Summations Only

If they are hard to find, where do they rest during day? Are these
places accessible for birds to pick them? If it is so, what are the difficulties for a scientist to make a photo of them in their resting place? Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

That is surprise, I do not know.
Yet it is then obvious, that we are not sure - instead of so many experiments to prove industrial melanism - where the peppered moths rest during day.Let me cite from your neodarwinistic link "FINE TUNING THE PEPPERED MOTH PARADIGM":"Mikkola (1984), based on his observations of moths kept in
captivity, suggested that peppered moths hide by day on the underside of branches in the canopy."to come to the conclusion:"In truth, we still don't know the natural hiding places of peppered moths."
It may be then only unproven darwinistic assumption, that peppered moths are eaten during day by birds and that there exists selection pressure at all. According Eisner birds, despite that butterflies are most conspicuous insects, avoid them, eat them very infrequently.I personally will be very glad to read some article about how "palatable" peppered moths really are, if it is convinient for birds (and simple) to look after them on bottom parts of branches in the canopy. Some experiments in the aviary where birds have nothing else to choise for eating and where peppered moths are light accessible on wall is not of relevance.Because we know, that some locusts (grasshopers) as Oeddipoda caerulescens or Oedipoda germanica change their colour on on wings during larval stage through vision channels (Suchantke:"Metamorphosen in Insektenreich").Is this not also possible explanation for peppered moths?That peppered moths change color according environment (whatever the mechanism is) without any selective pressure from birds and that this case of peppered moths do corroborate neither darwinistic selectionism nor neodarwinism as theory. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Is it? Do you have any link/publication where this was really observed?

I have Slovak - sorry, Czech - translation. Book has about 110 pages with many pictures and interesting facts. I only cited S., he does not dwell on this phenomenon.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

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. As we still
do not know, where exactly pepperd moths rest during day we cannot deduce, that they are "hidden" in that unknown place better.There is some hypothesis - look back in thread - that they rest on bottom side of branches in canopy. If it is true, I would like see photos of these places - are these hidden, from direct polution diverted parts of branches as poluted as Kettlewell barks? If there exist no photos of genuine resting places of peppered moths, all is only speculation, because we do not know, if they are more hidden/exposed to eyes of predators.

I know - one of you darwinist send me even to library to read original Kettlewel researches! As good argument as your.Anyway - if you or anybody else have any photo/link to research of resting places of peppered moth I would appreciate it very.

I agree that for this case it is sufficiently enough not to seek true in other links but neodarwinistic.
Anyway you might be right, but I am not sure, if you realize that is importatnt to know, where peppered moths rest in order to prove, that there is selection pressure on them from birds at all. Majerus seems to be of similar opinion himself: Please use peek and learn how to shorten linksIf you agree with arguments there and consider these arguments as valuable to mention them let me cite from it: About second example near traps I do not know more details (were peppered moths released during night/day?, why Bruce Grant in previous link mention predominantly first case? ), so I preliminary restrict to the first one that seems to be more connected with real conditions.47 observed moths during years 1964-1996 (1,5 observed moths/year)
on my opinion have neither any scientific value nor is it statistically representative sample at all. What is more curious, that Majerus - according previous link from Bruce Grant - " Majerus himself reports by far the greatest number of sightings among moth workers."(!!)Is these observed number 47 moths during 32 years enough for you and is 47 moths satisfactory explanation for you as where peppered moths rest during day?Because on the previous link of Bruce Grant: " In truth, we still don't know the natural hiding places of peppered moths."Surely I would appreciate if you instead of common discourtesy and emphasizing your unfounded propositions with highlited letters give some scientific relevant links/facts backed 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.
And surely I am not asking so much at the beginning of 21 century, when we see from satelites smallest details on Earth.
Enjoy. Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

I would appreciate, if responses bring something intelligent and new that can elucidated problem of resting places of peppered moth instead of ridiculing remarks.I hit on this German-English link, that reproduces many Majerus pictures of resting peppered moth. Interesting is, that there is picture with text: "A typical peppered moth at rest in hazel foliage."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
Edited by MartinV, : word green added

