'Hide and Seek with Peppered Moths'

[Micaiah]

The peppered moth story illustrates the very tenuous nature of the evidence supporting evolution. Notto's statement that it is an example of the process leading to speciation is typical of the exaggerated claims made about this story. At best it could be an example of natural selection, and even that idea has come under attack from various scientists. The scientific studies done by Kettlewell are now recognised to be fundamentally flawed to the point that his research has been invalidated along with his exaggerated claims about what his experiments proved. The more we research even a simple hypothesis such as natural selection of a moth, the more we realise how little we really understand.

Notto, please define what you mean by 'variation'.

 

[notto]

Have you read Origin? It gives a good description of it.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-02.html

Questions for you.
We have observed speciation happening. What do you think caused it?
Where do you think the black trait came from in the moths? Why do you think it wasn't expressed proportionatly in the population and why did it fluctuate?

Did noah have a black moth and a white moth on the ark?

 

[Micaiah]

Have you read Origin? It gives a good description of it.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-02.html

Questions for you.
We have observed speciation happening. What do you think caused it?
Where do you think the black trait came from in the moths? Why do you think it wasn't expressed proportionatly in the population and why did it fluctuate?

Did noah have a black moth and a white moth on the ark?

I am interested to know what you mean by variation. Provide your definition in plain language. You said that the peppered moth experiments carried out by Kettlewell demonstrated variation.

It confirmed that there is a mechanism within nature that causes variation within a population and that can lead to speciation. This is what origins was all about. Darwin concluded the fixity of species was a myth. He was right.

How? I'm speaking of Kettlewell's capture and release experiments of course. In what way did these demonstrate variation.

 

[notto]

I am interested to know what you mean by variation. Provide your definition in plain language. You said that the peppered moth experiments carried out by Kettlewell demonstrated variation.

Variation is variation of genetic traits within a population.

As stated by Darwin;
Again, we have many slight differences which may be called individual differences, such as are known frequently to appear in the offspring from the same parents, or which may be presumed to have thus arisen, from being frequently observed in the individuals of the same species inhabiting the same confined locality. No one supposes that all the individuals of the same species are cast in the very same mould. These individual differences are highly important for us, as they afford materials for natural selection to accumulate, in the same manner as man can accumulate in any given direction individual differences in his domesticated productions.

How? I'm speaking of Kettlewell's capture and release experiments of course. In what way did these demonstrate variation.

Kettlewells experiments demonstrated that natural selection was acting on the variation within a population to increase the proportion of one of the traits. This falsified the notion that white moths were turning black, that white moths were giving birth to entire batches of black moths. The experiments confirmed that the other hypothesis that were argued at the time to explain the change in the trait frequencies were false. It confirmed the mechanism that Darwin proposed while falsifying others.

You don't demonstrate 'variation'. Variation is an observation. The variation within a population and the change in the frequency of a specific genetic varation is what was studied.

Questions for you.
We have observed speciation happening. What do you think caused it?
Where do you think the black trait came from in the moths? Why do you think it wasn't expressed proportionatly in the population and why did it fluctuate?

 

[Micaiah]

You don't demonstrate 'variation'. Variation is an observation. The variation within a population and the change in the frequency of a specific genetic varation is what was studied.

Compare this with some of your other comments made previously:

I said:

It is deceiptful to take the story about peppered moths and claim this is an example of evolution in action. May I refer you to our recent discussion on farm yard

You replied:

It demonstrates one of the mechanisms of evolution which is all it ever claimed to do. It is deceitful to take the research and claim that it tried to show anything outside of its predictions and conclusions. You claimed that somehow the research was discredited.

I said:

Oh so it demostrates a mechanism of evolution. What mechanism would that be?

You said:

Natural selection acting on variation within a population. At the time, there were still some who considered Lamarckism to be the mechanism (that moths 'willed' themselves to change in light of environmental changes or that the specific variation came about due to specific environmental changes). The study showed that this was not the case and that over time a trait can become dominant in a population when acted on by environmental pressure (selection due to predators).

