Please explain the alleged case of evolution, the pepper moth.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
What do you want to know? The fact that the Pepper moth has evolved it's colorization adapting to industrial pollution, or what?
Don . . . er, mykckob! And you call yourself a critical thinker! But as it happens that's exactly what I wanted to hear. Now, before the industrial pollution both the light colored and the dark colored pepper moth were known to exist, but the dark colored moth didn't do so well since the birds could easily pick them out on the light colored trees. Once the pollution had darkened the trees this switched because the birds could then see the light colored moths on the dark colored trees of which they typically congregated.
Though taught as some remarkable case of evolution it is in fact nothing of the kind. It's a case of camouflage.
Pathway Machine - "Though taught as some remarkable case of evolution it is in fact nothing of the kind. It's a case of camouflage. "
Right, and when the moths with the more helpful camouflage begin to out breed the moths with the less helpful camouflage---and pass this trait to their offspring---you have evolution: Δx/Δt.
Nyarlathotep: "Right, and when the moths with the more helpful camouflage begin to out breed the moths with the less helpful camouflage---and pass this trait to their offspring---you have evolution:"
That's called breeding, not evolution, I thought that evolution meant change. Nothing changed about the moth, only the trees. Except for now the birds could see the light on dark bark whereas previously they could see the dark on light bark. Did the trees "evolve?"
Pathway Machine - "That's called breeding, not evolution, I thought that evolution meant change."
It is a change. A change in the genetic distribution of the local species. That is why I said Δx/Δt.
Nyarlathotep: "It is a change. A change in the genetic distribution of the local species. That is why I said Δx/Δt."
Δx/Δt?! What the hell is that? Is that English? Is it your sorority? Egyptian? Alien? More doublespeak?
Let me ask you something. If there were suddenly to be a race war of people, light skin and dark skin, fought firstly in the light of day making it easier for the dark skinned people to be seen at the advantage of the light people, but then changing so that it was fought primarily at night, then to the disadvantage of the light skinned people and the advantage of the dark skinned people, would that be an evolutionary change? A genetic distribution of the local species?
Secondly, answer my previous question. Is the case of the trees in the pepper moth case evolution since they changed from light colored bark to dark colored bark due to the pollution?
"Δx/Δt?! What the hell is that?"
It is the scientific definition of a rate of change. A change in something (x) that takes place during a time period (t).
Yes a war could change the genetic distribution of a group (and therefore evolution).
And no, painting a tree does not alter its genetics, so---KEEPING EVERYTHING ELSE THE SAME---it wouldn't be an evolutionary change.
@ Pathway Machine
"That's called breeding, not evolution..."
This to me suggest that you have been misinformed about evolution.
Breeding over consecutive generations is the key to understanding evolution.
Disclaimer: I'm by no means a biologist! It's just a personal area of interest for me.
The genes within a specific individual is not passed on if it does not get to breed. The most basic concept within Darwinian evolution is that: to breed and pass on it's genes, the individual needs the traits that gives it the ability to survive until copulation and the ability to copulate/reproduce. Each new generation have a few small differences, some can be positive, some can be negative.
Natural selection means that: if the individual doesn't have what it takes to survive and reproduce under the contemporary conditions, it's less adapted genes do not get passed on.
On top of that, there are many factors in play. Like environmental changes, changes in environment when migrating to new areas, competition for resources, sexual competition within the own species, changes in other species (that can be predators, competition for resources or a food source) and many other conditions.
In the course of generation after generation with small differences in each generation, natural selection forces species to adapt and change. But without breeding (and consequently new generations with small differences) there is nothing for natural selection to have an effect on.
In other words: Evolution will not change an individual during it's lifetime. Only after several generations will there be any noticeable differences.
