The ID movement hasn't had many successes, but one area where they did pretty much succeed in causing considerable havoc was the classic textbook example of natural selection in action: the change in color of peppered moths (Biston betularia) from peppered white, to black, and back to peppered white again. Through a series of accidents that is still difficult to understand, the idea got started in the late 1990s that leading peppered moth researcher Michael Majerus had debunked Bernard Kettlewell's famous study confirming the old hypothesis that the change in peppered moth color was due to selective predation of conspicious moths by birds.
This confusion, minor by itself, was massively magnified when the ID/creationists picked it up and spread it far and wide. In the 1970s-1980s, creationists used to just resort to traditional obfuscation when confronted with natural selection producing a the "designed-looking" adaptation of moth camouflage to match their changing background -- creationists would just reply "they're still moths", purposely avoiding the point of the peppered moth example. But once they heard that Kettlewell's research and hypothesis were in trouble, they declared the example a fraud, the illustrative photos a dastardly fraud, and told the world that the biology textbooks were lying to the children and that the ID movement's quack science should be given a place in schools to balance things out. I think Jonathan Wells probably considered the alleged downfall of the peppered moth his career achievement.
Science journalists, forgetting the maxim "If a creationist declares victory, it doesn't necessarily mean that they've actually won" breathlessly and almost entirely uncritically repeated the basic "peppered moths debunked" storyline, almost completely neglecting the horrified objections of the actual people who knew something about the subject, the peppered moth researchers like Bruce Grant and Michael Majerus himself. Piling on was the (2002) book Of Moths and Men by New-Ager science journalist Judith Hooper, who naively took all the hubbub as an indication of reality, and added her own rumor-mongering and uninformed speculation to the mix, for example by postulating that maybe night-feeding bats somehow magically selectively predated one color of moth, and, most egregiously, inventing the idea that Kettlewell had actually deliberately faked his results, a conclusion which Hooper based on nothing but clueless armchair analysis of a few datapoints and a magical letter that somehow influenced Kettlewell the day before he actually received it (see debunking of this).
Well, the press was against Kettlewell's Bird Predation Hypothesis. More than a few scientists (outside of the peppered moth community) looked askance at it. And the creationists were crowing for years. In addition, while I haven't done a systematic analysis, my sense of it is that the poor peppered moth took a serious hit in coverage in the textbooks. The only defenders, basically, were the peppered moth guys themselves, and, well, us PT/talkorigins/NCSE folks. We defended the old Biston example through thick and thin, based mostly on the novel idea that one ought to read the original research and the actual experts to get a sense of what the most likely reality is. You can see most of this long-live-the-peppered-moth stuff here, here, here, and here.
It's all well and good to argue about old studies, but for the last five years or so, Michael Majerus has been working on a long-term, answer-all-the-critics experiment to re-test (yet again) the idea that selective bird predation on conspicuous moths is the primary cause of the change in color morphs of the peppered moth. It looks like he's finally finished:
I have emailed Majerus, he says that he will put up the powerpoint slides and photos when he gets back from a meeting next week. (So please, don't flood his email asking for these.) Here is the news story on his talk:Majerus Lab Evolutionary Genetics Group STOP PRESS - The text of Mike Majerus' talk given at Uppsala on 23 August is now available as a pdf file - The Peppered Moth: The Proof of Darwinian Evolution
Barring the unlikely possibility of a dramatic change in the conclusions before Majerus's official publication of his results (which, we must remember, will be the official, authoritative presentation of the work), let me say it again. We Told You So. I do think that this case should be a cause of some reflection on the part of journalists and textbook publishers. Is it possible that these groups, normally skeptical of creationists, let themselves get stampeded into the "bird predation is dead!" meme by creationist propaganda? At any rate, as sure as night follows day, the ID/creationists, craven as always, are already refusing to admit they were wrong, and are instead trying to crawl unnoticed back to their old hole: "Sure it's natural selection, but they're still just moths!" A case in point:Moth study backs classic 'test case' for Darwin's theory For more than a century it has been cited as the quintessential example of Darwinism in action. It was the story of the peppered moth and how its two forms had struggled for supremacy in the polluted woodlands of industrial Britain. Every biology textbook on evolution included the example of the black and peppered forms of the moth, Biston betularia. The relative numbers of these two forms were supposed to be affected by predatory birds being able to pick off selectively either the black or peppered variety, depending on whether they rested on polluted or unpolluted trees. It became the most widely cited example of Darwinian natural selection and how it affected the balance between two competing genes controlling the coloration of an organism. Then the doubts began to emerge. Critics suggested that the key experiments on the peppered moth in the 1950s were flawed. Some went as far as to suggest the research was fraudulent, with the implication that the school textbooks were feeding children a lie. Creationists smelt blood. The story of the peppered moth became a story of how Darwinism itself was flawed - with its best known example being based on fiddled data. Now a Cambridge professor has repeated the key predation experiments with the peppered moth, only this time he has taken into account the criticisms and apparent flaws in the original research conducted 50 years ago. Michael Majerus, a professor of genetics at Cambridge University, has spent the past seven years collecting data from a series of experiments he has carried out in his own rambling back garden. It has involved him getting up each day before dawn and then spending several hours looking out of his study window armed with a telescope and notepad. [...] In a seminal description of his results to a scientific conference this week in Sweden, Professor Majerus gave a resounding vote of confidence in the peppered month story. He found unequivocal evidence that birds were indeed responsible for the lower numbers of the black carbonaria forms of the moth. It was a complete vindication of the peppered month story, he told the meeting. [...] While the professor has also described drawbacks to Kettlewell's methodology, he was able to address all of these concerns and even tested an idea that Hooper had raised in her book - that it was bats rather than birds responsible for moth predation - a suggestion he dismissed altogether. Professor Majerus compiled enough visual sightings of birds eating peppered moths in his garden over the seven years to show that the black form was significantly more likely to be eaten than the peppered. A statistical analysis of the results revealed a clear example of Darwinian natural selection in action. "The peppered moth story is easy to understand, because it involves things that we are familiar with: vision and predation and birds and moths and pollution and camouflage and lunch and death," he said. "That is why the anti-evolution lobby attacks the peppered moth story. They are frightened that too many people will be able to understand."
There it is, in black and white.IMHO...a couple of issues with the most recent peppered moth study. It's still a moth, and the evolution is an oscillation of populations, just like the finches of Galapagos
187 Comments
h3nry · 28 August 2007
Prof. Michael Ruse's latest book Darwinism and Its Discontents also offers a few pages devoted to the peppered moth example. As a note, that section is part of a chapter which addresses Piltdown Man and Haeckel's Drawings - which creationists are still using today as examples of scientific frauds.
Christophe Thill · 28 August 2007
I'm currently reading Mayr's Growth of Biological Thought. If there's one idea I got from this book, it's that modern biology is all about "populational thinking", as opposed to the "typological thinking" of the old metaphysical philosophers and the pre-scientific biologists. And the best illustration of it is the concept of species.
So, actually, whenever we hear someone, creationist or not, using such arguments as "they're still moths", "it's still a dog", etc, we know that this person has no idea about what a species is and, therefore, can be said to know nothing about biology. And we should ask "what do you mean by that?" and force the person to explain their muddled concepts, until complete embarrassment is reached...
Chip Poirot · 28 August 2007
What about the case of "Pan Sapiens Sapiens"?
We could point out that "it's still a chimp!".
5 million years of evolution have only succeeded in producing a species with minor physiological differences from other chimps. Even the major behavioral and other changes don't depart that far from those of its close cousins.
