populations. There is no competing theory to test, and there is no logical criticique of the conclusions reached to date to show that they are invalid. There is no alternative explanation.
... everything is only neodarwinian speculation. Instead of facts and relevant numbers we are facing only neodarwinian dialectic. Yes, you are faced with data and logical conclusions, tested theory and validated results ... and an explanation that works, that explains the data, explains the observations ... better than any other explanation ... (which is what science does eh?) ... whether you personally desperately and willfully deny them or not. All you have is incredulity and ignorance and denial. Especially your denial that the observed data from ONE study clearly, distinctly and unambiguously totally invalidates your pet concept that mimicry has no selective advantage. Note as well, that your personal denial of the evidence for natural selection in this particular case puts your particular views in the far fringes of even what one could call "mainstream" creationist thought, ... which is not known for being central to scientific thinking (or even logical thinking ... or even factual thinking). Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added one line we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I agree but let me end the discussion on resting places that moths rest on trunks at best "rarely", ok?: My point is (and has been) that resting on the trunk (or not) is irrelevant, when the real question is whether (or not) they are resting on a lichen covered bark or sooty bark -- where ever that is located -- so that the patterns would be effective. A concurrent point is that "rarely" is not "never" -- sometimes for natural selection the difference can be in fractions of a percentage of cases, but that fraction of a percent is STILL a benefit that will propagate within the population. Of course the higher the percentage involved the faster the change in proportions eh?
But as you seem to agree with these facts regarding rest places on trunks I have presented you so many times you with common discourtesy changed topic to this one: I suggest before you impugn "discourtesy" that you check the relevant posts. What I have consistently said is that moths rest on bark areas (whether lichen covered or not) -- and you were the one insisting on talking about trunks to the exclusion of all the other bark areas. Now it seems YOU are in agreement that the moths rest on lichen covered bark or polluted bark areas on trees -- places where the moths will have different survival potential based on their different camouflage ability -- and not some mysterious {other} location (didn't you say perhaps a hole?).
But question still remain - if you realize it - even if they rest on lichens, how it fall in with selection? The answer is still the same: the moths have developed camouflage patterns to hide on the lichen covered bark during the day as a protection from predation by birds. The coloration has no benefit during the night because (a) the colors can't be seen and (b) they are flying rather than resting on the lichens. The answer is also still that only SOME of the moths need to rest where they have a better camouflage benefit for this to show up in the changing proportions of the populations of the two varieties of moths. Any place where the two varieties have equal {benefit\fitness} will not cause a change in proportions of the populations as predation would be proportional to population proportions -- this is the same as predation by bats having no effect on the population proportions.
Birds see also in UV spectrum and from the same article it is misleading to presume that there is any crypsis of peppered moths typica and carbonaria in UV light on (foliose) lichens. It goes even against crypsis, as percieved by human:
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. Color mine for emPHAsis on the element you appear to be ignoring here. Majerus goes on at length about the difference of foliose and crustose lichens and their relevance to pollution effects and pollution recover. He also makes the point that the crustose lichens -- in unpolluted forests -- are more prevalent where the moths rest more often (but not exclusively) -- on the lichen covered bark underside of branches, yes?
ie -- the moths normally rested where the typica variety had the most visual protection from bird predation in unpolluted forests. Majerus also makes the point that pollution with sulfur dioxide and soot kills almost all the lichens of both foliose and crustose types and darkens the barks surfaces. This leaves the moths with only bark areas for resting, areas where the carbonaria would have the most visual protection from bird predation in polluted forests (as shown by previous experimental results).
ie -- the moths normally rested where the carbonaria variety had the most visual protection from bird predation in polluted forests. The environment changed from one type to the other (non-polluted to polluted and then polluted to non-polluted), and this change in environment cause a change in the fitness of the two varieties, such that the previously unfavored variety became favored and the favored variety became unfavored. Natural selection, in the form of bird predation, then caused the population proportions to change from one variety being predominant to the other variety being predominant, as the unfavored varieties were consumed in greater proportion than the more favored ones, and this changed the population proportions. Unfortunately we do not have UV pictures of moths on polluted bark areas to see if there is a difference from what we see, but lets discuss this issue of bird vision a little further:
Normal / UV pictures of moths on foliose lichens are on the same page. I reccomend everybody to look at it if it support crypsis even a bit. Note that the "normal" picture combines the three (3) color visual areas common to humans and birds, but we don't have three (3) pictures in each of those three (3) different color bands. If we did they would have similar differences as the one filtered only in UV, based on the different behavior in the different wavelengths perceived by each of the different color receptors. Further, overall perception is not simply a matter of looking only through the different receptors, as there is processing in the brain that blends the results to give us all the intermediate colors: we perceive "purple" but we don't see it. The birds are not seeing ONLY in UV, but in the total wavelength band that includes UV with the others, so NEITHER picture shows what a bird would perceive. They too would perceive a blending of all their filters to give an integrated picture, some combination of the two pictures (and not likely an average, it would likely be 1/4 UV and 3/4 for the other three (3) color receptors -- ie based on the number of color receptors in the eyes). Further, it appears that birds have 4 or more different color receptors (depending on species) rather than just {human}+UV: Document not found | Error | University of Bristol
quote: And it's not just cones that are used:http://users.mikrotec.com/~pthrush/lighting/cvb.html quote: Translation: we don't really know how birds perceive. What is the blended end perception of the different bird species involved? More to the point, how can we test for it? Easy. We put moths of different levels of crypsis as we perceive it on different backgrounds simulating natural resting places, and then see what the birds perceive by their reactions. Which is what Kettlewell did. And the results documented that typica moths on lichen surfaces were indeed detected less than carbonaria moths by the bird predators, and that carbonaria moths on polluted surfaces were detected less than typica moths by the bird predators -- confirming that the bird species in question had overall perceptions of the moths similar enough to what the people saw for there to be a difference in camouflage ability. Certainly the ability of birds to see into UV ranges did not turn the typica moths into glaring, flashing neon beacons of visibility ... as you seem to imply ... ie the perception of the birds was tested and the different camouflage ability relative to perception by the birds was confirmed to match expectations by the actual bird behavior. Finally I give you with this quote from the article that you linked but apparently also overlooked:
quote:(color mine for emPHAsis). They come to this conclusion due to the {vision including UV} camouflage ability of typica moths on crustose lichens compared to carbonaria moths and of the { vision including UV} camouflage ability of carbonaria moths on polluted tree surfaces compared to typica moths. They not only CONFIRM previous results:
Might be that there is still neodarwinian selection of peppered moths even without crypsis uf? Natural selection is an ongoing thing operating on many levels. In this instance ONE of those levels is on the benefit of better camoflage ability of one variety over the other. The fact remains that the benefits of crypsis patterns was demonstrated ... by the birds eating moths on the trees ... and that your pet concept -- that natural selection cannot influence the use of cryptic patterns -- is therefore dead in the water, invalid, null, void, caput, finished. And yes, your denial of this fact is still showing. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : fixed formating we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024