The faster the cycle of new generations are in a species, the faster adaptation can occur. Like in for instance, moths. That is why evolution in bacteria can be observed in laboratories. And that is why micro evolution has been observed in other species that have a relatively short reproduction cycle, like for example the Italian Wall Lizard: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/ (in roughly 30 generations changes where documented: head morphology, bite strength and digestive tract structure)
The Pragmatic,
Okay, then how does evolution as you are apparently describing it create any conflict with the Bible, specifically the creation account? In micro evolution when, if at all, does a moth become something other than a moth?
@ Pathway Machine
"then how does evolution as you are apparently describing it create any conflict with the Bible"
My answer, according to my understanding, would be that the time frame in the bible (depending on your interpretation) does not allow for evolution to have occurred. Apart from that, there are fossils and geological evidence that simply isn't mentioned at all in the bible.
"In micro evolution when, if at all, does a moth become something other than a moth?"
It doesn't!
If you look at any individual specimen from any species, it's parents and it's offspring will be the same species and will look the same, apart from smaller individual differences.
I'll be happy to provide answers, when and if I can.
But, I would also like to know the answers to my questions for you. If it somehow is a problem to answer or you would not like to disclose certain information, please just say so. I respect that there are situations where one would like to refrain from answering.
If you find it hard to answer, that is Okay too. Scepticism and doubt is healthy, honesty is healthier still, especially towards oneself. Those who think they have all the answers are the ones most likely to be deluding themselves.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates
@ The Pragmatic,
Okay, I've heard the importance of time, and that makes sense, but I thought that micro evolution implied that there were small changes over a small period of time. Someone else here, Nyarlathotep perhaps, or Jeff, was pointing out generations, and the rapid turnover of generations in something like a moth or fruit fly that doesn't live long.
The Pragmatic: I'll be happy to provide answers, when and if I can.
But, I would also like to know the answers to my questions for you. If it somehow is a problem to answer or you would not like to disclose certain information, please just say so. I respect that there are situations where one would like to refrain from answering.
Pathway: If I know the answer, sure, if I don't I will tell you that as well. I know very little of evolution, mind you.
Jeff: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates
Pathway: "I'm waiting for someone in a white lab coat to stand up and say: "We scientist, now know, that we know less than we thought."" John Cleese
@ Pathway Machine
"I thought that micro evolution implied that there were small changes over a small period of time."
I does mean that, but not during the lifetime of an individual. Only over successive generations, as in the example I gave about the Italian Wall Lizard, the research found changes over about 30 generations (about 36 years) of that species. In evolutionary terms, 36 years and 30 generations is "micro".
A simplified version of the basic concept: Each time offspring are produced, half the genes from the father and half the genes from the mother are mixed together. But there are also what could be referred to as "copying errors" - small variations that causes individuals to differ slightly.
In the Peppered Moth example, when a couple of Pepper Moth has offspring and the small variations in the new generation causes a few of them to become slightly darker, some slightly brighter while some remain the same color. Since the trees they lived in had changed and turned darker, the neutral moths will have less effective camouflage, and the brighter moths will have even less effective camouflage.
The brighter moths become the least successful to survive and reproduce. The neutral moths become slightly less successful than when their color matched the trees better. And the darker moths become slightly more successful and reproduces most effectively. When this is iterated over several generations, the population in that area eventually becomes noticeably changed.
"If I know the answer, sure, if I don't I will tell you that as well."
I was mostly referring to my questions of what it is you believe, in the other thread "Science VS Christianity", here: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/33484
"Jeff: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates"
Jeff?? I think it was me that quoted Socrates. Too many simultaneous discussions? :)
According to evolutionary theory the coloration of the moths was a random mutation. The fact that the best disguised moth survived is called natural selection. Over long periods of time these random mutations accumulate to the point where one line of survivors no longer resemble their surviving cousins or ancestors. In order to accept the logic of this explanation one must trust that the earth is far older than 6000 years. Do we agree, my third chimpanzee cousins?
I don't think there any young earth creationist here chimp3
We do not need to trust, we know it is older from different dating methods.
"my third chimpanzee cousins?"
I do get the joke :)
Who the F*** is Don?