And birds are still (mostly) small feathered, bipedal bipeds.
k.e. · 28 August 2007
Wildy · 28 August 2007
"[B]ut they're just still moths!" isn't the stupidest thing that I have heard from a creationist. The stupidest thing regarding Peppered Moths would have to be that "it isn't an example of evolution because the pollution was man made and evolution is natural".
We should be glad that they are trying to limp into a hole right now...
harold · 28 August 2007
I was always amazed at the stupidity of the "peppered moths are a fraud" argument.
Camoflaging coloration is so common in the animal world, especially among insects.
I mean, seriously, if coloration is selected for differently, some kind of change in the predation environment would be the first logical thought. Either a change in the background or a predator adaptation (or new predator). Of course something else could underly it, but those would be the first things I would think of to test.
Even if it had been true that industrial pollution didn't contribute to the selection for darker moths, something obviously did.
At the very worst, the story could have been an example of an amusing surprise - in this one case, even though there was overwhelming reason to believe that the change in background plant coloration (due to pollution) favored a darker phenotype, some unexpected convoluted explanation was found later.
However, now it seems that the simple, expected, uncontroversial explanation that was initially proposed was the correct one.
Of course, the very exact details of the original research surely can, should, and will be fine-tuned and modified.
The utter intellectual dishonesty of those who pounced on the "fraud" nonsense is pretty astonishing. This was just a very straightforward example of selection of an obvious phenotypic trait, along the lines of antibiotic resistance or breeding of miniature animals. No honest, critical thinker could have thought that, even if some other explanation than bird predation was actually found, the concept of natural selection was weakened. Unbelievable.
In retrospect I guess more people should have asked the "fraud" gang - How do YOU explain the marked changes in frequency of dark coloration?
IanR · 28 August 2007
I am always surprised at the lack of attention that David Rudge's (Public Understand. Sci. 14 (2005) 1–20) pretty thorough debunking of Hooper's fraud hypothesis gets (although I'm glad to see that Majerus references it).
David Stanton · 28 August 2007
They are still moths. And this is still an example of natural selection in action. That is all it ever was. That is all it will ever be. So what?
To construct a straw man argument that every example in biology has to be an example of speciation or marco evolution is complete nonsense. Of course we have lots of examples of those as well. This isn't one of them. It doesn't have to be.
I agree with Harold. What about all the other examples of protective coloration in insects alone? What about walking sticks that resemble sticks and katydids that mimic leaves? What about preying mantids that mimic flowers? What about all the examples of Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in insects? Is natural selection not the proper explanation for these examples as well?
Even if the moth experiment did turn out to be in some small way flawed, so what? It doesn't matter if industrial pollution was responsible for the change in allele frequency or not. It doesn't matter whether bird predation was responsible or not. The details could be different and it would still be a good example of natural selection in action. Unless of course your explanation is that God was punishing the dark moths for eating apples offered to them by snakes. That sounds kind of racist to me.
Flint · 28 August 2007
QuestionAndBeSkeptical · 28 August 2007
It's still just a moth. Let me know when it turns into a goat.
Meanwhile, can you cite an example of an ID type who claims that change in traits over successive generations does not occur through natural, artificial, sexual, and other selective pressures?
More obfuscation from the now admitted PT/NCSE/TO affiliation of highly dedicated crusaders for evolution.
Frank J · 28 August 2007
Henry J · 28 August 2007
Should somebody point out that moths and goats are in entirely separate branches of the animal kingdom? They're both in the bilateral clade, iirc, but their mothiness and goatiness properties arose much later than their split from each other.
Steve Reuland · 28 August 2007
k.e. · 28 August 2007
Mike Z · 28 August 2007
"It’s still just a moth. Let me know when it turns into a goat."
This particular misunderstanding of evolutionary theory has always perplexed me (similar to the "show me a cat-dog" challenge). To suggest that evolutionary theory says that one species of animal would be expected to evolve into another, already existing species reveals a strange sort of confusion about the theory. I suppose it is another symptom of the typological thinking mentioned earlier in this thread -- i.e. that there is a set number of types of organisms, and so any large-scale change must involve changing from one already-established type to another.
Of course, real evolution involves all sorts of contingencies that produce unique variations never seen before. Now, we might see something like convergent evolution (roughly similar solutions to similar selection pressures) but certainly not something like the appearance of a goat lineage completely separate from the standard one we already know.
harold · 28 August 2007
Conn-in_Brooklyn · 28 August 2007
I think this has a lot to do with the language esp. YEC creationists use. Often, one hears the word 'kind' used, which, from what I've witnessed, can mean anything from a 'species', to a 'family' and even a 'class' (if you're persuaded that Dinosauria should be a class) - this allows them to use the cheap rhetorical trick that "a kind can only reproduce after its own kind" without actually having to spell out what 'kind' means - is it genetic differences, structural and anatomical differences, is Psittacosaurus a different kind than Protoceratops? I think Chris Thill is right: ask a creationist "what 'kind' a Mononychus is?" & watch them funble towards an answer ...
Also, creationists tend to conflate genetic variance with structural and anatomical dissimilarity - thinking that natural selection and variation must mean noticeable structural differences in a short period of time. When you explain that we can see rapid gene variance under controlled experiments (more rapid than would occur in the wild) and eventually the kind of sturctural divergence they'd want to see would take place, though in an incredibly time span, they simply deploy the argument from personal incredulity ...
Henry J · 28 August 2007
K. Bledsoe · 28 August 2007
Arguments such as these also point out the general lack of understanding of the nature of science and scientific process seen among the general public. I've seen letters to the editor of the newspaper arguing that evolution has never been "proven" -- as though science is desperately and foolishly seeking one definitive "experiment" that will "prove" that evolution happens. By the same kind of thinking, creationists have exploited the Peppered Moth story in hopes that it might be one definitive "experiment" that failed to "prove" evolution, and thereby "disproves" it.
In teaching my own students about evolution, I first give it this definition: Evolution is the change in the genetics (and the traits they code for) in a population over time. This takes a lot of the fear out of the "E" word and puts it in terms that most students can talk about. After all, changes in gene ratios are something we can directly measure (thereby defusing the argument that "we can't study evolution directly"). We go through the history of evolutionary theory, from Buffon to Lamarck and Cuvier, to Darwin, to the rise of genetics, to Modern Synthesis Theory. We also talk about what "theory" means in science -- the definition that works for them is "an evidence-supported explanation for a natural phenomenon."
We then talk about population genetics and how we can see and measure genetic differences in a population over time. In some cases, as in the case of the Peppered Moth, these may be cyclic, reversible changes that nevertheless illustrate the principle of selection. It's when we see cases of long-term environmental change, such as an oncoming ice age, that the gene ratios of a population shift in ways that lead to divergence.
By the time we're done, most students at least understand what science is talking about and can talk about it themselves without breaking out into a rash, even if they still don't want to accept evolutionary theory. That's all I ask of them.
QuestionAndBeSkeptical · 28 August 2007
GuyeFaux · 28 August 2007
raven · 28 August 2007
Bill Gascoyne · 28 August 2007
Henry J · 28 August 2007
Without bounds??????
Are you kidding?
Evolution has bounds. Consider cars, airplanes, steel armor - any of those could be quite useful, but would be extremely unlikely to evolve.
Evolution is bounded in that a species can only add successive small changes to what it already has.
It can't grow a new feature just because it would be useful.
One species can't copy complex features or traits from another species (even acquiring single genes from other species is rare in animals).
A complex new feature would take a long time to evolve; I recall one estimate for eye evolution was around a half million years or so.
Those bounds are expected from evolution as presently understand. There's no evidence that current life has exceeded those limits.
There's no reason to suppose that an "intelligent designer" would have any such limits.
Henry
CJO · 28 August 2007
Sheesh.
So two populations of fruit fly diverge. We agree that the differences between the members of the two populations are the result of natural evolutionary mechanisms.
