Yecch

[Micaiah]

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.

Now if we look again at your original claim:
[/size]How many times have we shown that the peppered moths story is not evidence for evolution and demonstrated that the claims made about the moths have been thoroughtly discredited, and yet it persists to be used by TE's

Can you show us how the claims made about the moths have been discredited?

Up till recently you have been saying peppered moths are an example of variation and natural selection. The above post indicates that you believe mutation was responsible for the variation in the moth population.

In the posts that follow, you talk about variation and natural selection several times.

What evidence do you have to support the idea that the moth colour variation was the result of a mutation.

 

[notto]

What evidence do you have to support the idea that the moth colour variation was the result of a mutation.

Because the research in question showed that it wasn't the result of
1) adult moths spontaneously changing color
2) adult white moths laying egg batches of all black moths
3) black moths being specially created.

These are the mechanisms for the black moths appearance that were being falsified. You have to keep in mind that these were still considered valid options at the time.

Darwin proposed and the moth experiments confirmed that the 3 options above were not part of the mechanism that led to increase in black moths in the population.

The black trait in moths was considered a mutation that happened sometime in the past (or it could be that the white was the mutation). Regardless, before the experiment, white was dominant in the population.

The change in the frequency of the trait is what was being studied. We know that changes and additions of traits happen through mutation.

 

[Micaiah]

From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong. We no
longer use chromosomal polymorphism in Drosophila pseudoobscura to
demonstrate heterozygous advantage, flower-colour variation in Linanthus
parryae to illustrate random genetic drift, or the viceroy and monarch
butterflies to exemplify Batesian mimicry. Until now, however, the prize
horse in our stable of examples has been the evolution of 'industrial
melanism' in the peppered moth, Biston betularia, presented by most
teachers and textbooks as the paradigm of natural selection and evolution
occurring within a human lifetime. The re-examination of this tale is the
centrepiece of Michael Majerus's book, Melanism: Evolution in Action.
Depressingly, Majerus shows that this classic example is in bad shape, and,
while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention.
[..]

Criticisms of this story have circulated in samizdat for several years, but
Majerus summarizes them for the first time in print in an absorbing
two-chapter critique (coincidentally, a similar analysis [Sargent et al.,
Evol. Biol. 30, 299-322; 1998] has just appeared). Majerus notes that the
most serious problem is that B. betularia probably does not rest on tree
trunks -- exactly two moths have been seen in such a position in more than 40 years of intensive search. The natural resting spots are, in fact, a mystery. This alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks, where they are highly visible to bird predators. (Kettlewell also released his moths during the day, while they normally choose resting places at night.) The story is further eroded by noting that the resurgence of typica occurred well before lichens recolonized the polluted trees, and that a parallel increase and decrease of the melanic form also occurred in industrial areas of the United States, where there was no change in the abundance of the lichens that supposedly play such an important role.

Finally, the results of Kettlewell's behavioural experiments were not
replicated in later studies: moths have no tendency to choose matching
backgrounds. Majerus finds many other flaws in the work, but they are too
numerous to list here. I unearthed additional problems when, embarrassed at
having taught the standard Biston story for years, I read Kettlewell's
papers for the first time.

Majerus concludes, reasonably, that all we can deduce from this story is
that it is a case of rapid evolution, probably involving pollution and bird
predation. I would, however, replace "probably" with "perhaps". B.
betularia shows the footprint of natural selection, but we have not yet
seen the feet. Majerus finds some solace in his analysis, claiming that the
true story is
likely to be more complex and therefore more interesting, but one senses
that he is making a virtue of necessity. My own reaction resembles the
dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and
not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.



[..] Unfortunately, most of the work described is inconclusive; despite the widespread occurrence of melanism, its evolutionary significance is nearly always unknown.

[..]

It is clear that, as with most other work in evolutionary biology,
understanding selection in Biston will require much more information about
the animal's habits. Evolutionists may bridle at such a conclusion, because
ecological data are very hard to gather. Nevertheless, there is no
other way to unravel the forces changing a character. We must stop
pretending that we understand the course of natural selection as soon as we
have calculated the relative fitness of different traits.