BTW The Pepper moth HAS evolved. The fact is that the dark version has evolved to even more darker shades. So your little misguide trap isn't a trap at all.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
Read the ENTIRE story. I have known for a long time that the pepper moth was a trigger argument by creationist. The problem is that they pick and choose facts instead of understanding the full story.
the fact that there are two different colored pepper moths doesn't disprove evolution. the fact is that the pepper moth both light and dark versions evolved from one common moth proven by DNA. In fact the pepper moth reinforces evolution as a fact.
So keep your insults to yourself and play your little games somewhere else.
mykckob: "Who the F*** is Don?"
Pathway: Kenny. C'mon, mykckob, keep up.
mykckob: "BTW The Pepper moth HAS evolved. The fact is that the dark version has evolved to even more darker shades. So your little misguide trap isn't a trap at all.
Pathway: Nonsense. The light colored pepper moth is the same as the dark colored pepper moth except for the color. Its a desperate joke.
mykckob: "http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
Read the ENTIRE story."
I'm not going to read propaganda. I could leave you with a link for every link you leave me, are you going to read any of it?
It's not propaganda at all. Anything that you disagree with is "propaganda." The light pepper moth and the dark pepper moth are NOT the same. Their share common DNA but they not exact. They are as different as a Palamino and an Arabian.
And you can keep your condescending insults to yourself. Example:"Pathway: Kenny. C'mon, mykckob, keep up."
I knew you wouldn't read the entire story "I'm not going to read propaganda." Funny given you theist use PART of this finding to try and debunk evolution. It's called "cherry picking" and it is disingenuous.
Now it is you that is caught in a trap. A trap of denial. Both light and dark pepper moths evolved from a single moth, that is undeniable.
Why do we have to explain the Pepper moth? It has been a big creationist argument since the days of Duane Gish! Rebuttals are all over the Internet. Try TalkOrigins which will probably have a decent treatment of the whole thing. You seem to be attacking a straw-man version of evolution. You owe it to yourself to see the real thing before you die. Bill Nye (the science guy) has written a book for the layman entitled "Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation." Do yourself a favor and read it! It will give you some idea as to what biological evolution is REALLY about, which is entirely different than the twisted straw men you find on amateur creation sites all over the Internet.
If it were actual information you were after, the OP question should have been directed to an evolutionary biologist. That you posted it here likely indicates it was not, in fact, information you were after. I'd guess it was a thinly veiled attempt at cheap entrapment.
CyberLN: "If it were actual information you were after, the OP question should have been directed to an evolutionary biologist. That you posted it here likely indicates it was not, in fact, information you were after. I'd guess it was a thinly veiled attempt at cheap entrapment."
Fair enough. Are there any evolutionary biologists in the house?
I do not see the purpose in arguing MICRO evolution Pathway Machine?
There are lab results that show bacteria evolving and becoming more adapted to the new environments.
I think that is enough evidence for micro evolution.
But does that even matter?
Regardless of result, it won't in anyway show that a theistic god exists or not.
Perhaps, Jeff, but you see, I really don't know the difference. What I know is that the Pepper Moth is viewed as a case of evolution and evolution is touted by atheist to be fact, and evidence that Jehovah didn't create the universe and planet where we live, and I find the claim made by evolution regarding the pepper moth to be either extremely dishonest, or just fake and stupid.
I realize that everything changes, like the butterfly from the caterpillar, or in growing and aging, or pollution of trees, but c'mon. Dishonesty to impress evolution on school kids is a bit much.
Yea the hype about evolution started when theists wanted to insert the creation story in schools.
Politics got involved in it and 1 side was proposing creationism and the other did not want it in schools.
What happened was that the creationists were saying:
"If you do not know how we came to be, then let us teach our children creationism."
The scientific community at the time tried to find an alternative explanation and unfortunately for them, the best alternative explanation was a paper by Charles Darwin which was rejected by 98% of the scientific community for 10 years.
they said:
"Well...., better then the creation story."
With enough hype and propaganda the evolution myth started and won the battle of keeping creationism out of schools.
