Evolution in action.

[Arkilogue]

Ever take a look at the peppered moth evolution by industrial melanism?

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

The moths not only appeared to evolve dark pigmentation when soot levels rose to darken trees (birds ate the lighter colored ones) then they changed back when new pollution standards were put into effect as the birds ate the dark ones.

It does need more research.

I don't quite get what you are trying to say, this post is incoherent even for you. But I think you are pointing to an article which demonstrates strong evidence for evolution and which comes to a conclusion that evolution is proven and uncontroversial (the issue is whether peppered moths evolved, twice, because of the advantages camoflague bestowed, or whether there were other selection criteria in play).

I have one superfluous word "then"....and because of that you can't make sense of it?

Seriously, does anyone else have a problem understanding what I wrote or is this guy just fucking with me again...?

And no, the article says the change in the moths is legit but more strict methods are needed to know if it was caused only by predation pressure.

[Arkilogue]

There's some other kind of evolution...that's -not- "change over time, combined with selection"?

"Punctuated equilibrium"? I think that is just a change that is more obvious than most. Instead of a mutation that allows 0.1% more efficient use of the available food supply we get bright pink instead of white in zebras. That's not really a massive change, it might have been a single mutation or two mutations. And yes, it could have been a major change, but it doesn't have to be.

Punctuated equilibrium is often associated with a massive natural disaster. Large/wholesale change of environment has a precipitous effect on genomes.

[RoadRunner79]

I don't quite get what you are trying to say, this post is incoherent even for you. But I think you are pointing to an article which demonstrates strong evidence for evolution and which comes to a conclusion that evolution is proven and uncontroversial (the issue is whether peppered moths evolved, twice, because of the advantages camoflague bestowed, or whether there were other selection criteria in play).

I have one superfluous word "then"....and because of that you can't make sense of it?

Seriously, does anyone else have a problem understanding what I wrote or is this guy just fucking with me again...?

And no, the article says the change in the moths is legit but more strict methods are needed to know if it was caused only by predation pressure.

Yep.... the picture commonly associated with the pepper moths is a result of intelligent design (ie.... glue)

[Arkilogue]

I have one superfluous word "then"....and because of that you can't make sense of it?

Seriously, does anyone else have a problem understanding what I wrote or is this guy just fucking with me again...?

And no, the article says the change in the moths is legit but more strict methods are needed to know if it was caused only by predation pressure.

Yep.... the picture commonly associated with the pepper moths is a result of intelligent design (ie.... glue)

Now I'm not sure what your trying to say....are you being sarcastic or saying the moths were glued to the trees?

[RoadRunner79]

Yep.... the picture commonly associated with the pepper moths is a result of intelligent design (ie.... glue)

Now I'm not sure what your trying to say....are you being sarcastic or saying the moths were glued to the trees?

The moths where glued in place for the picture. Which wouldn't be a problem, however it is misleading in the explanation, as the moths do not normally rest on the tree trunks, but on the underside of leaves (as your article states).

[Arkilogue]

Now I'm not sure what your trying to say....are you being sarcastic or saying the moths were glued to the trees?

The moths where glued in place for the picture.   Which wouldn't be a problem, however it is misleading in the explanation, as the moths do not normally rest on the tree trunks, but on the underside of leaves (as your article states).

Gotcha, thanks!

[GUBU]

I don't quite get what you are trying to say, this post is incoherent even for you. But I think you are pointing to an article which demonstrates strong evidence for evolution and which comes to a conclusion that evolution is proven and uncontroversial (the issue is whether peppered moths evolved, twice, because of the advantages camoflague bestowed, or whether there were other selection criteria in play).

I have one superfluous word "then"....and because of that you can't make sense of it?

Seriously, does anyone else have a problem understanding what I wrote or is this guy just fucking with me again...?

And no, the article says the change in the moths is legit but more strict methods are needed to know if it was caused only by predation pressure.

No, I can't make sense of it based on the fact that you seem to be using an article which demonstrates strong proof for evolution in order to argue that it is false.

[popeyespappy]

Perhaps it would be more apparent in real time, but I didn't see them stop much at all.  What I seen could possibly be explained as a bottleneck, where most of the bacteria where not able to survive in the antibiotic, but some where.  Once they got through, then they where able to spread in the new medium and start reproduction again.  Even a short stop at the changeover could be easily explained in this way.  Personally, I didn't see any mutant bacteria ninja turtles in the video (perhaps I missed it).   I think you are making an assumption here.  

Congratulations! You have just explained how natural selection works in evolution even though you have failed to grasp the significance. This experiment was probably not an example of a new genetic mutation. The mutation that allowed the bacteria to survive in the antibiotic was probably already present in a small portion of the population when it was introduced into the environment. It just didn't give that portion of the population any particular survival advantage until the environment changed. Once their environment changed though the only bacteria that could survive in it were the ones with a different genetic code. i.e. there was a change in the frequency of the alleles within the two separate populations. This is an example that clearly fits the very definition of evolution.

Same thing with the peppered moths. Some dark pigmented peppered moths existed prior to the changes in environment pressures selected them for a higher survival rate than lighter colored ones.

The nylon eating bacteria on the other hand is a documented example of a new mutation developing in a population It was actually a combination of two separate mutations that happened many generations apart. If you are suggesting that Yahweh was responsible for the mutations in this particular experiment, then please present the evidence for your hypothesis.

[RoadRunner79]

Perhaps it would be more apparent in real time, but I didn't see them stop much at all.  What I seen could possibly be explained as a bottleneck, where most of the bacteria where not able to survive in the antibiotic, but some where.  Once they got through, then they where able to spread in the new medium and start reproduction again.  Even a short stop at the changeover could be easily explained in this way.  Personally, I didn't see any mutant bacteria ninja turtles in the video (perhaps I missed it).   I think you are making an assumption here.  

Congratulations! You have just explained how natural selection works in evolution even though you have failed to grasp the significance. This experiment was probably not an example of a new genetic mutation. The mutation that allowed the bacteria to survive in the antibiotic was probably already present in a small portion of the population when it was introduced into the environment. It just didn't give that portion of the population any particular survival advantage until the environment changed. Once their environment changed though the only bacteria that could survive in it were the ones with a different genetic code. i.e. there was a change in the frequency of the alleles within the two separate populations. This is an example that clearly fits the very definition of evolution.  

Same thing with the peppered moths. Some dark pigmented peppered moths existed prior to the changes in environment pressures selected them for a higher survival rate than lighter colored ones.

It seems that we are mostly in agreement then; all though I'm not clear on what the significance you think I am failing to grasp is (I think it is more of an assumption really).

The nylon eating bacteria on the other hand is a documented example of a new mutation developing in a population It was actually a combination of two separate mutations that happened many generations apart.

Yes, my understanding is that this too is repeatable, and is not that large of a change. I also find that these types of examples seem to be particular to bacteria.

[Arkilogue]

I have one superfluous word "then"....and because of that you can't make sense of it?

Seriously, does anyone else have a problem understanding what I wrote or is this guy just fucking with me again...?

And no, the article says the change in the moths is legit but more strict methods are needed to know if it was caused only by predation pressure.

No, I can't make sense of it based on the fact that you seem to be using an article which demonstrates strong proof for evolution in order to argue that it is false.

Where did I argue that it's false? I said it was an interesting example of evolution. Are you projecting what you think I should be saying as a theist?