Start over with one of those populations. Repeat.
Start over. Repeat. (...)
The process is iterative, not cumulative. Your example of elasticity overlooks this distinction in order to draw your faulty conclusion.
Phatty · 28 August 2007
Props to Majerus for pointing out the flaws in Kettlewell's research and backing it up by repeating the experiment sans flaws. By the way, the fact that Majerus has confirmed the conclusions of Kettlewell's research in no way answers the question of whether Kettlewell committed fraud in his research (I don't mean to infer that Kettlewell committed fraud). Just because a conclusion is correct doesn't mean a scientist can't fudge their way to that conclusion. Similarly, just because a scientist has committed fraud in their research doesn't prove that their conclusions are false. Thus, it was unfair for creationists to ever point to Kettlewell's research (even if flawed) to support the idea that natural selection is bogus. But it's not like creationists are the first to ever attack an entire group because of the isolated actions of one of its members. In fact, I plan to do just that when I impugn the GOP based on the lewd conduct of Senator Larry Craig in the airport.
Gary Hurd · 28 August 2007
Re: Wolfwalker
Your recollection closely matched mine.
harold · 28 August 2007
MPW · 28 August 2007
I'm almost ready to call "parody troll" on QuestionAndBeSkeptical. On the one hand, QABS is remarkably deadpan, persistent and, well, dull for a parodist. But those steamroller and packing peanuts analogies above? Hilarious, and almost too good to be true. If it is sincere, it's just about worthy of a place in the pantheon with "PYGMIES + DWARVES."
nickmatzke · 28 August 2007
Paul Nelson tries to hide the fact that his side trumpeted the pseudo-fact that "peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks."
Once again he demonstrates that he lacks the moral courage to suck it up and admit he and his colleagues were wrong and were actively misleading the public for a decade.
Mats · 29 August 2007
Let's see:
1. There were black moths and white moths in the beginning (different ratios)
2. There were black moths and white moths in the end (different ratios)
3. No moth evolved into a bat, or anything like that.
4. Moths only gave birth to......err....moths.
5. Natural selection is not doubted by Creation scientists.
So ..........how does the moth example serves as evidence that unguided, natural, undirected forces are responsible for all the "apparent" design in living forms?
If moths turning into moths is the best evolutionary example Darwinians can provide, then we can understand why they use the Law to prevent opposing views from being considered.
Frank J · 29 August 2007
David Stanton · 29 August 2007
Mats wrote:
"Natural selection is not doubted by Creation scientists.
So ….……how does the moth example serves as evidence that unguided, natural, undirected forces are responsible for all the “apparent” design in living forms?
If moths turning into moths is the best evolutionary example Darwinians can provide, then we can understand why they use the Law to prevent opposing views from being considered."
Obviously, by itself, the moth example doesn't serve "as evidence that unguided, natural, undirecte4d forces are responsible for all the apparent design in living things." You already pointed that out yourself. It is an example of natural selection pure and simple. It is not the only example and it is not the only kind of evidence used to test evolutionary theory. Have you ever heard of genetics? Have you ever heard of comparative genomics?
Why do you insist that this one example must prove everything in evolutioaary biology to be correct? Why do you think this is the "best" example? Do you really believe that the entire foundation of evolutionary biology rests on this one piece of research? How do you interpret the excellent work done on natural selection in the Galapogos Finches, to take just one example? How do you interpret all of the genetic evidence for macroevolution?
Do you really believe that any scientist uses "the Law to prevent opposing views from being considered"? If so, aren't you afraid you will be arrested for posting this nonsense? Aren't you afraid that there are spies in your church who will rat you out to the police? You know that you have the freedom provided to you by the U.S. Constitution, the exact same document you denigrate with your mindless accusations.
harold · 29 August 2007
raven · 29 August 2007
Mike · 29 August 2007
Nick: that peppered moth animation is seriously annoying when trying to read another post. The motion keeps drawing the eye away from whatever it is reading. It would be better placed below the fold.
QuestionAndBeSkeptical · 29 August 2007
QuestionAndBeSkeptical · 29 August 2007
So, do peppered moths rest on tree trunks?
It appears from this Encarta photograph that the photo is still considered worthy without footnote.
Same with Britannica
From what I understand, these moths do rest on tree trunks, when fraudulent researchers glue them there and photograph them.
harold · 29 August 2007
harold · 29 August 2007
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 29 August 2007
Steviepinhead · 29 August 2007
Gerard Harbison · 29 August 2007
Henry J · 29 August 2007
Re "If moths turned into goats, why are there still moths!!!"
Cause somebody got their goat, so more moths were needed.
AC · 29 August 2007
AC · 29 August 2007
David Stanton · 29 August 2007
QABS wrote:
"From what I understand, these moths do rest on tree trunks, when fraudulent researchers glue them there and photograph them."
What possible difference could it make where they did or did not rest? If the photographs were taken in the lab, would you say the study was invalid because the moths could never open the door? Differential predation by birds has been confirmed as the selection agent. I'm sure the new paper will document exactly what the substrates involved were and their relative importance. So what?
How does this make the researchers "fraudulent"? Do you have any evidence that they were incorrect in their conclusions? Why does it matter to you? Would the validity of natural selection undermine your world view in some way?
Frank J · 29 August 2007
Anthony · 29 August 2007
I don't understand. ID/YEC say they accept microevolution but they reject the examples. Any ideas?
mark · 29 August 2007
Steviepinhead · 29 August 2007
Speaking of the Santa "Clause"...
This almost sounds constitutional: is it anything like the Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause?
At the minimum, Santa "Clause" has a certain, oh, legalistic tone to it. I sincerely hope that Mr. Santa isn't in trouble with Mrs. Santa...
Or maybe Columbus had a ship on his interrupted voyage to the East Indies that our adulterated histories have neglected to mention: the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Clause?
I hope you didn't just misspell "Santa Claws," like in one of those seasonal slasher movies...
David Stanton · 29 August 2007
Anthony,
Some creationists say they accept microevolution, but in actuality they reject all of science, the scientific method and naturalism in general. So, many of them are just lying because they think it will make them appear more open-minded.
Some creationists are probably trying to force a false dichotomy between micro and macro evolution in order to cast doubt on the latter without having to deal with the overwhelming evidence for the former. Too bad for them that there is no hard and fast distinction between the two and the evidence for both is overwhelming.
Of course there is no generalization that accounts for all in the big tent, but these ideas might explain at least some of this nonsense.
nickmatzke · 29 August 2007
PvM · 29 August 2007
PvM · 29 August 2007
PvM · 29 August 2007
It's fascinating how ignorance of science and evolutionary sciences seems to be so prevalent amongst ID proponents, especially those of the YEC variation.
hoary puccoon · 30 August 2007
Sorry, Steviepinhead. Fossils of Sanctacaris (imagine italics. My computer is limited) common name, Santa Claws, were discovered in Cambrian deposits by Desmond Morris, of the Royal Ontario Museum, in the 1980's.
So, yes, scientists are the ones who believe in Santa Claws.
hoary puccoon · 30 August 2007
I know Sal Cordova has seen, if not understood, The Origin of Species. Could he possibly have failed to notice that the first two chapters are devoted to varieties within species? If this were 'a nasty side of the story' why on earth would Darwin have put it so blatantly front and center?
I simply cannot reconcile what Cordova writes with honest ignorance.
Mats · 30 August 2007
Frank J · 30 August 2007
hoary puccoon · 30 August 2007
Mats, no one here is interested in using "the Law to prevent facts that disagree with unguided evolutionism [sic] to be heard."
