Evolution in action.

[Arkilogue]

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.

And the population changed back to lighter when the environment changed. I thought it was a cool example of evolution going in any direction it needs to, even if it's relatively "backwards"....


....Tazzy.

[Angrboda]

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).

Peppered moths do not rest exclusively on tree trunks, but they do rest there. Of the forty-seven moths one researcher found in the wild, twelve were on trunks and twenty were on trunk/branch joints. (The other fifteen were on branches). The numbers and proportion on trunks near light traps were even higher (Majerus 1998, 123). Wells's claim that the moths do not naturally land on trunks is simply a falsehood

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

[zebo-the-fat]

Bacteria have evolved to digest PET (a form of plastic) this did not exist a few decades ago

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-plastic-...revolution

[robvalue]

Wait, can I get from 1 to 1,000,000,000,000,000 by adding 1 each time?

1, 2...

Yes, but that's still a small number.

I know it is. Shut up.

3...

That's still a small number. It's still less than 10.

Yes I know...

4...

It's still less than 10.

Shut up!

[RoadRunner79]

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).

Peppered moths do not rest exclusively on tree trunks, but they do rest there. Of the forty-seven moths one researcher found in the wild, twelve were on trunks and twenty were on trunk/branch joints. (The other fifteen were on branches). The numbers and proportion on trunks near light traps were even higher (Majerus 1998, 123). Wells's claim that the moths do not naturally land on trunks is simply a falsehood

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

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

Yet during the seven years of Majerus's study, thousands of peppered moths must have passed through the woodland near his house, so 135 moths were a tiny fraction of the total. Furthermore, as he himself acknowledged in a 2007 lecture in Sweden, his results might have been "somewhat biased towards the lower parts of the tree, due to sampling technique."

Indeed. If peppered moths normally rest high in the upper branches, as several researchers concluded in the 1980s, then doing statistics on those visible to an observer on the ground (even one who climbs part-way up some trees, as Majerus did), is bound to suffer from sampling bias. Imagine someone looking over the side of a boat and concluding that most fish in the sea live within ten feet of the surface.

[Arkilogue]

Wait, can I get from 1 to 1,000,000,000,000,000 by adding 1 each time?

1, 2...

Yes, but that's still a small number.

I know it is. Shut up.

3...

That's still a small number. It's still less than 10.

Yes I know...

4...

It's still less than 10.

Shut up!

I'm afraid you're going to hurt yourself before getting into the 100's

[Angrboda]

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

Yet during the seven years of Majerus's study, thousands of peppered moths must have passed through the woodland near his house, so 135 moths were a tiny fraction of the total. Furthermore, as he himself acknowledged in a 2007 lecture in Sweden, his results might have been "somewhat biased towards the lower parts of the tree, due to sampling technique."

Indeed. If peppered moths normally rest high in the upper branches, as several researchers concluded in the 1980s, then doing statistics on those visible to an observer on the ground (even one who climbs part-way up some trees, as Majerus did), is bound to suffer from sampling bias. Imagine someone looking over the side of a boat and concluding that most fish in the sea live within ten feet of the surface.

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

[popeyespappy]

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.

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.

[RoadRunner79]

Wait, can I get from 1 to 1,000,000,000,000,000 by adding 1 each time?

1, 2...

Yes, but that's still a small number.

I know it is. Shut up.

3...

That's still a small number. It's still less than 10.

Yes I know...

4...

It's still less than 10.

Shut up!

I do hope, that you are not an architecture student, planning on designing high rise buildings.... Just adding one more, is a rather simplistic view. I don't think that you understand what the criticisms or claims really are. By adding 1, you may get to 1,000,000,000,000,000, but that doesn't explain how you got to "Z"

Further, there are limits to extrapolation. I can how long it would take a train to get get from New York to Chicago, and I can extrapolate based on that data how long it would take a train to get from New York to LA. However, I am going to run into issues when I make the same assumptions to calculate how long it will take the train to get to Hawaii.

There is a lot of monetary motivation to breed horses to run faster, in order to win the Kentucky Derby. Yet there seems to be a limit which has been reached, in how fast horses can run.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i9f.htm
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/K...byData.pdf

There is a lot of monetary motivation to breed faster horses to win the Kentucky Derby.

[Cyberman]

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.