This proposition seems be right at first moment but let us go deeper. According Grant moths in these demonstaration were released during day, in morning and: Neverthenless Grant gave following explanation, and you have given this explanation somewhere in beginning of this thread too: With this explanation I can hardly agree. Let us assume that peppered moths normally spend nights in foliage in canopy. Now they were released during day and they encountered predominantly - let
us assume - trunks, where they stayed: at dark barks pale specimens were picked predominantly and vice versa - at pale barks were picked darker specimens by predators.
So in different poluted area outcome of this experiment may be really supportive for selectionism and neodarwinism.But the experiment might have no connection to real conditions, because it would be necessary to ensure, that moths spend daytime approximatelly at same places as when they choiced their places
during night (dawn) on their own.Experiment would had have some meaning, if moths would have been released at beginning of night and recaptured after one-two days. But according Grant this is impossible due:"This solution might seem obvious and easy to recommend, but it's not easy to do. The return rate two days after release drops off enormously as a result of either mortality or dispersal from the trapping area."Summary - if in Kettlewel experiments moths rest in different places as they rest normally, experiment support nothing.And we should not forget, that according another experiment "Kettlewell (1955b) reported morph specific behaviors: carbonaria tended to settle on black, and the typicals tended to settle on white."Then - if true - I do not see selective pressure not even so strong, because moths find least conspicuous places for them. What evidence? We do not know where pepered moths rest during day. If they rested for instance in holes, than I will not see any selective pressure on them from birds because of darkness.
If they rest predominantly in foliage in canopy is selective difference between pale/dark ones as strong as when they rest on barks? That would mean that selection is not responsible for melanism and the phenomenon should be explained by different cause.Because we do not know where peppered moths rest, no experiment has scientific value untill during its course peppered moth are proportionally in same places on trees as usually they are during their daily rest.citation from Grant are in:
"Fine Tuning the Peppered Moth Paradigm"

Do you deliberately snatch this piece of text? Because Grant only summarized previous researches to come to conclusion: http://bsgran.people.wm.edu/melanism.pdfBy 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.
Because according another source - Mikola: http://www.weloennig.de/BistonA.html#1aSo if somebody believe, that they rest on truks, it is only darwinian faith with no serious scientifical backround.You sended some links to Majerus from 1999, but I have found Cambridge latest Majerus comments from 2004:Page not found | Department of GeneticsI reccomend everybody to read it. Especially interesting is Majerus conclusion: Do you see that saltus, that while "are too rapid to be accounted for by random genetic drift"
than it must be due selection? Even if I agree - and I do not have problem to - with all 4 propostions I do not see implication. No proof, no cited experiments, only the claim. As I wrote before, there exist no experimental proof of selection, because moths released during experiments in the morning did not rest in same positions as naturally but on first ones they encounter. And from such distorted conditions it is utterly unscietific to draw any conclusions.Majerus gives there also some interesting facts I did not know before:
1) That according Kettlewell 90% of eaten moths are eaten by bats.
2) Majerus supports Kettlewel claim, that carbonaria and betularia search crzptic position during day - acrbonaria dark backround, betularia pale.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.And now - if according Majerus 25% of 47 moths rested on trunks and according Kettlewel 90% of moths are eaten by bats, than only 10% mortality of moths may be attributed to birds, yes? And from these 10% only quarter can be found on trunks and can be eaten by birds from there, yes?
I do not underestand, how these 2% (quarter from 10%) eaten by birds from trunks may produce such attention to trunks as crucial for selection?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? When we do not know, where moths rest and subsequently how they are crypted and subsequently selected by birds everything is only neodarwinian speculation. Instead of facts and relevant numbers we are facing only neodarwinian dialectic.

I agree but let me end the discussion on resting places that moths rest on trunks at best "rarely", ok?: Citation is from Journal of Evolutionary Biology (2000):"Here"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: But question still remain - if you realize it - even if they rest on lichens, how it fall in with selection? 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: 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."UV Crypsis"Last conclusion from the article sounds btw. as my ridiculed "pet concept" of crypsis: Might be that there is still neodarwinian selection of peppered moths even without crypsis uf?
Enjoy.