If you really thought that was true, you would be too afraid of legal repercussions to post here, since you are certainly presenting arguments against modern evolutionary theory. On the contrary, the whole purpose of Panda's Thumb is to allow both sides of the evolution-creation debate to be heard, without subjecting anyone to unfair pressure.
The only place in which scientists are using "the Law" to restrict debate is in public school science classes. Presenting creationism (or, for that matter, Hindu cosmology or any other religious doctrine) to public school children in the guise of science is a violation of the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, and an infringement of the rights of parents to give their children the religious instruction they believe is best.
If you would like creationism to be accepted as standard scientific theory, you are perfectly free to talk about it, write about it, and hold meetings about it to achieve your goal. If creationism is ever accepted as standard science, you may be sure that the full force of the law will be exercised to allow it to be taught in public school classrooms.
But until that time, trying to force creationism into public school classrooms is, in fact, a denigration of the U.S. Constitution, and a violation of the rights of U.S. citizens.
So, go right on arguing here, or in any other appropriate forum, against evolution. Most of the bloggers here stand foursquare for your right to do so.
Just don't try to have your views taught to children in U.S. public schools until they have gained acceptance in the scientific community.
hoary puccoon · 30 August 2007
Friend of FTk asks, "has anyone checked Majerus’ results for themselves?"
And answers, "of course not."
Okay. So the creationist position is, until I've sold my home, bought another one with a 'rambling back garden,' in a considerably more expensive country, of which I am not a citizen, and spent 'seven years collecting data from a series of experiments' that involve, 'getting up each day before dawn and then spending several hours looking out of [the] window armed with a telescope and notepad,' I can't accept Majerus's results as accurate.
Okay, that seems fair enough. And until the creationists produce the talking snake, the burning bush, and the archangel Michael, complete with his wings and the head of the dragon he slew, I can't accept their results as accurate, either.
I think we've got a deal, here.
Tim Hague · 30 August 2007
David Stanton · 30 August 2007
Mats wrote:
"What is controversial is the belief that NS can do what darwinists say it can, meanigly, to generate the complexity present in living forms."
So what has that got to do with the moth experiment? Absolutely nothing. I can provide you with many references on the evolution of complexity. Maybe you will accept this evidence and maybe you will not, but that is certainly not the issue here.
"Genomic comparation? Doesn’t help to provide the evidence that unguided, undirected, natural forcs of nature can create the bio-systems present in nature."
Actually the evidence from comparative genomics is exactly what one would predict if unguided natural forces created the diversity of life that we see on the planet today. The conclusion is not affected by ignorance of the evidence. I can provide you with many references that dsemonstrate the valifity of macroevolution (or you can just read the Talk Origins archive).
"Ño, but since this is used as “evidence for evolution”, it’s important to realize that this does not help to expain the origins of moths, trees and scietific observers, which is what evolutionism aims to explain. The fact that moths give rise to moths doesn’t say anything as to the origins of the said moth."
No it doesn't. It isn't meant to. It never was. Why do you insist that it must? It is evidence for natural selection not evidence for evolution. Try to keep up. If you claim there are no people with red hair and I say yes there are, my sister has red hair, you cannot claim that there is no evidence that she is my sister and think you have won the argument.
"Natural selection is not controversial. Read above."
So why do you find in necessary to try to demean the research that demonstrates it with dishonest accusations if you really agree with the conclusions?
"There is no genetic evidence that suports the notion that natural forms are the result of an unguided, undirected, natural process."
This is the default assumption and it is consistent with all the evidence. If you believe that there is some guiding force or plan at work, it is up to you to provide the evidence. What is the intelligence involved? Where did it come from? What is the ultimate goal? Where is the evidence? Please, enlighten us. Once again, there is a wealth of genetic evidence, you are just ignoring it.
"I believe that many evolutionary scientists use the Law to prevent facts that disagree with unguided evolutionism to be heard."
How could this possibly be true, even theoretically? How could the law poossibly prevent facts from being heard? Does the law censor your comments here? Does the law censor comments in your tax-free church? Could the law possibly prevent anyone from sequencing any gene they wanted and reporting the results? The cry of oppression is often heard as an excuse form those with no evidence to support their claims.
"I did not criticize the US Constitution. I criticized the unscientific extrapolation that unguided evolutionists make out of the moth event. Moths turning into moths doesn’t explain where do moths come from."
You did criticize the Constitution by implying that upholding it is somehow improper. And yet this is the same document that give you the freedom that you deny you have. That is a very hypocritical argument. And no "unguided evolutionists" try to say that the moth experiment is anything but an example of natural selection. You are the only one with that delusion.
harold · 30 August 2007
David Stanton · 30 August 2007
P.S.
Actually, moths don't give rise to moths, they give rise to caterpillars. Caterpillars give rise to moths (and butterflies to).
GV · 30 August 2007
Actually, the population always included black moths and white moths - this is not evolution at all, merely an oscillation of populations based on natural selection. No new genes, no new structures, no new anything! Majerus overstates the case quite significantly: "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all: The Proof of Evolution."
If this is some of the best proof that evolutionists have, I'll keep my options open. Majerus' atheistic religion is getting in the way of his science. Plus, his "experiment" in his backyard is not statistically valid, as any statistician will tell you. It is amazing what evolutionists will do to logic and science in the name of atheism and to defend Darwin... simply amazing!
GV
nickmatzke · 30 August 2007
nickmatzke · 30 August 2007
Mary Mallon's Ghost · 30 August 2007
harold · 30 August 2007
Glen Davidson · 30 August 2007
raven · 30 August 2007
Evolution makes predictions of vital importance to humans every day.
We know that any antibiotic, antiviral, herbicide, insecticide, anticancer drug, anti-anything will sooner or later result in their targets becoming resistant. GMO crops such as BT corn etc., new antibiotics, are all managed using evolutionary principles to slow down the emergence of resistance in the target pests.
Evolution also predicts that monocultures would have problems with pathogens. Which they do.
Evolution has also predicted that emerging diseases would be a problem. IIRC, humans now make up 50% of the large animal biomass on this planet. A plum target for any enterprising disease. A guy wrote a book a few decades ago predicting that emerging diseases would arise to fill that niche. When HIV appeared, he says he thought that would be it. Later he said he is still waiting.
It's possible that 21st century medicine might short circuit the next rounds of epidemics. In the evolutionary arms race, we now have a new tool, called intelligence.
That is why the creo attack on science and biology is so stupid. Knowledge of evolution only matters if you want to eat, stay well, and live a long time.
And the contribution of the fundies to anything positive is.....????? I mean aside from murdering a few MDs here and there, taking up space on message boards demonstrating their ignorance, lack of education, lack of sanity, and ability to lie, while trying to overthrow the US government. And oh yeah, making Xians look like idiot slime molds.
Frank J · 30 August 2007
raven · 30 August 2007
Science Avenger · 30 August 2007
raven · 30 August 2007
Glen Davidson · 30 August 2007
Lars · 30 August 2007
raven · 30 August 2007
harold · 30 August 2007
harold · 30 August 2007
Henry J · 30 August 2007
Re "I see people (metaphorically) rolling their eyes at the “it’s still a moth” objection. But I haven’t seen anyone respond to it substantively."
It's also still Lepidoptera, Endopterygota, Neoptera, Pterygota, Insecta, Hexapoda, Arthropoda, Bilateria, Animal (Metazoa), and Eukaryote.
Er, so what?
hoary puccoon · 30 August 2007
Okay, Lars, here goes, without sneering--
As Nick Matzke points out, "black moths were completely unknown until a single example was collected in 1848 I think, and black moths spread out from the Manchester region as if from a point origin."