The article is pretty damning. Obviously Coyle has grave misgivings about the study by Fettlewell. Why else would you begin the critique with these words:

From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study
and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong.

The major problem was identified as follows:

Majerus notes that the most serious problem is that B. betularia probably does not rest on tree trunks -- exactly two moths have been seen in such a position in more than 40 years of intensive search. The natural resting spots are, in fact, a mystery. This alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks, where they are highly visible to bird predators. (Kettlewell also released his moths during the day, while they normally choose resting places at night.) The story is further eroded by noting that the resurgence of typica occurred well before lichens recolonized the polluted trees, and that a parallel increase and decrease of the melanic form also occurred in industrial areas of the United States, where there was no change in the abundance of the lichens that supposedly play such an important role.

Note these words:

This alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-recapture experiments,

Coyle has stated that the experiments were invalid. If an experiment is invalid, it needs to be thrown out. AIG have succinctly summarised the essence of Coyle's comments.

 

[Micaiah]

Because the research in question showed that it wasn't the result of
1) adult moths spontaneously changing color
2) adult white moths laying egg batches of all black moths
3) black moths being specially created.

These are the mechanisms for the black moths appearance that were being falsified. You have to keep in mind that these were still considered valid options at the time.

Darwin proposed and the moth experiments confirmed that the 3 options above were not part of the mechanism that led to increase in black moths in the population.

The black trait in moths was considered a mutation that happened sometime in the past (or it could be that the white was the mutation). Regardless, before the experiment, white was dominant in the population.

The change in the frequency of the trait is what was being studied. We know that changes and additions of traits happen through mutation.

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.

 

[gluadys]

You previously claimed that the change in colour of moths was the result of genetic mutation.

Not in the 8 points. How two variations came to exist is irrelevant to a study of natural selection. But you posed the question of the origin of new colour. Obviously that must be through mutation.

That was suggested but not supported by the link that was posted by yourself as I recall. Make up your mind about what you are trying to say, or admit you don't really know.

IIRC Kettlewell was strongly influenced by the theory that the moths used lichen for camouflage. That would make him pay more attention to tree trunks. But it is now agreed that soot was a more important factor than lichens, and soot affects the whole tree.

No mistake about his rationale, I am simply saying it had some gaping holes in it, which you and others who continue to use this example would do well to understand and acknowledge.

I have yet to see the gaping holes.

We know that moths rest on every part of a tree, including the trunk. We know that predator birds will seek them in every part of a tree, including the trunk. And we know that birds eat non-camouflaged moths in greater proportion that well-camouflaged moths, thus changing the proportion of dark or light moths in the population.

That is what the study was set up to confirm and it did confirm it.

Have another read of the following. You obviously do not understand the issues being discussed.

I have read both this quote and most of the rest of the paper in the link you provided. This sentence is most interesting.

Kettlewell assumed (1) that the main defect of his release method was an unnaturally high density of moths, affecting merely the tempo of predation; and (2) that he could disregard the observation that many moths would have preferred to take up positions higher in the trees.​

In context, the author seems to be implying that Kettlewell was wrong, so I read for several paragraphs following that would show the correction. But while there was ample affirmation that most moths prefer the shelter of a branch to an exposed tree trunk, there was no further discussion as to how this affected bird predation and whether Kettlewell was right or wrong to suppose that having many moths rest on tree trunks would only affect the rate of predation, not its selective effect.

So again it appears that the focus on where moths rest is nothing more than a diversion from the documented selective effect of bird predation.

No argument here. I understand this is what the guy was trying to achieve.

So basically you are agreeing that he achieved what he set out to do: prove that selective bird predation was a significant factor in changing the dominant colour of the moth population.

Note the words used 'In my opinion...'. He is entitled to those. The facts however indicate that Kettlewell's research did not support his rationale. The post above showed the problems that even he recognised in his experiments.

On the contrary they do. His rationale was that selective bird predation was a significant factor in explaining the spread of industrial melanism in the pepper moth. That was confirmed both in Kettlewell's experiments, but also in subsequent experiments.

