Summations Only

I'm sorry the betularia tree happy?btw it was darwin and yet today there has been no-one who has physically found one the tree.

I'm quite happy, thanks. . .and you're still completely wrong.

quote:

---

Resting Behavior
A mating pair or a lone individual will spend the day hiding from predators, particularly birds. In the case of the former, the male stays with the female to ensure paternity. The best evidence for resting positions is given by data collected by the peppered moth researcher Michael Majerus, and it is given in the accompanying charts. These data were originally published in Howlett and Majerus (1987), and an updated version published in Majerus (1998), who concluded that the moths rest in the upper part of the trees. Majerus notes:

Creationist critics of the peppered moth have often pointed to a statement made by Clarke et al. (1985): "... In 25 years we have only found two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps, and none elsewhere". The reason now seems obvious. Few people spend their time looking for moths up in the trees. That is where peppered moths rest by day.

​

From their original data, Howlett and Majerus (1987) concluded that peppered moths generally rest in unexposed positions, using three main types of site. Firstly, a few inches below a branch-trunk joint on a tree trunk where the moth is in shadow; secondly, on the underside of branches and thirdly on foliate twigs. The above data would appear to support this.

​

Further support for these resting positions is given from experiments watching captive moths taking up resting positions in both males (Mikkola, 1979; 1984) and females (Liebert and Brakefield, 1987).

​

Majerus, et al., (2000) have shown that peppered moths are cryptically camouflaged against their backgrounds when they rest in the boughs of trees. It is clear that in human visible wavelengths, typica are camouflaged against lichens and carbonaria against plain bark. However, birds are capable of seeing ultraviolet light that humans cannot see. Using an ultraviolet-sensitive video camera, Majerus et al. showed that typica reflect ultraviolet light in a speckled fashion and are camouflaged against crustose lichens common on branches, both in ultraviolet and human-visible wavelengths. However, typica are not as well camouflaged against foliose lichens common on tree trunks; though they are camouflaged in human wavelengths, in ultraviolet wavelengths, foliose lichens do not reflect ultraviolet light.

​

During an experiment in Cambridge over the seven years 2001—2007 Majerus noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths, and of the 135 moths examined over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch, 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side, and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs.[4][5]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth)

---

Lurker

In the 1920's Heslop Harrison thought that pollution was causing mutations in the moths making them dark. Harrison decided to test his idea by conducting experiments with moths. He claimed that feeding polluted leaves to larvae darkened the moths. He didn't use peppered moths. He used similar moths that like peppered moths appear as light and dark colored moths. When the pupae (caterpillars) were fed leaves coated with coal soot the wings of the adults were darker.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ASL Harrison concluded that the darker moths were a result of pollution induced mutations in the moths, not natural selection.Other scientists tried to replicate Harrison's experiments using peppered moths. They didn't get the same results. In their experiments the moths didn't get darker. A few scientists have breed peppered moths for their experiments. They cross light and dark moths. The next generation fit the same pattern Mendel found with his peas. One gene controls whether the moth is light or dark. The dark form "A" is dominant and the light form "a" is recessiveIs it possible that both Harrison and the other scientists honestly reported their experiments?
A few gray peppered moths have been reported. These rare gray moths are almost never seen in the industrial areas. Scientists don't consider these gray moths relevant.
Scientists rejected Harrison's idea that pollution caused frequent mutations turning the peppered moths dark. As scientist you need to ask, "What part or part(s) of Harrison's idea were wrong?" Scientists don't want to, "Throw out the baby with the bath water." Peppered Moths Mutation theoryEdited by OliverChant, : Forgot to put website name

This post seems to be a cut and paste from this site.Posting someone else's work as your own is called plagiarism. Think of it as stealing. It's not allowed at this site.I'd suggest you read the Rules for this site. You can find a link to them at the top of this page. You are consistently in violation of them and will likely find yourself suspended if you don't improve your performance here.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

I put website on.

This is a debate website, not a collection of links. If you want to make a point, you are expected to make it in your own words, not just copy someone else's, even with attribution.Make your point in your own words, then include a link to the evidence supporting your point.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Copying and pasting in your entire post from another site is not allowed here. You should attempt to make your own reasoned argument, using other sources as support for your position.You've been posting at a ridiculously high rate since you joined; so high, that it is obvious that you could not be putting much thought into your postsand it shows. You should bother to read the Forum Guidelines, and look at some of the other posts on the forums (especially the nominated PotMs) to get a sense of the type and quality of messages that is expected of participants here.Doing this would greatly increase the quality and accuracy of your posts.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

So. . .you're not talking about Darwin anymore (which is kind of a relief). . .and you're not talking about natural selection anymore. Do you even understand the point you're trying to make?Lurker

I am trying to disprove the evolution theory by the use of darwins moths....

Darwin's Moths? LOL.What does Darwin say about 'his moths'?

---

Love your enemies!

Darwin was a naturalist who lived from 1809 to 1882. The peppered moth study you are talking about was conducted in 1953 by Bernard Kettlewell. Darwin had nothing to do with it. When you keep invoking Darwin's name in discussing the moths, people will keep correcting you.This kind of simple error greatly undermines the credibility of anything you say and makes it very difficult to take anything you say seriously. I would suggest that you spend more time learning. One way to learn is to ask questions, rather than make pronouncements with multiple elementary mistakes.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Jon, the boy needs teaching, not ridicule. Minnesota nice, eh?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Oh all right... ya betchya. Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Hi Oliver, That's the moth, not the tree. Biston betularia is the Peppered Moth. Perhaps you should be more thorough. Mistakes that bad kinda make it look like you don't know what you're talking about.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Please take Subbie's advice before posting again.Lurker