What Majerus wrote is this: It is just theirs view, nothing less, nothing more. No scientific research, just "our view". Let me cite also from Majerus article written 4 years afterwards in 2004, where he admits, that: I do not even underestand this complaint.
1) How is it possible, that after 50 years of intense study and contoversies of industrial melanism there is no serious research, where peppered moths rest during day and we are referred to sentences as "our view"? Should their rest during the experiment in same places, where we suppose them to rest normally on "our view"?2) How is it possible, that criticism should be addressed in future experiments - article is from 2000 - but yet Majerus himself do not proceed these experiments, even though he proceeded in cited article from 2004 experiments with bats, if they pick up selective moths or no?As to the lichens, on talkorigins article on peppered moths is written: Icon of ObfuscationSo according Kettlewell are moths well concealed on birch bark, so consequently I suppose same for birch twigs etc...But let us assume, that Majerus unwaranted hypothesis is right and they rest predominantly (is it right meaning for habitualy?) on crustose lichens and not on foliose lichens (it would be then of course more to topic, if he show us UV/normal photos of moths on crustose lichens instead of foliose.) Now we can move to polluted areas, where are no crustose lichens and only foliose lichens or no lichens at all. Barks are poluted, dark and so on.
Why we assume, that typica would rest on places without lichens or even on dark places? According Kettlewel carbonaria and typica choose ther resting places to be inconspicuous, so we can presume, that typica in polluted forest would search for some bright places, not dark. Even in your previous post you wrote: You again presented some unwaranted assumption and instead of using facts, you as usually on such occasions emphasized "eternal truth" with "NO". How are you sure, that there is no light background places? Were you on canopy, did you make any research? I doubt this hypothesis to be true. If the forest is so polluted, that there is no bright places, is there still nourishment for moths?
Were it not be more suitable for them abandon such place and search something more normal, that are they used to?
Are grasses, flowers, leaves, twigs, everything so dark in polluted forest as if somebody burned there cars tyres? Is such places even fit to live in?In my country in deciduous forests there can be often found birchs. Were barks of birches during industrial revolution in England also dark?
But let us even assume, that environment is so polluted, that there is no bright places, birchs are not near or are dark. How we can be sure, that decline of typica in such areas are due selection and not due migration of typica to more favourable areas? Because I noticed, that sometimes discrepancies in occurence of expected neodarwinian ratio of typica/carbonaria are dismissed due migration. Why not here? Do migrate typica/carbonaria from same area always together or none of them?I would like discuss later - if you would agree too - also UV problem of predation, but still seems to me with accordance with Majerus as crucial point of peppered moth story the resting
places and how to make such experiment.Btw. is melanism observed only on peppered moths? What about Oak beauty moths and other species that according creationists: I did not found refutation of this either on talkorigins or in Majerus articles. Is it hoax or a forgotten fact?"Creationist site on pepperd moth"Edited by MartinV, : grammar neither/nor - either/or

Anyway your post is not so much off topic as it seems at first glance. Let me cite some Majerus words from creationist link:"Creationist site on pepperd moth" As we see, mutation would have coincided with industrial revolution. It is very
strange. As far as I know mutation means, that some existing gene changes some nucleotides inside for another ones only by chance. This phenomenon should lead to melanism. Neodarwinism seems to explain some melanism due to these mutations suported by subsequent selection. Anyway these and other mutation would have arousen by chance througout ages. Yet it seems to me improbable that this one - melanic - just coincided with industrial revolution to survive. I would say, that genes responsible for melanic forms were either already present in DNA of moths and derepressed (as Davison states) or they aroused by no way by chance. The second case means, that organism somehow know, that it would be better for it to look melanic due crypsis and coded somehow the information in DNA in order to pass it to next generations. Or - most probably, but of course I can give no evidence, its just speculation - insects somehow in some cases prefer to look like prevalent surroundings and coded information into DNA. DNA for me represents only "library" to which an organism write or read information as needed. DNA and chromosomes have no any meaninig withou "reader" and no information value without cell (zygota at first moment) which knows what and when to draw from it and how to interpet the drawn information.

We are spinning in a circle. Observations are scanty ant imperfect. Thats why Majerus who knows of topic much have only "view" and no "evidence": And again Grant: No. I concur only, that in an unnatural conditions in aviary we observed something like preferential predation and maybe preferential predation was cause of decline of returned peppered moths when released during day and did not pick up habitual resting places but first ones they hit on. These two observations are no way sufficient as evidence of hypothesis that decline of peppered moths was caused by preferential predation during industrial revolution. Thank you for pictures, very interesting indeed. I like them. Anyway as photos from from industrial area they do not support your claim, that also forests were so poluted, that there were "virtually NO light background". From the picture I would say that the difference is sensible. That melanic form is distingishable enough is clear from Majerus consideration (creationist link): In your next post you wrote: Yet Majerus do not see this as unambiguous as you proposed: According Majerus it is due "lack of industrial poly-morphism in this species in Britain" an so on, but the case is very intstructive. B.strataria rest on tree trunks and according neodarwinists who are so fond of making pictures of glued moths exactly there to prove selection advantage of crypsis, they should have been extra good prey for birds. But this was not the case, so Majerus came with explanation of insufficient occurences and so on.BTW you did not addressed my question, if melanism could not be explained due migration of more conspicuous form to more favourable areas.

It is coincidence, that soots are dark. If it were red, so we would
have observed red moths morphs? Do we ever observed moths that due mutation of gene have green/blue/yellow/ wings? BTW. bricks are red, so was there ever mutation of moths to brick color, that can survive on wall in cities? Or mutation is restricted to white-dark gamut and each generation release some individuals so to say to see if there is any advantage of this crypsis? Do we know green morphs which can eventualy rest on leaves? Why not? As far as I know moths as family lavish in colors almost as butterflies. If look like leachens why not as leaves?