(September 15, 2016 at 11:00 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 10:33 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So he found 47 moths... And what sample size was this of the total population?   Where was he looking?   I don't think that the issue is with natural selection here. The cause of the change in frequency may very well be related to the pollution.  The issue is with the explanation and the many assumption that are being made.


From http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/rev...56291.html

From an accusation of fraud to an insinuation of sampling bias.  Those are some pretty agile goalposts.

I don't think that it is that controversial, that the moths in the photo where dead and glued in place for the picture.... and it would seem that the issue is still assumptions based on limited data in either case.

What if the photograph was merely an illustration of the scientific principle at work? Or do scientists only do something once, fake the results and then get standing ovations from the community?

(September 15, 2016 at 11:05 am)popeyespappy Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 8:59 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 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).


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.

The significance is the available evidence says the process of natural selection along with mutations, gene flow and genetic drift are responsible for the diversity of life on this planet. Natural selection allows the organisms with the genetic variables most suited for a particular environment to survive at a higher rate than those which are less suited by changing the distribution of alleles in populations.

My assumption is that based on you other posts in this thread you have a problem with evolution being able to account for the diversity of life. You seem to prefer a goddidit answer.

Well we have countless observed examples of evolution available to us. We know organisms change from one generation to the next because of genetic differences between the generations. We have identified and verified many mechanisms for this genetic change. We have observed natural selection acting on genetic differences to change the distribution of alleles in populations. Despite all this you seem to prefer your goddidit solution even though by all outward appearances no god was required. If indeed you believe that goddidit then present your evidence that your beliefs are true.

Let's leave that herring go for a little bit, and stay on track here. You are correct, that I am skeptical of the evolutionary claims concerning the diversity of all life. I think, that there are a lot of assumptions made in between what is observed, and what is claimed. And a lot of just so stories, such as the peppered moth. I have invited others, to give the facts concerning evolution and have not been taken up on the offer. If you would like to give your reasons and evidence and discuss mechanisms, then I would be happy to do so. However, I think it would be best to leave your caricature assumptions about what I haven't said (goddidit) out of it, and I'll do the same.

(September 15, 2016 at 11:23 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 11:00 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: From an accusation of fraud to an insinuation of sampling bias.  Those are some pretty agile goalposts.

I don't think that it is that controversial, that the moths in the photo where dead and glued in place for the picture.... and it would seem that the issue is still assumptions based on limited data in either case.

Quote:... the photos played no part in the scientific research or its conclusions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html

What exactly is your point here? That science is complex? You'll dance around any way you can to avoid the obvious conclusion that differential selective pressures on peppered moths resulted in a change of allele frequency in the species. That conclusion is indisputable. You're just bringing up irrelevancies to cloud the issue.

(September 15, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 11:23 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't think that it is that controversial, that the moths in the photo where dead and glued in place for the picture.... and it would seem that the issue is still assumptions based on limited data in either case.

Quote:...  the photos played no part in the scientific research or its conclusions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html

What exactly is your point here?  That science is complex?  You'll dance around any way you can to avoid the obvious conclusion that differential selective pressures on peppered moths resulted in a change of allele frequency in the species.  That conclusion is indisputable.  You're just bringing up irrelevancies to cloud the issue.

I think it is very reasonable, to infer that different selective pressures likely changed the frequency of darker moths found in the region although it could be a coincidence. But especially since shortly after the pollution cleared, the frequency also changed, I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption. The rest of the story seems a little less clear.

(September 15, 2016 at 12:07 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 11:05 am)popeyespappy Wrote: The significance is the available evidence says the process of natural selection along with mutations, gene flow and genetic drift are responsible for the diversity of life on this planet. Natural selection allows the organisms with the genetic variables most suited for a particular environment to survive at a higher rate than those which are less suited by changing the distribution of alleles in populations.

My assumption is that based on you other posts in this thread you have a problem with evolution being able to account for the diversity of life. You seem to prefer a goddidit answer.

Well we have countless observed examples of evolution available to us. We know organisms change from one generation to the next because of genetic differences between the generations. We have identified and verified many mechanisms for this genetic change. We have observed natural selection acting on genetic differences to change the distribution of alleles in populations. Despite all this you seem to prefer your goddidit solution even though by all outward appearances no god was required. If indeed you believe that goddidit then present your evidence that your beliefs are true.

