The Evolving Peppered Moth Gains a Furry Counterpart

NY Times ^ | 6-17-03 | CAROL KAESUK YOON

[Pharmboy]

Although they left out the hijinks surrounding the pepper moths, this is a nice illustration of why Darwin was one of the nost brilliant people to ever walk the planet.

[Pharmboy]

Ping

[Grut]

So, when do we start seeing hunter-orange deer?

[balrog666]

Ping, baby, ping!

[Pharmboy]

Not a bad question...

[Pharmboy]

Thanks...I meant to ping Patrick, but you did it first.

[blam]

Thanks for the ping. Bump

[DallasMike]

Although they left out the hijinks surrounding the pepper moths...

It's like doing a biography of Hitler and leaving out the nasty bits about World War II. But, hey, this is the New York Times writing here!

[Aric2000]

But that's impossible, evolution is fake, it is NOT science, no matter what evidence you have.../creationist mode

This is ANOTHER example of microevolution at work, soon the usual suspects will get in here to have their say. See above.

[Al Simmons]

*Sigh* What they described is NATURAL SELECTION (ie, the light colored mice on dark lava flows get eaten, the dark ones do not and reproduce, and *voila!*)

Evolution would be having the rats turn into flying fish or something similar. And that ain't happenin'.

[Aric2000]

Clueless about evolution placemarker.

WHY, OH WHY, do creationists INSIST that evolution says something that it doesn't?

Please study the concept a bit yourself before spouting nonsense.

Thanks,

[plusone]

How is a tan mouse any different than a brown one? What's the big deal here? Why do the evo's hold up such trifling stuff as proof of their theory? Is this the best that they've got?

[Aric2000]

It shows Microevolution at work, without Microevolution, there is NO macroevolution.

A bunch of micros, make a macro, therefore Microevolution is very important for us to understand.

So, why is it that one mouse is dust colored and the other is dark colored? Why is it that one gene has been twisted in order to create this difference, and why is ANOTHER gene turned in another creature to create the same effect.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, it shows exactly what natural selection would do, because if it was DESIGNED, then most likely you would find the SAME gene twisted in the EXACT same way to get the SAME effect.

By showing that the gene sequences are different, it shows that natural selection is indeed the most likely cause.

Besides the fact that it is fun to see natural selection working as expected in the natural world, the more examples there are, then the Theory of Evolution becomes even stronger then it is.

Any of you others wish to add anything, or correct anything?

[Dimensio]

Evolution would be having the rats turn into flying fish or something similar.

No, it doesn't. Only idiots and liars make this claim.

[Dimensio]

How is a tan mouse any different than a brown one? What's the big deal here?

It's an example of selecting for a specific genetic variant within a species based upon environmental factors, similar to the peppered moth study. This is somewhat important because it does show that mutations can be beneficial (the genetic variant is caused by mutation) and because some creationists -- either through dishonesty or ignorance -- claim that the peppered moth study is a hoax either in its entirety or in its conclusions. For example, gore3000 claimed that the peppered moth study is held up as an example of speciation, even though he's yet to provide a single reference that presents the study as such "proof" (he then lied about me, claiming that I'd made a statement to the effect that I'd never heard of the study, when I backed him into a corner on the issue).

[Dimensio]

So, when do we get creationist cranks claiming that it used dead rats glued to rocks and sand and that the fact that the photographs were somewhat set up "proves" that the study was a sham?

[plusone]

Fair enough. And I agree that natural forces will force a species to adapt to its environment. I beleive in, what is called 'micro evolution'. But it is a huge leap to suggest that such small changes will result in a species transcending into anothr, and over long periods of time, will become something entirely different. This is my complaint with 'macro evo'n', that there seems to be no proof of it. Micro, yes, we can see this. (Selective breading has been going on for thousands of years, and though it is ID, it still shows what variance there exists within a species. But that is all. There is a certain amount of 'free play' within the genetic structure that allows this partial divergence, it is how a species can adapt. It is what Darwin saw with the finches on the Gallopagos. But this is just adaptation, varietization, etc. How do you go the next big step and link this to general, macro evo'n? What evidence is there to support such a claim?

[longshadow]

multi-spectral mouse placemarker

[ALS]

Darwin was a plagiarist.

[plusone]

Just for fun, what is your opinion about those fossilized human prints found in the Polluxi (sp) river bed?