The Truth About Peppered Moths

[seebs]

Excellant. You are explaining what I'm saying. The two questions are whether a trait can become more or less common over time (natural selection) and where do the traits come from (evolution/creationism).

Well, here's your problem.

You're debating a straw man. The question of how a trait becomes more or less common is crucial to evolution. That is what the pepper moths are used as evidence for; that natural selection will affect the frequency of a trait once that trait exists at all.

You are assuming the blacks produced the whites when there is no evidence for that happening or it happening the other way around. Its just a guess.

I am assuming that both traits occurred in the species.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Official Announcement From The Evil Atheist Evolutionist (Dawkins Directive Division) Conspiracy

The EAE(DD)C hereby apologises for putting forward an illustration of Natural Selection which is faulty because it doesn't also encompass mutation, genetic drift, allopatric separation, speciation, punctuated equilibria, ring species, and every other aspect of biology touching on evolutionary biology.

It is expected that further apologies will follow from the Astronomers, because red-shift doesn't also explain cepheid variables, quasars and dark matter; and from the Chemists, because Gibbs Free Energy does not also explain electron energy levels, redox potential, properties of alkali earth metals and the white colour of anhydrous copper sulphate.

In a seperate statement, Homebase (UK) apologise that their hammers cannot be used to change plugs.

 

[thekawasakikid]

Official Announcement From The Evil Atheist Evolutionist (Dawkins Directive Division) Conspiracy

The EAE(DD)C hereby apologises for putting forward an illustration of Natural Selection which is faulty because it doesn't also encompass mutation, genetic drift, allopatric separation, speciation, punctuated equilibria, idolation, ring species, and every other aspect of biology touching on evolutionary biology.

It is expected that further apologies will follow from the Astronomers, because red-shift doesn't also explain cepheid variables, quasars and dark matter; and from the Chemists, because Gibbs Free Energy does not also explain electron energy levels, redox potential, properties of alkali earth metals and the white colour of anhydrous copper sulphate.

In a seperate statement, Homebase (UK) apologise that their hammers cannot be used to change plugs.

ROFL

Thanks, guys. Some very interesting reading, some enlightenment and despite Freedom's attempts, I think I'll stick with what I was taught at school. Like I said earlier, I have no problems with the current scientific interpretation, what bothered me was the claim that the scientific community had withdrawn that position.

Most of all, I am shocked and astounded that my Homebase hammer cannot change plugs. Presumably I can use it to mow my grass though?!

 

[herev]

Official Announcement From The Evil Atheist Evolutionist (Dawkins Directive Division) Conspiracy

The EAE(DD)C hereby apologises for putting forward an illustration of Natural Selection which is faulty because it doesn't also encompass mutation, genetic drift, allopatric separation, speciation, punctuated equilibria, ring species, and every other aspect of biology touching on evolutionary biology.

It is expected that further apologies will follow from the Astronomers, because red-shift doesn't also explain cepheid variables, quasars and dark matter; and from the Chemists, because Gibbs Free Energy does not also explain electron energy levels, redox potential, properties of alkali earth metals and the white colour of anhydrous copper sulphate.

In a seperate statement, Homebase (UK) apologise that their hammers cannot be used to change plugs.

Yeah, I tried to use to use my lawn mower to trim my beard--I'm suing--they should have warned me

 

[Bushido216]

Then please explain it to me.



Evolution=change correct?
If so then there no genetical change going on here at all. All that is happening is one kind is surviving better than the other. Nothing new is being produced, just more of one moth than the other.


Natural selection does not benefit evolution. It doesn't hinder it but it doesn't give proof that it happened at all. I don't see how/why some evolutionists use it as proof.

As I have already explained to you, evolution is the result of several processes. Before you can go about supporting evolution, you have to demonstrate the various processes involved. That's what the peppered moths are for, demonstrating that natural selection occurs.

 

[Micaiah]

On the farm here in Australia, black sheep are not liked very much when it comes to wool harvesting. The black fibre is a big no no in a wool clip. As a result, there are few black sheep in the wool growing areas. Is this a form of evolution?

The genetic changes that produce different colour fibres are hardly what you need to produce the changes needed to go from swamp to human. They are just the normal variations you see in a population. Actually, I haven't yet heard of an example of the type of genetic change needed to explain our evolution.

