The Evolving Peppered Moth Gains a Furry Counterpart

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

[Grut]

Since hunter orange is mandated by state laws that would actually be intelligent design, not evolution.

Ooo! I don't think you have the Freeper mindset down quite yet.

[Aquinasfan]

How does staging a photo make the story a hoax?

Because the moths hang out under leaves. They don't hang out on tree trunks. That's why it had to be glued there.

[Aquinasfan]

Because I was once an evolutionist, but at one of our midnight meetings in the basement of the Smithsonian, just as I was about to take another blood oath to the secret brotherhood of scientific deception,

Show me the science, not evolutionary dogma and falsified "evidence."

[Pharmboy]

Oh for sure there has been fraud in science, just as in every human endeavor. But it would be mistaken to focus only on the fraud and missteps of evolutionary science and ignore the new accomplishments in knowledge. Science only advances by hypothesis and testing, and it certainly outs the bad actors when they're found.

Imperfect, yes; but pretty durn good nonetheless.

[Pharmboy]

Brilliant.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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

If you showed rats turning into flying fish, you would have disproved evolution.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

But they can't be the same species and have mutated genes for different colored hair, but they're still just mice...

Oh, never mind. He'll show up eventually.

[Geritol]

First, I do not hear any bibles being thumped or otherwise abused. I do apologize for being rather unclear in some of my statements.

Natural selection is not proof of evolution. Natural selection is more like the weeding out of non-viable forms after the fact of speciation or mutation, not the mechanism for creation of new genetic codes. Evolution requires some other mechanism to create the new codes before they are sent to alpha and beta testing via natural selection. I have a hard time believing that random mutations over time can account for all of the codes we see today, but that is not my point here.

I did not say that there is no evidence of new genetic sequences being generated in modern times. Only an idiot would argue that mutations do not occur or that none of them actually survive and thrive. I would just as soon argue that fish do not swim. Of course speciation occurs. But is it actual evidence of evolution? And specifically does this article have anything to do with new code being generated?

The article only pointed out that there were different forms, not when the forms diverged, nor even if either of these 2 different color variant genes was not part of that species' original genetic diversity. It might be brand spanking new last Thursday, but there is no proof presented either way that I see. jennyp, how do you know that Noah did not have one dark and one light mouse? I would not be surprised if they are still the same species with a recessive and dominant gene, but the article does not adress this that I see. My point is just that the existence of 2 color forms of this or any animal is not proof of or evidence for evolution. It is not even proof of the creation of new genetic material unless we can show the origin date of that specific code change because otherwise we can not prove that it did not already exist at least somewhere.

Evolution requires the generation of code for massively complex and intertwined systems. Natural selection just explains how the also-rans are wiped out. I have not proven a thing for or against evolution in any of my posts on this thread. I guess I was just hoping for an outbreak of logic or common sense. Instead I seem to be reading people arguing that a mechanism that works to diminish genetic diversity (natural selection) is proof of a system that perpetually creates new genetic code (evolution) and just thought that that was silly.

Natural selection would be a natural result of evolution. It would be an obvious effect. But the existence of natural selection can not be used as an arguement for or a proof of evolution.

[Junior]

But how does it obviate the result of the study that moth populations in industrial areas were darker than moth populations in non-industrial areas?

[Dimensio]

Wow, this study must have some real significance for the coward Kevin Curry to dive in here and make his pronouncements.

Don't bother replying to Kevin. He's just a troll. He invades a discussion, spews out a load of lies and then runs off because he is a coward and cannot stand to have his false statements torn down in front of him. As long as he pretends that his words were never refuted, he can pretend that he isn't lying when he repeats them.

Also, Curry is notorious for misrepresenting the positions of others. Don't bother correcting him, however. He's too arrogant to care that his statements are all lies.

[Dimensio]

Evolution requires some other mechanism to create the new codes before they are sent to alpha and beta testing via natural selection.

This would imply that evolution works based upon some design plan. This is an incredibly simplistic and false idea. Mutation and natural selection are what drive evolution, there isn't any deliberate direction or goal in the process. At least, none so far observed.

[atlaw]

"Mutation and natural selection are what drive evolution, there isn't any deliberate direction or goal in the process. At least, none so far observed."

Perhaps an analogy can be made to the chaos of weather patterns. Because the influences cannot be predicted, the outcome cannot be predicted. This would allow for the possibility of a direction or goal, but one that we cannot presently detect.

[jennyp]

Evolution requires the generation of code for massively complex and intertwined systems. Natural selection just explains how the also-rans are wiped out. I have not proven a thing for or against evolution in any of my posts on this thread. I guess I was just hoping for an outbreak of logic or common sense. Instead I seem to be reading people arguing that a mechanism that works to diminish genetic diversity (natural selection) is proof of a system that perpetually creates new genetic code (evolution) and just thought that that was silly.

Natural selection would be a natural result of evolution. It would be an obvious effect. But the existence of natural selection can not be used as an arguement for or a proof of evolution.

Oh, OK, I see what you're saying. But since natural selection is part of evolution, then this does show part of evolution in action. You yourself said that mutation happens, so that other part of evolution is already a given (within the context of this study).

[jennyp]

How does staging a photo make the story a hoax?

Because the moths hang out under leaves. They don't hang out on tree trunks. That's why it had to be glued there.

Moths hang out in a lot of places. IIRC, the most likely place to find moths was at the underside of trunk/branch joints, high up in the tree. In every tree I've ever seen, a trunk/branch joint looks just like the trunk nearby.

That, coupled with the fact that dead moths don't change color, makes your "it's all a HOAX!" charge fall apart, IMO.

[Aric2000]

another classic Placemarker

[longshadow]

just bagged M13, M4, and M5 last night on the 6" refractor.

A bright star with a faint binary companion in Serpens Caput is in the same field of view as M5 using a 25mm f.l. lens.

Note to everyone puzzled by the above: it's just a secret code RA and the rest of us use. If you don't believe me, just wait for the usual trolling suspects to arrive and accuse us of sending secret messages.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread....

[PatrickHenry]

I saw a full moon a few nights ago. Do I get any credit for that?

[longshadow]

I saw a full moon a few nights ago. Do I get any credit for that?

Witnessing a drive-by flashing does NOT count as an astronomical observation, IMHO.

[ccmay]

Single-cells. Anything bigger?

Doesn't matter. One contradictory example is enough to disprove the entire notion that new DNA sequences cannot be created in nature, and that therefore evolution cannot occur.

This is not necessarily proof that evolution exists, just a refutation of his argument why it cannot.

-ccm

[js1138]

...when I backed him into a corner on the issue).

I'm still waiting for him to apologise for the false bibliograpy on Stephen Gould.