So, what you are really asking about is why moths haven't turned into something completely different in the last 160 years. The answer is, evolution simply doesn't work that fast. I'm sure you're familiar with the base-pairing mechanism of DNA, which insures that a DNA copy will be quite close to the original. On top of that, the cell has natural mechanisms to catch any errors that do occur. On top of THAT, any mutations that aren't caught by the error-correction, and that result in a very different phenotype, generally don't survive to reproduce (in other words, they are weeded out by natural selection.) Given those three conditions, evolution should be expected to proceed very slowly, by a gradual accumulation of tiny changes. And that's exactly what we do see.
To expect a species to change into some radically different kind of animal in 160 years is like expecting a cross-country hiker to move as fast as a jet plane. In the time it takes a jet plane to fly over a hiker, there won't be any evidence that the hiker is traveling. But if you come back a week later, the hiker could be a hundred miles down the trail.
The trouble is that creatures who live at most a hundred years can't come back 'a week later' in geologic time. We have to rely on the fossil record, the physics of radioactive decay, and the internal evidence of DNA mutations. As it happens, these three completely different measures give precisely congruent results. And the results all point to living creatures changing very slowly, but very radically, over long periods of time.
Peter Henderson · 30 August 2007
Steviepinhead · 30 August 2007
Hoary puccoon, while I am reliably informed that the name of the little Cambrian arthropod Sanctacaris translates into something along the lines of, er, "Holy Shrimp," I am also reliably informed (via Wickipedia) that "originally Sanctacaris was called informally 'Santa Claws'."
I concede that my petard is now at a higher elevation that formerly it was.
Even a pinhead learns something new everyday.
Though creaIDiots do their best to buck this trend.
fnxtr · 30 August 2007
S.P.H:
I just finished reading SJG's "Wonderful Life", and yes, 'sanctacaris' was indeed intended to translate "Santa Claws".
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 30 August 2007
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 30 August 2007
Science Avenger · 30 August 2007
AC · 30 August 2007
Lars · 30 August 2007
Christophe Thill · 31 August 2007
Lars:
"Getting from shifts in the proportion of light moths and dark moths within a species to the origin of new species (and higher taxa all the way up!) requires a big leap."
Oh does it? I can think of quite a few reasonable scenarios. Of course they involve some sort of "big leap", but nothing extraordinary.
What if the polluting factories closed everywhere, replaced by clean ones, except in one region (for cost reasons, let's say)? The white moths would regain dominance almost everywhere, perhaps even driving the black ones to extinction. The polluted zone would keep a black population. Both populations would be separated geographically, and stop mixing. Once reproductive isolation is there, you can count on some well known process (adaptation, genetic drift...) tu accumulate differences on each side, until two new species are there.
And what if one of the two varieties became "racist", was afraid of the other one and refused to mate with it? Same result.
And what if the fall season became extremely rainy, washing away all the grime? The black variety would mostly live its adult life during the drier times, and hide (or die) after it. And that would be when the white moths enter the stage and have their mating season. Again, two new species at the end of the road.
But there's one thing I would like to know. It seems that the black moth appeared in mid-19th century, as some sort of mutation (I'm not a pro, this might not be the exact word, but it looks like one to me). What happened to the white moths? Did they go somewhere else, find some niche, or disappear completely? And when they reappered, was it a new mutation, or did they just come out of hiding, or back from holidays? I think it's an interesting point, but I don't have this information.
"I don’t believe a creationist has to deny that NS occurs"
Well, it all depends on what you call "natural selection". Bringing back again the Mayr refrence, it is useful to remnd that not everybody agree on the term. Creationists will likely admit a "corrective" selection, that weeds out ill-shaped and grossly unfit individuals. They have for centuries. But the "creative", properly Darwinian selection, the one that shapes new species little byllittle (see above), of course they reject.
hoary puccoon · 31 August 2007
At least Lars acknowledged in a general way that some of us tried to give thoughtful answers to his questions. That's better than no acknowledgment at all. It still leaves me thinking that he wasn't really interested in why moths can't turn into something radically different in a few decades. But it's a lot better than not even knowing if the creationist bothered to check back, which is the usual response I've had.
On a similar topic, Frank J gave a long, thoughtful response to something I wrote, which I never acknowledged. Yes, it would be fine if the evolution-creation debate could be taught honestly. Student would undoubtedly come away impressed with the evolution side. A fact I find interesting, which apparently is mentioned by some teachers, is that scientists had already given up on the bible as literal, scientific truth by the end of the 1700's, decades before The Origin of Species-- in fact, before Charles Darwin was born. The conflict between evolution and a literal interpretation of the bible was generated in the 1890's, after Darwin died. So the idea that disproving some aspect of evolution proves the literal truth of the bible is a red herring in every way.
Sir_Toejam · 31 August 2007
Sir_Toejam · 31 August 2007
Jon Fleming · 31 August 2007
Sir_Toejam · 31 August 2007
Sir_Toejam · 31 August 2007
Jon Fleming · 31 August 2007
David Stanton · 31 August 2007
Jon,
Thanks for the info. From the data one can easily determine the exact proportion of moths resting on specific substrates. Of course, as I pointed out earlier, this is completely irrelevant. No matter where they rest, moths will be subject to bird predation against a background that could be altered by industrial soot. Just another red herring creationist ploy to try to obsure the fact tht this is solid research with a verified result.
One more time, just to be clear: this is one example of one process that is sometimes important in evolution. It doesn't matter if the author originally overstated the importance of this one piece of work. It doesn't matter whether selection is the only process important in evolution or not. It doesn't matter if the moths are still moths or not. Selection is real and the results of this experiment are real. Deal with it. Or better yet, do your own research on the topic.
raven · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Mark Duigon · 31 August 2007
Regarding prediction in science:
I just read an item (Science magazine, subscription required) about the reconstructed ancestral protein study by Ortlund, Bridgham, Redinbo, & Thornton. Thornton was quoted, "That really blew our minds, that we were able to predict the functional effect of these mutations that occurred over 400 million years ago."
Lars · 31 August 2007
QuestionAndBeSkeptical · 31 August 2007
Steviepinhead · 31 August 2007
Next thing on your agenda, Lars: learn not to push the "Post" button fourteen zillion times.
While this interface occasionally gets cranky, and I have occasionally complained about it, it's not that cranky.
Seeing your repeated inability to comprehend that the peppered moth is NOT held up by "evolutionists" as the be-all and end-all proof of "macro-evolution" REPEATED over and over goes beyond crankiness into sheer blackboard skreeking rudeness.
Then there's your inability to comprehend what's claimed to be "congruent" and not about the various methods of tracking common descent.
Then there's your quote-mining of Gould and insistence on paying obeisance to many-times debunked con artists...
Then there's...
well, one could go on and on.
But you already did, so let's not.
Bettinke? Oh, Bettinke?
Science Avenger · 31 August 2007
Science Avenger · 31 August 2007
ben · 31 August 2007
Glen Davidson · 31 August 2007
bob · 31 August 2007
Lars,
The analogy you give is incorrect. We know about gravity and we know that jumps aren't additive. One jump does not add to another. Mutation are additive. Once a mutation is fixed in the population, it is in all members of the population. So if I could jump twelve inches off the ground and stay there, and then jump again, then yes, I could reach the moon.
Yes, this demonstrates evolution perfectly. It show that the change in the accumulative phenotype of a population is a result of differential survival of individuals in the population.
bob
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
David Stanton · 31 August 2007
Lars wrote:
"Yes, we see tiny changes. We see gradual accumulation of a few of them. What we don’t see is formation of whole new systems ..."
For the thirteenth time, yes that is exactly what the evidence indicates. Please read the Talk Origins archive entitled 29 Evidences for Macroevolution. If, after reading that, you can still make this claim, I guess someone might care to discuss it with you, or not. In any event, as long as you continue to ignore all of the evidence you should not be surp[rised if some label you as ignorant. And since this has already been pointed out to you many times, some will choose to label you willfully ignorant.