Speaking about dishonesty is true but you have to understand that creationist started it when they used politics to try to bribe their way in education.
The scientific community just used the same exact tools as religion, (propaganda) to win the battle.
This is one of the reasons why I agree with Christopher Hitchens when he claims that:
RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING.
It truly does, if you cannot support a claim, do not put it in education.
But this sane reasoning was not enough for insane people was it?
Jeff,
Well, I have no doubt that Creationist couldn't support any claim they made, you might as well ask the cat, but I have no more confidence in science than I do them, or the public education system. I certainly don't want the Bible taught in school, religion has fucked that up enough already. But then again, I'm apolitical as well.
You keep distinguishing the atheists as sane, and the theists as insane. Your understanding as reflecting reality and their's as reflecting something else. I just don't get that. People are people, whether their vehicle is religion, science, politics or whatever. Failing to appreciate that creates all sorts of weaknesses in your thinking. You are put in the position of conforming, without question, to your party line, you fail to see their or your opponent's strengths or weaknesses. You overestimate your own and underestimate the other. You potentially miss half of the picture, and fall into a trap that fixes your thinking inside a narrow box.
How would you describe people that let their illusions influence their lives and others?
I call them insane.
Believing in an imaginary friend without actually thinking about the implications = illusion.
Insane people do these things.
The only reason we don't close them up in some asylum to understand why gays should be treated as equal people is because they are too many.
"You overestimate your own and underestimate the other."
I don't, if i did you failed to even show me any strength at all in the claim that god is loving.
I honstly tried to find any strength there.
The difference is that I CAN have a neutral perspective, a theists cannot have it because he builds his field of view on the FACT that god is love.
I treat that assumption as an assumption rather then a fact.
That is why I consider atheist as sane while theists insane.
If you accept the logical fact that omnipotence/omniscience/results(facts) can only lead to an evil god, then and only then I will consider you as a sane person.
Until then, I am forced to conclude that indoctrination effects your judgement to the point of not seeing facts for what they are.
Theists are people but are also victims of brainwashing and they don't know they are.
Their own wishful thinking has gone a step too far and they don't know it.
I am not saying that an omniscient/omnipotent god cannot exist, I am saying that it cannot also be a loving one.
It is a contradictory concept that breaks logic.
Pathway Machine - "and evidence that Jehovah didn't create the universe"
That is the second thing you said that sounds like a Jehova's Witness, lol
Upon further review it is the 3rd thing. Confirmed cultist.
Nyarlathotep: Upon further review it is the 3rd thing. Confirmed cultist.
Pathway: A cult is the same thing as a sect, which is a group. The distinction, being, I suppose, obscurity, or sarcasm. To every sect every other sect is a cult. I'm not a part of a group, so neither applies to me.
Nyarlathotep: That is the second thing you said that sounds like a Jehova's Witness, lol
Pathway: My beliefs are very similar, but not exactly the same as the JWs. I'm not one, never have been and never will be, but am heavily influenced by them and believe much the same.
Pathway Machine, that life has evolved is a fact! It's written in the fossil record, in your very genes, and in the anatomical differences between living things. It is reflected in vestigial organs, in clumsy "design," in the distribution of plants and animals, and in countless other ways. Go to any world-famous university such as MIT or Caltech and query the professors who teach biology there, people of international repute. Go to the lesser universities and colleges of respectable status and walk down "professor row" in their biology departments where they have their offices and see if you can find even one who denies the basic fact of evolution of life on Earth. Look at the last 20 issues of the most prestigious science journals such as Nature and Science and tell me how many articles deny the basic fact of evolution! Being that you appear to have no background at all in biology, that you know little or nothing about evolution, how is it that you can declare that the world's scientists are dishonest, fakers, or just stupid? That's what you are really saying when you use those terms on biological evolution.
Now, I really don't have the time to re-invent wheels that are already on the Internet, but if you have a narrow question maybe I can help. Do read the book I mentioned in an earlier post!
Pages