Summations Only

Tautologies are, by definition, true.

Actually, now that we covered the fact that some traits are offered a degree of protection from extinction by being recessive, maybe someone ought to cover why large chunks of dna, particularly the genes, are largely protected from mutation events.

"A degree of protection" is a bit ambiguous: they'll still go extinct, it just takes longer.

Hi again Big_Al35, What we've covered is that during an ecological change of short duration there is an observable shift in the frequency of hereditary traits to adapt to the new challenges and opportunities presented by the change.Initially this change is not enough to eliminate the less fit camouflage from the gene pool, so when the ecology shifts back the previous (Mendelian) pattern can also reappear.This change is likely to be along an exponential curve as time passes (nature loves exponential curves it seems, almost as much as beetles ... ), so the longer the change persists the more likely the less fit camouflage will not be able to survive to breed and be culled from the gene pool. You still need to understand the difference between change in DNA through mutation, with subsequent dispersal in the gene pool, and gene mixing of existing traits via Mendelian mechanisms. It isn't always the recessive gene that is being repressed in the changing ecology.A recessive gene may have some protection and it may not -- that depends on the degree of selection pressure and the length of time involved (the exponential curve would be drawn out a little longer before the trait is culled).A new topic on natural selection and new mutations vs Mendelian gene mixing might help.There is also the issue of how a recessive gene becomes a dominant gene in the gene pool and whether a new mutation is dominant or recessive (or just neutral), that could be discussed on that new topic: it should be fairly simple to understand that if a change in the ecology suppresses and then culls the dominant gene, that the recessive gene becomes the dominant gene, then a new mutation, that starts out neutral can become expressed and be recessive in a new ecology that over time this pattern will result in permanent changes to the mixture of traits available in the gene pool and the existing population can have an entirely different set of genes from the ancestors.Maybe I'll work on one for you if you are interested. Another great idea for a new topic.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

Most here wouldn't use this as an example of full-blown evolution either. You could use it as an example of micro-evolution, but the peppered moth is usually presented as an example of natural selection. A parenthesized "but not against mutation" is not introducing mutation into the equation.Where are you going with this, Al? What are you trying to say about the peppered moth example of natural selection?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix quote of self.

What on Earth has this to do with the peppered moth?--Percy

I’m sure we can all agree life is more complex than a 350 Chevy engine. My proposal to the evolutionist, take a 350 Chevy put it on an engine dino run it up to peak performance rpm and rebuild it in to a Duramax diesel the hole time never missing a beat. You boys get that one done and we can talk.

Seems you posted this once before.What does it have to do with Peppered Moths or Natural Selection?

Hi barnes and welcome to the fray, One of the things this forum likes to do is confine threads to specific topics, in this case the role that natural selection plays in the changes observed in the peppered moth populations. A variation on the old airplane in a junkyard PRATT (point refuted a thousand times).Why don't you start a new thread on just this little concept, and we will be glad to show you what is wrong with it. It is off topic on this thread.Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics, if you are serious about discussing it, or just post it in Coffee House if you want to see what happens.Enjoy.

Mike? Is that you? The "real Mike Barnes"? What were you in 1990, SK2 or SK1?Is your "impossible question" and challenge supposed to be akin to the problem of evolving a four-chambered heart from a three-chambered job? After all, you would argue that while converting the 3-chambered model to the 4, the whole thing would have be shut down, right?Well, crocodiles do it all the time. They're born with three-chambered hearts and as they grow larger to where they need more efficient oxygen transport which requires a more efficient circulatory system, they switch from three chambers to four without skipping a heart-beat.You see, a three-chambered heart has two atria and one ventricle, whereas a four-chambered heart has the same two atria and two ventricles. The only physical difference between the two is a muscular septum that separates the ventricle into two chambers. In a three-chambered heart, the oxygenated blood from the lungs gets intermixed with the de-oxygenated blood from the body, which is good enough for an animal with a low metabolism, such as amphibians and most reptiles. But in a three-chambered heart, there is not such intermixing, so the body gets the oxygenated blood from the lungs.You see, Mike, the secret to coming up with a valid analogy is for the processes involved to be the same or very close to the same. Your engine "analogy" is a false analogy which has nothing to do with how evolution works.Here's the key to creating a valid analogy: evolution is the result of life doing what life does, so your analogy needs to emulate what life does. Car engines do not fit that bill.

Hi dwise1 Great idea for a new topic. Maybe you and barnes can get together on that.Certainly not about peppered moths.Enjoy.

I think everything that needed to be said has been said. Glad to see this has been thrown into summary mode so we can all move on.

From the original post Hopefully the conclusions won't all be about Big_Al's last couple of posts. I thought RAZD did a great job of outlining the myths about the peppered moths and debunking the creationist take on what was actually observed. Of course that was accomplished about 6 or so years ago.

I have written before about the absence of a creationist world-view. Their nonsense about peppered moths is a case in point. It is one of their rituals to recite that they "don't deny microevolution". But they do in fact deny it in every particular case. They lie about peppered moths, they lie about fruit flies, they lie about antibiotic resistance in bacteria, they lie about Lenski's experiments: you show them any example of microevolution and they will in fact deny it.In the case of peppered moths, it has been observed that natural selection prefers one allele over another. This is plainly, obviously true --- and what's more, this fact would not bring the whole Book of Genesis tumbling down. But they still find the need to lie about it.I really don't know why. I can observe the phenomenon of creationist behavior, but I can't explain it.

It's very simple: read Message 1.If you have trouble with differentiating natural selection from the rest of evolution (mutation, speciation etc), look at Message 331 to see the specific role that selection plays in the evolutionary processes.Failing that, start a new thread concerning what you don't understand.Enjoy.