Can you come up with one single reason why mutations should not be cumulative? Can give one reason why random mutation and natural selection could not produce anything new? Can you give any reason why unequivical demonstration of one of the most important processes in evolution is not evidence for evolution? Can you give any reason why you couldn't be bothered to check to see that your post had made it through after the first ten attempts before you tried another three times?
Could someone pleas remove the twelve repeat posts from this thread. Is this behavior against the rules or not?
W. Kevin Vicklund · 31 August 2007
Lars: For future reference, comments containing more than 4 links are held for moderation.
hoary puccoon · 31 August 2007
Lars--
Okay, so you reposted numerous times. I have problems with computers, too.
The particular point I made which you disagreed with was saying, "the fossil record, the physics of radioactive decay, and the internal evidence of DNA mutations... give precisely congruent results."
Perhaps I should have said, "highly correlated results." In fact, when any two of these dating techniques disagree, red flags go up all over the place, and scientists immediately go to work finding out why there's a discrepancy. The last three links you gave are examples of the kind of issues that arise.
Those examples are pretty mild, incidentally, compared with the fights that went on when, IIRC, Sherwin Washburn and Allan Wilson in Calif. (I'm doing this off the top of my head) declared the human-chimp split occurred around 5 million years ago. At that time, everyone was sure that Ramapithicus, at 25 or so million years old, was a human ancestor. But the scientists fought it out, until Ramapithicus's own discoverers uncovered evidence that it was ancestral to orangutans, not humans. The subsequent convergence on 5 or 6 million years ago for the human-ape split (based on all three dating techniques) was a true agreement, not scientists forming a politically-motivated united front.
In contrast to the scientists' efforts to-- literally-- turn over every stone to make sure they're correct, you're offering an analogy that is simply wrong. I hope you'll be willing to admit that and drop it. Evolution really is more like the hiker who goes a long way by taking millions of tiny steps than like someone going to the moon by taking millions of tiny jumps. The hiker can go a long way up-- but only if there's a mountain there to climb, step by slow step. And s/he can go a long, long way North or South, into very different terrain. It just takes time.
I probably can't respond to anything you post in return because I have a very busy weekend ahead, but I hope you take this post in the constructive spirit in which I intended it.
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Henry J · 31 August 2007
David Stanton · 31 August 2007
Lars wrote:
"precisely congruent results” would be a very tough claim to try to defend. You have no doubt heard that there are serious problems with the paucity of transitional forms in fossil record (see Gould); and molecular evidence from DNA is often ignored for being inconsistent with all plausible phylogenetic hypotheses (Nelson gives references here)."
Are you serious? Are you aware of all of the fossil evidence and all of the genetic evidence regarding the evoluton of Cetaceans?
Why do you think transitional forms and genetic dats is relevant to a discussion about moths? You just couldn't find any way to dismiss the evidence for natural selection so now you are trying to move on to something else.
David Stanton · 31 August 2007
Great, now there are fifteen copies of this nonsense.
David Stanton · 31 August 2007
Lars,
Have you ever heard of Cetaceans? Do you know that all of the fossil evidence and all of the genetic evidence are consistent and that all of the evidence points to the fact that Cetaceans are descended for Artiodactyls? How do you explain the concordance of independent data sets? Why do you insist on trying to change the subject from microevolution in moths to macroevolution? Do you really not believe in natural selection?
By the way, Nick's point was that something new was produced by random mutations in the moths and it was an adaptive change in some generations as well. Why do you deny that random mutation and natural selection can have cumulative effects? Why do you use inapproproiate analogies to support your ideas instead of evidence?
Lars · 31 August 2007
Lars · 31 August 2007
Oh great... I see now that I've posted umpteen copies of my comment. Apologies, everybody. Mea maxima culpa.
I'm pretty sure that after the first error or two, I checked to make sure my comment hadn't appeared on the page. I guess either I had failed to refresh, or else my comments only started getting posted after subsequent submissions.
Any chance of getting a moderator to delete all copies of that post but the last? I kept updating it as I went along. Thanks...
Again, apologies to everybody for the noise. I am duly embarrassed and repent in dust and ashes.
PvM · 31 August 2007
PvM · 31 August 2007
PvM · 31 August 2007
Lars · 1 September 2007
David Stanton · 1 September 2007
Lars,
Sorry for my harsh tone. I thought you were doing that on purpose. The same thing obviously happened to me, so it is likely that you are completely blameless. There seems to be some problem with the text you are using. When I cut and pasted from your post my post did not go through (at least not right away). I have no cut and paste in this post, we'll see if it goes through.
In any event, you seem to have drastically underestimated the vast volume of genetic evidence for macroevolution. If I were you, I wouldn't trust any nonsense I read on creationist websites. This is a very complex field of science that requires years of study in order to properly understand. For now, let's just say that your characterizations are wildely inaccurate.
I would recommend the Talk Origins archive concerning plagarized errors and Cetacean evolution as a good starting point. It contains rebuttals of common creationist talking points.
David Stanton · 1 September 2007
Lars Wrote:
"What I do know is that whenever I hear news about data that contradicts what you would expect from evolutionary theory… for example, when genes for complex systems are discovered to have been present long before they were expressed (as in shark ancestors having Hox gene function for fingers, or sea anemones having vertebrate-like introns), evolutionists express surprise but never allow the obvious question: is the theory wrong?"
With all due respect, that doesn't even make any sense. If scientists were afraid of evidence disproviing their theory, why whould you have ever heard of these results in the first place? The truth is that scientists, in general, are sincerely seeking the truth and are always willing to revise their theories in the light of new evidence. That is in fact the way in which science has progressed for hundreds of years now.
No real scientist has any strong emotional investment in any particular theory (unless perhaps it is their own). Any scientist that I know, (including myself), would be more that happy to disprove Darwin's ideas. That is how you become rich and famous in science.
The truth is that many of the discoveries in biology have caused Darwin's ideas to be refined and extended over time. The truth is that random mutation and natural selection has never been disproven as a mechanism for micro and macroevolution despite repeated attempts. Not bad for a hundred and fifty year old theory proposed before the beginning of modern genetics.
Why do you think that Hox genes in sharks is a problem for "Darwinism"? Why do you think that introns in anemones is a problem for evolutionary theory? Why do you think this data was published in the first place if scientists are so afraid of it?
David Stanton · 1 September 2007
Lars,
As has already been pointed out, your analogy is fundamentally flawed. Mutation and selection are cumulative processes. You do not have to start over at the beginning every time as you do when you jump. This is a creationist fallacy, don't but into it.
What sequence do you think it would be impossible to produce given enough rounds of mutation and selection? Are you aware of all of the molecular mechanisms that increase genetic variation? Are you aware of all of the different types of selection and their complex interactions? Why do you think that your analogy is better that the analogy of walking across the country?
David Wilson · 1 September 2007
J. Biggs · 1 September 2007
Lars, I believe that your repost reaches a new PT record. (I counted 24 similar posts). Does anyone else find it strange that Lars can be constructed out of SALvadoR. Lars's posts remind me of Sal's so much that I have a hard time believing they are different people, but I could be wrong. My apologies Lars if I am.
CJO · 1 September 2007
Henry J · 1 September 2007
Science Avenger · 2 September 2007
Richard Boyne · 4 September 2007
I've been thinking a lot about that whole "still a moth" argument. When you think about it, all the decendants of the peppered moth should be considered "just moths" for the sake of monophyly. If not, then "moth" would be a paraphyletic group, assuming it isn't already. Also, that trip to the moon analogy is perhaps not as accurate as it could be, since evolution is not directed to one point. It would be better to say that an accumulation of tiny steps could take you to many other points in the solar system - a bit like adaptive radiation. Anyway, that's enough of me me being pedantic.