 

[Micaiah]

Here are a few notes from Creationist, Jonathan Sarfati. (Refuting Evolution 2)

It is interesting to note that peppered moths do not usually rest on trees during daylight hours anyway. I'd expect that camourflage would be most advantageous during the day. Ketterwell attracted the moths into traps either with light or female pheromones. In both cases, the moths flew only at night.

British scientist Cyril Clark, who investigated the moths extensively, said the problem was that they didn't actually know the resting place of moths during the day. In 25 years, he had found only two moths on the tree trunks or walls near the traps. One was on an appropriate background, and one wasn't. (1)

The moths filmed by Ketterwell being eaten by birds were laboratory fed. They were so languid they had to be heated up on the bonnet of the car. (2)

(1) CA Clarke, GS MAni, and G Wayne 'Evolution in Reverse: Clean Air and the Peppered Moth," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26:189-199,1985; quote page 197.

(2) Calgary Herald, March 21 1999 p. D3

 

[notto]

On the farm here in Australia, black sheep are not liked very much when it comes to wool harvesting. The black fibre is a big no no in a wool clip. As a result, there are few black sheep in the wool growing areas. Is this a form of evolution?

The genetic changes that produce different colour fibres are hardly what you need to produce the changes needed to go from swamp to human. They are just the normal variations you see in a population. Actually, I haven't yet heard of an example of the type of genetic change needed to explain our evolution.

Variation in a population, just like the moths or your sheep, are all that is needed for evolution.

All of the mechanisms used to form the theory of evolution have been observed and are being observed.

What needs to be explained about our evolution that isn't done by standard evolutionary theory?

The genetic changes that produce different color fiberss are EXACTLY the types of changes needed to go from swamp to human.

If you look at a chimp and a man, these types of changes (variation within a population) could certainly do it. Go from a chimplike ancestor to a monkey like ancestor- same thing. Go from a monkey like ancestor to another mammal, same thing, mammal to amphibian, same thing. bird to dinosaur, same thing, dinosaur to amphibian, same thing, amphibian to fish, same thing.

Evolution is cummulative and happens in small steps. Each of these steps is a small variation in a population.

What types of mutations and genetic changes do you think need to occur for evolution to happen?

 

[Bushido216]

On the farm here in Australia, black sheep are not liked very much when it comes to wool harvesting. The black fibre is a big no no in a wool clip. As a result, there are few black sheep in the wool growing areas. Is this a form of evolution?

The genetic changes that produce different colour fibres are hardly what you need to produce the changes needed to go from swamp to human. They are just the normal variations you see in a population. Actually, I haven't yet heard of an example of the type of genetic change needed to explain our evolution.

Actually, it is. Because the white sheep are out-competing the black sheep, eventually the gene for black wool will dissappear out of the genome, or become so ensconced somewhere so as to make no nevermind.

And that is exactly what is required for evolution. Variations and then selection amongst those variations. Small-scale changes lead up to large-scale results, Micaiah.

 

[Bushido216]

Here are a few notes from Creationist, Jonathan Sarfati. (Refuting Evolution 2)

It is interesting to note that peppered moths do not usually rest on trees during daylight hours anyway. I'd expect that camourflage would be most advantageous during the day. Ketterwell attracted the moths into traps either with light or female pheromones. In both cases, the moths flew only at night.

British scientist Cyril Clark, who investigated the moths extensively, said the problem was that they didn't actually know the resting place of moths during the day. In 25 years, he had found only two moths on the tree trunks or walls near the traps. One was on an appropriate background, and one wasn't. (1)

The moths filmed by Ketterwell being eaten by birds were laboratory fed. They were so languid they had to be heated up on the bonnet of the car. (2)

(1) CA Clarke, GS MAni, and G Wayne 'Evolution in Reverse: Clean Air and the Peppered Moth," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26:189-199,1985; quote page 197.

(2) Calgary Herald, March 21 1999 p. D3

Even if this is true, which I doubt, it is still natural selection in action if one colour of moth was being eaten more than another.

 

[gluadys]

Here are a few notes from Creationist, Jonathan Sarfati. (Refuting Evolution 2)

It is interesting to note that peppered moths do not usually rest on trees during daylight hours anyway. I'd expect that camourflage would be most advantageous during the day. Ketterwell attracted the moths into traps either with light or female pheromones. In both cases, the moths flew only at night.