Let's leave that herring go for a little bit, and stay on track here.  You are correct, that I am skeptical of the evolutionary claims concerning the diversity of all life.  I think, that there are a lot of assumptions made in between what is observed, and what is claimed.  And a lot of just so stories, such as the peppered moth.  I have invited others, to give the facts concerning evolution and have not been taken up on the offer.   If you would like to give your reasons and evidence and discuss mechanisms, then I would be happy to do so. However, I think it would be best to  leave your caricature assumptions about what I haven't said (goddidit) out of it, and I'll do the same.

Herring? Sorry buddy, but you're the one that brought up non random guided evolution in this thread not me. Who exactly do you think is doing the guiding if not your Christian God? Extraterrestrials?

In the meantime try this one. The distribution of endogenous retroviral elements across the genomes of the various members of the Hominidae family is proof that you and I share common ancestors with members of the Genus pan, gorilla and pongo in that order going backwards through time.

Quote:I think you're missing the point. The bacteria are all the same species at the beginning (the same strain) and none of the original strain were able to survive in the antibiotic. Bacteria reproduce by splitting themselves in half, making an almost identical copy of themselves, so unless these resistant bacteria were introduced externally somehow (which is certainly a possibility that I suspect they looked into / controlled for), they must have come from the original strain after several generations.

If the original strain was not resistant to the antibiotic, and some of the strain's descendants are, that means they evolved the ability to resist the antibiotic at some stage, through a mutation.

I understand that they are all the same species (a form of E. Coli) I believe.   My point was to minimize the initial genetic diversification within the starting group.  Bacteria are highly adaptable, and the changes are more pronounced under stress.   I'm not saying that it definitely isn't evolution (change over time).  But I think that there are other possibilities.  

While I would like more trials, I did re-watch the video; and there are two samples here on either side.  If you watch, while the left side falls behind a little, and there is a definitive spot in the middle which struggles near the end, they for the most part keep up with each other.  I would predict, that this would be repeatable, as to the point I made previously.

What the fuck? Seriously?

(September 15, 2016 at 2:03 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 12:07 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Let's leave that herring go for a little bit, and stay on track here.  You are correct, that I am skeptical of the evolutionary claims concerning the diversity of all life.  I think, that there are a lot of assumptions made in between what is observed, and what is claimed.  And a lot of just so stories, such as the peppered moth.  I have invited others, to give the facts concerning evolution and have not been taken up on the offer.   If you would like to give your reasons and evidence and discuss mechanisms, then I would be happy to do so. However, I think it would be best to  leave your caricature assumptions about what I haven't said (goddidit) out of it, and I'll do the same.

Herring? Sorry buddy, but you're the one that brought up non random guided evolution in this thread not me. Who exactly do you think is doing the guiding if not your Christian God? Extraterrestrials?

Does it matter? If you disagree with my conclusion, then why? Also, just because it is not unguided or random, doesn't mean that it cannot be explained through evolutionary means.

Quote:In the meantime try this one. The distribution of endogenous retroviral elements across the genomes of the various members of the Hominidae family is proof that you and I share common ancestors with members of the Genus pan, gorilla and pongo in that order going backwards through time.

Why do you think that they are retroviral? A retrovirus has only been observed to my knowledge to insert itself once into a heritable germline. While this shows, that it is possible, the extent, of this must have been much greater in the past. There is also the dependency on function is some of these areas, such as an essential role in placenta development. Also, are you arguing, that the specified complexity of these genes rules out convergent evolution or a targeted site for retroviral insertion?

(September 15, 2016 at 9:15 am)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 8:11 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: 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?

That's what I was wondering, I wasn't sure whether you were arguing that the article was a falsification of evolution or evidence for it. That's what you get though when your talk about science is incoherent, people have to double take when you actually agree with it.

(September 15, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 11:23 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't think that it is that controversial, that the moths in the photo where dead and glued in place for the picture.... and it would seem that the issue is still assumptions based on limited data in either case.

Quote:...  the photos played no part in the scientific research or its conclusions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html

What exactly is your point here?  That science is complex?  You'll dance around any way you can to avoid the obvious conclusion that differential selective pressures on peppered moths resulted in a change of allele frequency in the species.  That conclusion is indisputable.  You're just bringing up irrelevancies to cloud the issue.

Roadrunner's point is that when he disagrees with science, it is science that is wrong. It is a stupid point, at 90 degree variance with reality. But it is his point and he's clinging onto it for dear life.