Sir_Toejam · 5 September 2007
Nick (Matzke) · 21 September 2007
David Wilson -- thanks. I got 1848 from Majerus's 1998 book. Majerus knows E.B. Ford's Ecological Genetics intimately, I imagine he would have mentioned the 1811 reference if it were real, perhaps he knows something we don't?
The creationists can't be entirely blamed for the "it's just a change in proportions" claim, because Kettlewell himself promoted that view in his book on Industrial Melanism. The title was "Industrial Melanism: A Recurring Necessity" or something. Most of the experts nowadays seem to think this "recurrence" theme was unnecessary AFAICT. Majerus (1998) gives a fairly extensive argument that carbonaria forms radiated out from the Manchester region in the 1800s, indicating that even if the occasional dark mutant had popped up before (which I have no reason to doubt), it only "took" once they started to really crank the soot out into the atmosphere.
Lars · 7 October 2007
Lars · 7 October 2007
David Stanton · 7 October 2007
Lars,
There are several theoretical reaasons why large-scale changes can be expected to be produced by the same processes that produce small-scale changes in evolution.
First, selection can be cumulative. If the environment does not change for long poeriods of time, the many beneficial mutations that provide a selective advantage in that envrionment will most likely be preserved by natural selection. Selection does not start from scratch every generation. Indeed, it must start from that which already exists, which is most likely already adaopted to the environment and proven to be successful in that environment.
Second, the same types of genetic systems that control biochemistry also control phenotype and development. No fundamentally new genetic mechanisms are required for large-scale changes. The same well-understood mechanisms of mutation are sufficiient to produce genetic variation for small and large-scale changes.
Third, because of the complex interactions in developmental pathways, even small genetic changes can have large phenotypic effects. That means that, once again, the same well-understood genetic mechanisms that are demonstrably responsible for small-scale changes can produce large-scale changes quite easily.
The evidence does indeed suggest that such processes are both necessary and sufficient to produce the large-scale changes that are required in order to form the current structure of the tree of life. The relatively new field of evolutionary development (evo/devo) is helping to unravel the types of genetic pathways that have been involved. Scientists do not just accept the simple answer, they are always seeking to increase our knowledge. Everything we learn points to the fact that natural processes have produced the diversity of life we see around us.
Popper's Ghost · 7 October 2007
Popper's Ghost · 7 October 2007
Plus there's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Popper's Ghost · 7 October 2007
Popper's Ghost · 7 October 2007
Popper's Ghost · 7 October 2007
And of course as Raven stated earlier: "Peppered moths is one tiny data point in millions and millions. After 150 years the data set is so large and overwhelming no one person even knows how large it is."
The utter inability of creationists to rationally cogitate gets so tiresome.
Popper's Ghost · 7 October 2007
Lars · 7 October 2007
Popper's Ghost · 7 October 2007
Popper's Ghost · 7 October 2007
Popper's Ghost · 7 October 2007
Popper's Ghost · 7 October 2007
BTW, Lars the moron troll, your statement "yet the study only shows that NS occurs" simply echoes the first sentence of Nick's piece: "the classic textbook example of natural selection in action". Whether or not you wasted your time, you certainly wasted the time of others with your stupidity.
David Stanton · 7 October 2007
Lars,
Take a look at the recent thread on the evolution of Mammalian molars to see how small genetic changes can generate large morphological differences in micro and macroevolution.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 October 2007
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 October 2007
"Further, his generation numbers are off with many decades, since he doesn’t acknowledge the molecular data showing evolutionary lineages."
I just realized that Behe's game plan for his woo is an excellent example of circular reasoning. He assumes what he wants to prove.
"species must be able to adapt and speciate, or nobody would be here today"
Must, when we take the data into account.
PvM · 7 October 2007
guess that settles it · 2 July 2009
Genes give the information of how to make a given organism. Without nature already possessing the ability to translate this information it would be useless.
It's a chicken and egg scenario.
I can give you a book that tells how to make an airplane... how long til it becomes an airplane?... What you propose 'nature' does by 'nature' is irrational. A universe that constructed itself..(and so far from 'nothing') a gene code that coded itself.. food that tastes good for what reason? Of what evolutionary use is consciousness?... An automaton would be more successful. All of evolution's arguments fall back on themselves in circular fashion -- 'It exists because it was successful... it doesn't exist cause it wasn't successful'..
How can science go on calling these fossils 'simple'. None of them are.. and a vast number still live in the exact form they were in millions of years ago.. how many ice ages ago? How many times was the majority of animal species wiped out? Did evolution shrug it off and start over?... it seems not.. Can we agree a mammoth is an elephant?... so what's the big change? Wasn't it funny when we found spearheads in their hide and edible meat?
How about those caterpillars? - marvels of evolution.. going through the entire cycle from caterpillar to butterfly in days.. Do you really think that this was developed by natural selection?
How many tries does it take for a mutation to be beneficial? It would be safe to assume that near an infinite number of failed attempts would happen before success.. considering it's just random mutation. A zebra afterall doesn't know that his predator the lion is color blind and that (as the theory goes) he gets vertigo from the zebras standing close together. How many polka dot zebras and checkerboard zebras had to happen before the current pattern. You would think at least one ghastly design out of all the species and infinite progression of changes would exist... one skittish polka dot zebra hiding in the bushes.. but nope. Not a one.
Science would think that the praying mantis and the stick bugs were formed by millions of years of adaptation to environment. Sounds reasonable at first, but let me imagine what happened... so these insects must have had 100's of 1000's, or even MILLIONS of failed designs to finally come up with one that camouflaged them to their surroundings. Genetic screw up praying mantis's shaped in round, and fat - and every imaginable way until FINALLY by happenstance one praying mantis ACCIDENTALLY was born shaped looking similar to a twig on the tree he was on.... and my god it must have happened.. and then the one evolutionary accidentally advanced praying mantis screwed up one day and was eaten anyway, and evolution and its millions of years of work was LOST! Afterall it had nothing to guide it's development but simply TRIAL AND ERROR. - hit and miss evolution is a cruel developer indeed.
And what of the world itself?
There's no 'reason' the world should have abundant water for us across the world, have large plains to grow crops, and level areas for our cities - it could have just as well have been rocky from one end to the other - im sure there's worlds out there like that - there's no reason for us to have abundant trees that we coincidentally needed for our tendency of using paper pulp for building houses and for our sunday papers and books and forms etc, no reason for it to work out that we have abundant fossil fuels for our gas guzzling machines - we could have reached a point where we wanted to travel from area to area... but there simply was no feasible idea that would facilitate it - a technological dead end... you live in a convenient world where 'there's always an answer'.... yet.. no one seems to understand how conspicuous that idea is.... in an accidental world without a mind behind it.. there would not 'always be an answer'..
These are but a few of the limitless problems with the idea of a universe which makes itself.. -
just remember: Man has 98% of the genes a chimp has....
man also has 76% of the genes a banana has.
could we have found the missing link?
guess that settles it · 2 July 2009
Genes give the information of how to make a given organism. Without nature already possessing the ability to translate this information it would be useless.
It's a chicken and egg scenario.
I can give you a book that tells how to make an airplane... how long til it becomes an airplane?... What you propose 'nature' does by 'nature' is irrational. A universe that constructed itself..(and so far from 'nothing') a gene code that coded itself.. food that tastes good for what reason? Of what evolutionary use is consciousness?... An automaton would be more successful. All of evolution's arguments fall back on themselves in circular fashion -- 'It exists because it was successful... it doesn't exist cause it wasn't successful'..