You can read up on what the study was really about here:
http://genbiol.cbs.umn.edu/peppmoth/peppmoth.html

The mechansism of mutation plus natural selection leads to [size=-1]changes in allele frequencies in a population of organisms over time. The peppered moth observation confirmed this mechanism of evolution.
[/size]

You had previously said:

It confirmed that there is a mechanism within nature that causes variation within a population and that can lead to speciation. This is what origins was all about. Darwin concluded the fixity of species was a myth. He was right.

Of course we have gone over this before. I asked:

Show me the references that support what you are claiming. I take it you are referring here to the research by Fettlewell. I want to see your evidence that mutations were responsible for the varying colours of moths. I've noticed that some of the papers TE's have posted recently reject this theory.

You responded:

It is assumed. Variation within a population comes from mutation. The study showed that the black trait was present in a small portion of the population already and that the other ideas about how the trait came about were false.

So you are assuming that the variation resulted from mutation. That is very different to saying that Kettlewell observed this in his experiments, or that it was demonstrated in his experiments.

So again, you were wrong to suggest that these experiments demonstrated a 'mechanism that leads to speciation'.

It is unforunate that you refuse even now to admit your error. It is what we have become accustomed to in dealing with TE's.

Kettlewell's experiments were designed to demostrated natural selection. They failed even in that regard because the experiements were not an accurate representation of what occurs in real life. As stated before, his experiments have been thoroughly discredited.

 

[notto]

So again, you were wrong to suggest that these experiments demonstrated a 'mechanism that leads to speciation'.

It is unforunate that you refuse even now to admit your error. It is what we have become accustomed to in dealing with TE's.

Kettlewell's experiments were designed to demostrated natural selection. They failed even in that regard because the experiements were not an accurate representation of what occurs in real life. As stated before, his experiments have been thoroughly discredited.

They accurately demonstrated selection and falsified other ideas about it. A point you keep ignoring.

They demonstrated the mechanism Darwin proposed. We know this mechanism leads to speciation because we have observed it happening.

I have made no error. Why you keep claiming that I have is beyond me. You keep twisting my words out of their original context.

You are the one confusing the mechanism of natural selection with the observation of variation in a population. The context of the experiment was to study the effect of natural selection on variation. Where the variation comes from was not the focus of the study. That has been determined through other means and we observe it directly.

Have you read Origin? It would help you understand the discussion in more detail and help you understand the moth experiments in the proper context under which they were done.

You keep twisting my comments on Origin with my comments on the moth experiments. The moth experiments confirmed one part of Darwins theory - natural selectioin changing traitfrequency - while falsifying other ideas. My comments related to speciation were a comment on Darwins theories, not the focus of the study. A review of the original discussion confirms this when taken in context.

As I've said before, I never claimed that the study studied the nature of the mutation or that it caused speciation. It was observed that the trait existed - which it did. It confirmed the mechanism of natural selection leading to changes in frequency of these traits. The variations within a population are observed. We know that these variations occur through recombination and mutation.

Questions for you:
We have observed speciation happening. What do you think caused it?

Where do you think the black trait came from in the moths?

Why do you think it wasn't expressed proportionatly in the population and why did it fluctuate?

Did noah have a black and white moth on the ark?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

As a point of information in this discussion.
Has anyone ever since the biochemical basis for the color of the moths?
I searched for information via google and didn't find any papers that outline the genes involved or the mutations that create the presumably two alleles.

....

 

[notto]

As a point of information in this discussion.
Has anyone ever since the biochemical basis for the color of the moths?
I searched for information via google and didn't find any papers that outline the genes involved or the mutations that create the presumably two alleles.

....

It is a single recessive gene. Not sure if the gene has been mapped but the recessive nature of the black allele is known.

 

[Smidlee]

If peppered moths is evolutionist best example the of natural selection then the fact we are overfishing the ocean with our nets (so those fish in the deep will survived since they are out of the reach of our nets) this must be the best example of netural selection.
I loved Kettlewells experiment since it showed moths that are glued to the tree is more likely to be eaten than those who are not glued.