Obviously there are leading biologists who do not agree this is an example of evolution in action as shown in my quotes above. Given the uncertainty about the claims even between apparently leading figures in the field, it is appropriate for people to question such claims. Thankfully organisations like AIG are prepared to point this out.

Organisations like AiG are prepared to use any minor defect in methodology to distract from the fact that the study was a success at what it set out to do.

Further muddying of the water. Obfuscation seems to be your primary weapon.

Dang! That's another irony meter I have to replace.

Leading scientists in the field have stated it is not evidence of evolution in action.

As long as they agree it is evidence of natural selection, that doesn't bother me. It is natural selection which was the focus of the study.

It seems Kettlewell believed this and more, but his research did not back up his exaggerated claims.

Which exxaggerated claims would that be? And what documentation do you have that Kettlewell made them?

Kettlewell was just another deluded scientist who spent a life time trying to prove something that God has plainly told us did not occur.

I thought creationists were quite comfortable with the small changes of "micro-evolution" that we see in pepper moths.

Really. Here was the statement I origianlly made.

So your claim once again is that claiims made by Kettlewell were exaggerated . That is a different matter than discredited. And do you have anything than documents these exxagerated claims?

Subsequent posts clearly defined the claims that are made. As stated above, read my posts. You will note that agreeing with some of your claims in no way affects or undermines my claims.

Which makes you claims irrelevant,

Another strawman. Your thinking is clearly befuddled.

A strawman is defined as a caricature of the opponents position created in order to refute it. In what way, does my post resemble a such a caricature? It simply reports some figures from a scientific study which you are free to verify at the link I provided and in the original paper.​

 

[Micaiah]

I never suggested it was. What I said was that if you have a homogeneous population of white moths, the only way you can get a black moth, barring a miracle, is by mutation.

After the intial mutation, what determines whether a moth is black or white is standard Mendelian genetics.

But you also said

2. Prior to the industrial revolution, the dark form was a prized collector's item due to its rarity--less than 5% of the total pepper moth population.

As I see it, on the one hand you are claiming dark moths existed before the Industrial Revolution, and on the other hand you are saying they were the result of mutation during the Industrial Revolution.

What do you intend to mean?

I didn't mention mutation among the 8 points since it is not relevant to the study of natural selection. I said only that the moth existed in two forms, and that is correct. But as creationists never cease to remind us, natural selection must have something to select. It is the role of mutations to provide something to select.

It is relevant if you are claiming that Fettlewell's research provides an example of both variation and natural selection.

Why not? The single biggest contribution Darwin made to the theory of evolution was the theory of natural selection. So why would he not likely consider the confirmation that natural selection actually works a confirmation and consummation of his life's work?

If that is all Darwin postulated I wouldn't be here debating with TE's.

 

[notto]

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.

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.

All Fettlewell showed is that natural selection is the mechanism that can change the frequency of an inherited trait in a population.

Where did the black trait come from? Did Noah have a black and white moth on the ark?

 

[notto]

Coyle has stated that the experiments were invalid. If an experiment is invalid, it needs to be thrown out. AIG have succinctly summarised the essence of Coyle's comments.

The experiment still has value. It still showed falsified ideas about traits and showed valid selection. AIG and other creationist try to claim that the experiment is used to support things or said things that it never did or never was intended to do.

And Coyle also points out that there are many better examples and that this really isn't a problem for evolution. The theory of evolution doesn't hang on these studies. That would be a misrepresentation of Coyle (as his letter indicates).

All of us in the peppered moth debate agree that the moth story is a sound example of evolution produced by natural selection. My call for additional research on the moths has been wrongly characterized by creationists as revealing some fatal flaw in the theory of evolution.

 

[Micaiah]

So it must be time for Notto to make a few admissions and apologies.

First you were wrong about the statements by AIG being out of context.

Too bad Jerry only said this in a book review and isn't actually someone who researched the moths. The quote from AIG is also a bit out of context.

The quote by AIG accurately reflects the sentiments communicated by Jerry Coyle.

Second you have no evidence to support the following claim:

Post 104

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]

In your statement above, in response to my request "I want to see your evidence that mutations were responsible for the varying colours of moths", you simply responded that "it was assumed". You made an assertion of fact without the evidence to support the assertions. That is deceiptful and dishonest. And that is why YEC's take issue with Fettlewell's research.