How can science go on calling these fossils 'simple'. None of them are.. and a vast number still live in the exact form they were in millions of years ago.. how many ice ages ago? How many times was the majority of animal species wiped out? Did evolution shrug it off and start over?... it seems not.. Can we agree a mammoth is an elephant?... so what's the big change? Wasn't it funny when we found spearheads in their hide and edible meat?
How about those caterpillars? - marvels of evolution.. going through the entire cycle from caterpillar to butterfly in days.. Do you really think that this was developed by natural selection?
How many tries does it take for a mutation to be beneficial? It would be safe to assume that near an infinite number of failed attempts would happen before success.. considering it's just random mutation. A zebra afterall doesn't know that his predator the lion is color blind and that (as the theory goes) he gets vertigo from the zebras standing close together. How many polka dot zebras and checkerboard zebras had to happen before the current pattern. You would think at least one ghastly design out of all the species and infinite progression of changes would exist... one skittish polka dot zebra hiding in the bushes.. but nope. Not a one.
Science would think that the praying mantis and the stick bugs were formed by millions of years of adaptation to environment. Sounds reasonable at first, but let me imagine what happened... so these insects must have had 100's of 1000's, or even MILLIONS of failed designs to finally come up with one that camouflaged them to their surroundings. Genetic screw up praying mantis's shaped in round, and fat - and every imaginable way until FINALLY by happenstance one praying mantis ACCIDENTALLY was born shaped looking similar to a twig on the tree he was on.... and my god it must have happened.. and then the one evolutionary accidentally advanced praying mantis screwed up one day and was eaten anyway, and evolution and its millions of years of work was LOST! Afterall it had nothing to guide it's development but simply TRIAL AND ERROR. - hit and miss evolution is a cruel developer indeed.
And what of the world itself?
There's no 'reason' the world should have abundant water for us across the world, have large plains to grow crops, and level areas for our cities - it could have just as well have been rocky from one end to the other - im sure there's worlds out there like that - there's no reason for us to have abundant trees that we coincidentally needed for our tendency of using paper pulp for building houses and for our sunday papers and books and forms etc, no reason for it to work out that we have abundant fossil fuels for our gas guzzling machines - we could have reached a point where we wanted to travel from area to area... but there simply was no feasible idea that would facilitate it - a technological dead end... you live in a convenient world where 'there's always an answer'.... yet.. no one seems to understand how conspicuous that idea is.... in an accidental world without a mind behind it.. there would not 'always be an answer'..
These are but a few of the limitless problems with the idea of a universe which makes itself.. -
just remember: Man has 98% of the genes a chimp has....
man also has 76% of the genes a banana has.
could we have found the missing link?
Dave Luckett · 2 July 2009
I'd leave that one up, if I were moderating. I have rarely seen such a museum-quality specimen. Incomprehension, ignorance, incredulity and misrepresentation, of course, but in this case combined with a very close approach to pathological unreason. Reality must be a very strange and threatening place for a mind like this. No wonder its owner chooses not to live there.
DS · 2 July 2009
guess (I guess that is its first name) wrote:
"How many tries does it take for a mutation to be beneficial?"
Anywhere between one and about one hundred million. Why, how many "tries" do you think you get? You do realize that some mutations can become beneficial when the environment changes without any new mutations required right?
Guess that settles it, this guy knows nothing and thinks that his own incredulity is proof positive of everything he chooses to believe. Now why would you post this nonsense on a two year old thread about moths?
guess that settles it · 2 July 2009
Typical.
just random insults... always showing your true selves.
So... with 1 to 100 million tries (considering a random event has no mind or reason to base it's decision on... it would be far closer to the 100 million.. and beyond.. but anyway)
lets go with 100 million. If an animal had to attempt 100 million attempts before it stumbled upon decent camouflage... do you really think that simply because the other 99,999,999 tries were bad attempts, they would definitely go extinct from that one flaw? - How about the 100's of millions of attempts for EVERY single development in every single species? Where are they? Evolution lives off of the circular reasoning that all mutations that aren't beneficial become extinct. Has science had a tendency of finding a use for all of the characteristics of animals if we study them long enough? Evolution lives off the idea that it must be useful... because it survived - that is circular reasoning folks. There's nothing to say that a bad development wouldn't be carried on - millions and millions of them even... because the species would try to live.
And if 100's of millions of attempts at every single change were to take place.. where are the fossils. I know scientist's like to say 'that's difficult... fossils require specific situations to form.' - well, letsee - you had 100's of millions of years with every form of climate condition. Every species that exists not only would have millions upon millions of transitional form SUCCESSES but millions * millions of failed forms.
They aren't there.
fnxtr · 2 July 2009
Wow.
Dude, "Incomprehension, ignorance, incredulity and misrepresentation, of course, but in this case combined with a very close approach to pathological unreason" are not insults, they're observations, and accurate ones.
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
"How about the 100’s of millions of attempts for EVERY single development in every single species? Where are they?"
In the alleles, if they were neutral or beneficial. Why don't you look just like your dad?
"Evolution lives off of the circular reasoning that all mutations that aren’t beneficial become extinct."
Wrong again. You apparently have never heard of neutral mutations.
"There’s nothing to say that a bad development wouldn’t be carried on - millions and millions of them even… because the species would try to live."
Context is everything.
When Canadian troops when to the middle east, the only camo they had was green. Not helpful there. Likewise, a snowshoe hare is just coyote food in the Okanagan.
Species don't "try to live". Individuals eat, breed, and try not to get killed. The ones that have adaptations appropriate for their current environment get to do that. Some developments just aren't detrimental enough to be eliminated. That's why we get hemorrhoids and bad backs.
"you had 100’s of millions of years with every form of climate condition."
Yup. And pretty much the only ones that preserve fossils are ones that were mud at the time, and accessible to us now. That narrows it down a bit.
Go read a book, and come back and argue when you understand the material.
Or... pretend the theory of evolution doesn't exist (yet). What's your explanation? Of all life? (No points for guessing, everyone, I think we can all see what's coming...)
DS · 2 July 2009
guess wrote:
"Lets go with 100 million."
OK let's. How many ants do you think that there are in the world? Here is a hint, there are probably over one hundred million ants in a square mile in the tropics. So then, by your own reasoniing there should be millions of beneficial of mutations every generation in ants alone. Why is this a problem for you? Of course most mutations will not be beneficial, or at least not until the eoinvironment changes, so what? How many ants do you think die every day? They are not very intelligently designed you know. And most mutations certainly would not leave any fossil evidence. Why do you think that they should?
Now how about viruses or bacteria. How many of them do you think that there are? If one in one hundred million mutations are beneficial we will be in lots of trouble. There could be pandemics and lots of terrrible diseases. Oh wait, there are. Go figure.
And just for your information, there are literally thousands of transitional forms. How do you explain their existence?
More importantly, got any comments about the peppered moths that were the topic of this discussion two years ago?
stevaroni · 2 July 2009
Stanton · 2 July 2009
Dave Lovell · 2 July 2009
stevaroni · 2 July 2009
DS · 2 July 2009
guess wrote:
"Every species that exists not only would have millions upon millions of transitional form SUCCESSES but millions * millions of failed forms. They aren’t there."
Sure they are. We call them coal, oil, gas, peat, etc. What's your point?
You do know that there are three hundred million people in the United States and over six billion in the world right? You do know that a human male can produce hundreds of thousands of sperm per day right?
stevaroni · 2 July 2009
zynga farmville · 18 February 2010
i was starting to reckon i might end up being the sole guy that cared about this, at least at this point i discover i'm not loco :) i'll make it a point to examine a number different articles right after i get a bit of caffeine in me, it is really very hard to read with out my coffee, adios for now :)