British scientist Cyril Clark, who investigated the moths extensively, said the problem was that they didn't actually know the resting place of moths during the day. In 25 years, he had found only two moths on the tree trunks or walls near the traps. One was on an appropriate background, and one wasn't. (1)

The moths filmed by Ketterwell being eaten by birds were laboratory fed. They were so languid they had to be heated up on the bonnet of the car. (2)

(1) CA Clarke, GS MAni, and G Wayne 'Evolution in Reverse: Clean Air and the Peppered Moth," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26:189-199,1985; quote page 197.

(2) Calgary Herald, March 21 1999 p. D3

While much of this info is correct, it is also irrelevant.

Yes, moths generally fly at night. But birds don't need to hunt only flying moths. It may make bird predation easier if the moths are not flying.

(At night, the chief predator is bats. However, they use echo-location, so the colour of the moth is not relevant.)

Moths DO rest on trees in the daytime. You are possibly mis-reading the observation that they do not usually rest on tree trunks.

Attaching moths to tree trunks was one of the ways Kettlewell tried to test for camouflage and bird predation preference. Placing the moths on the trunks made it easier to record the effect of bird predation. But the effect would be the same in branch nodes and on the underside of branches, where moths actually do rest and birds would also hunt--but where scientists could not as easily record the results.

 

[RVincent]

This is all quite new to me.

While I have eaten peppered steak, I have never eaten peppered moth. Does it come with a potatoe?

 

[herev]

This is all quite new to me.

While I have eaten peppered steak, I have never eaten peppered moth. Does it come with a potatoe?

I've always wanted to meet Dan Quayle. Is it really you?

 

[RVincent]

Oops. I spelled "potato" wrong didn't I? My bad.

 

[herev]

Oops. I spelled "potato" wrong didn't I? My bad.

sorry, couldn't resist

 

[thekawasakikid]

This is all quite new to me.

While I have eaten peppered steak, I have never eaten peppered moth. Does it come with a potatoe?

Indeed, it does come with a potatoe (sic) - or fries, or for the weight-conscious, a healthy side salad.

Peppered moth, like so much in life, actually tastes like chicken

Obviously the TE explanation for this is that everything which tastes like chicken shares a common ancestor with chicken, while YECs would no doubt maintain that God was short on taste-inspiration that day!

 

[herev]

Indeed, it does come with a potatoe (sic) - or fries, or for the weight-conscious, a healthy side salad.

Peppered moth, like so much in life, actually tastes like chicken

Obviously the TE explanation for this is that everything which tastes like chicken shares a common ancestor with chicken, while YECs would no doubt maintain that God was short on taste-inspiration that day!

lol

 

[Smidlee]

Moths DO rest on trees in the daytime. You are possibly mis-reading the observation that they do not usually rest on tree trunks.

Well, the Nova program (PBS) on the pepper moth a few years ago they finally admited that the moths was glued to the tree truck since they didn't normally not found there. I wonder how many studies ( in all areas) are fixed.

 

[notto]

Well, the Nova program (PBS) on the pepper moth a few years ago they finally admited that the moths was glued to the tree truck since they didn't normally not found there. I wonder how many studies ( in all areas) are fixed.

But that doesn't affect the outcome of the observation that the study was meant to look at which was what the birds would eat.

It's not 'fixing' if it is part of the study.

It was a way of observing something in a controlled environment so that they could statistically count the moths.

Moths do rest on tree trunks. To say otherwise is untrue. They also rest on branches and other parts of the tree (but on bark) but they are harder to study in a controlled environment. It is also difficult to control a study of moths resting because you have to know where the moth is in order to see if it is eaten, again, the purpose of the study.

The changes in populations of moths due to pollution is still a well founded example of evolution happening. The moth study was a way of statistically analyzing something that was already observed and known.

 

[Micaiah]

Continuing with a quote from the above book:

And all these still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done - dead moths were glued to the tree. (3) University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says text books and films have featured a 'lot of fraudulent photographs'.(4)

(3) D.R. Lees and E.R. Creed, "Industrial Melanism in Briston Betularia: The Role of Selective Predation," Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67-83, 1975

(4) J.A. Coyne, Nature, 396(6706):35-36; The Washington Times, Jan17,1999, pD8

The theory promoted is the more conspicuous moths on the bark of the trees get eaten by the birds, and those that were camourflaged had a better chance of survival. The problem is the moths were rarely seen on the trees, unless of course you are an evolutionist doing research. Then you just glue them on.