As noted previously, he made the following claim about his results:

The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, ‘He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.’1

He is so intent on proving evolution that he shows little reagard for the claims his experimental model could sustain. In the end, even evolutionary biologists have decided it is a basket case. Which takes us back to the original point of this discussion, which was that claims made by evolutionists in regard to the peppered moths are fraudulent.

QED.

 

[gluadys]

But you also said



As I see it, on the one hand you are claiming dark moths existed before the Industrial Revolution, and on the other hand you are saying they were the result of mutation during the Industrial Revolution.

What do you intend to mean?

The earliest documentation of a dark pepper moth dates to the earliest years of the industrial revolution, before the pollution would be a significant factor. So my intention is to say that the dark form existed first.

In any case, the timing of the mutation is irrelevant. Environmental factors do not determine that a beneficial mutation will occur. They only determine that if a mutation occurs which is useful, it will be preserved and spread through the population. So it wouldn't matter if the mutation occured in 1279 or 1848 or 1902. What matters is whether or not it was selected for and how. All we know is that the black form was first described in 1848 (so the mutation must have occurred before then) and that it was abundant by the end of the 19th century and still abundant when Kettlewell did his tests in the 1950s.

(Actually we do not know that a recent mutation produced the black moth. It may be that black was the original colour and that some thousands of years ago a mutation created the light colour moth which then became much more abundant than the black form until the industrial revolution reversed the environmental dynamic.)

It is relevant if you are claiming that Fettlewell's research provides an example of both variation and natural selection.

In the first place the name is Kettlewell, not Fettlewell. And the claim is limited to natural selection. The variation already existed and there is no claim that the industrial revolution produced the variation (there is no way it could in any case), only that it favoured the darker variation.

If that is all Darwin postulated I wouldn't be here debating with TE's.

Nobody said it was all that Darwin postulated. Natural selection was the most important element of Darwin's thesis. His other great concept was descent with modification. But without natural selection, descent with modification only produces variety. It does not, in and of itself, produce evolution.

Or rather it only produces evolution in circumstances conducive to genetic drift. In most cases it takes selection and speciation to turn variation into evolution. So natural selection is still the essential centrepiece of the Darwinian thesis and confirming that it actually happens is a very big deal.

 

[notto]

So it must be time for Notto to make a few admissions and apologies.

First you were wrong about the statements by AIG being out of context.

The quote by AIG accurately reflects the sentiments communicated by Jerry Coyle.

No it doesn't, as noted by the author of the statements.

Second you have no evidence to support the following claim:

Post 104


In your statement above, in response to my request "I want to see your evidence that mutations were responsible for the varying colours of moths", you simply responded that "it was assumed". You made an assertion of fact without the evidence to support the assertions. That is deceiptful and dishonest. And that is why YEC's take issue with Fettlewell's research.

You are now taking my words out of context and out of the context of the experiment. The experiment showed that natural selection was responsible for the trait gaining in the population. It falsified other notions about how the trait came about. You keep ignoring this fact in context with the experiment. It confirmed that natural selection was responsible for the increase in the trait in the population and that the trait was there is a small portion of the population before the natural selection. Traits like this are caused by mutation. That is not in dispute.

He is so intent on proving evolution that he shows little reagard for the claims his experimental model could sustain. In the end, even evolutionary biologists have decided it is a basket case. Which takes us back to the original point of this discussion, which was that claims made by evolutionists in regard to the peppered moths are fraudulent.

QED.

You have not shown this. You are relying heavily on the words of a book review. There was nothing fraudulent about the claims made by evolutionists. The claims made by evolutionists are well within the results o the experiment. it shows that natural selection is a valid mechanism to explain the change in trait frequency within a population. It also falsified other notions about this trait change. That is all it was intended to do and that is all that is ever claimed.

It confirmed Darwins mechanisms. The only dispute is if it represented a completely valid model of nature this (bird predation and lichen color). The experiment still showed the mechanism as valid.

The main point of the experiment at this point is that natural selection was validated and other ideas were falsified. Please don't ignore this any longer.