Philip comments on wikipeebia in regard to studies been done on evolution of peppered moths
“Some evolution musings:
Biston betularia – The peppered moth:
This is a so-called proof of evolution amongst Biologists, but all it shows is survival of the best adapted: The story goes, in the early 19th Century, the usual form – light moths on dark polluted trees got eaten by birds quicker than the newer dark moths, which presumably couldn’t be seen so easily. When the pollution was cleaned up the story went the other way. All this proves is ‘micro-evolution’. They are both still Biston betularia – not a new entity. (What’s more, the experiment was rigged, as the moths do not normally sit on trees – they were placed there!) “
End quote (cited within law of fair use)
1 . I question Philips conclusion . That moths do not normally sit on tree’s.Although its quite possible that moths might be more likely? to choose to settle on the underside of tree branches. As opposed to settling on tree trunks.
2. The moths were purposely placed on the tree. Just to make it far-easier to take the photographs they needed. Scientist are busy folk. They don’t have time to wait around for days and days on end, among the trees. Searching and spending so much time, just get photographs they need of moths on tree’s.Even more problematic , its highly unlikely we will get moths of two different color’s sitting side by side on a tree trunk.
As is explained on Talk Origins site Quote:
“2.Branches provide a background similar to trunks. Photos showing moths on trunks were staged but only for purposes of illustration. The photographs depict what is found in the wild, whether trunk or branch. Furthermore, the photos played no part in the scientific research or its conclusions.”
More detailed information with regards to the peppered moth saga is available on Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub . Ed Darrell kindly carefully collects and compiles information to aid people’s ability to do research and learn more.
Phillip comments Quote :
“They are both still Biston betularia – not a new entity”
As far as i know.The particular study was never intended to show any new entity (species/kind) .For starters, that process will take such a long time.So how can it ? be demonstrated within any study, within such a short period.
Maybe ? its pretty much nigh impossible
I’m pretty sure, mostly what this particular study may try to demonstrate here. Is the great speed, at which evolution can accelerate.It’s demonstrating rapid and obvious adaptiveness .Especially when organism’s are put under pressure, by changes happening within their habitat.
The study was not ever intended to try to prove the theory of evolution as a whole
Even so this study does seem to go someway toward offering some proof.Of evolution happening on a larger scale (color had changed(evolved) very quickly due to habitat pressure).Thus how this study can go some way toward helping demonstrate the difference between micro(small) change, and macro (large) change
Phillip also uses the words evolution and adapted . As if there is something greatly ? different between two such words.
The word evolve is defined : “to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state : to develop by a process of evolution”
The word adapt is defined : “to change your behavior so that it is easier to live in a particular place or situation
: to change (something) so that it functions better or is better suited for a purpose ”
Don’t ? both these two words still have very similar meanings.
(Note: all material cited above, cited within law of fair use)
Quote from comment :
“Survival of the best adapted” is short-hand for “natural selection at work,” which is all the peppered moth records demonstrate.
If your readers click through to my blog, they’ll learn the facts about the moth stories. Important to know that.
1. There was no “rigging” of the study. The photos were staged with dead moths, because live ones don’t always sit still for photographs. The research was done with live moths, in the wild, with wild birds. Photographs played no role in the research.
2. The experiments have been rerun rather recently, with tighter, modern controls — and they produced a stronger signal of natural selection at work than the original Kettlewell studies.
3. Similar phenomena have been observed in fish in South America, and in small rodents in North America. In one brilliant demonstration, an area in New Mexico where black lava sits adjacent red sand, what was considered one species of rodent has split into a black race living on the lava, and a ruddy race living on the sand. Scientists puzzled over this for a while — snakes would see them with heat sensors, blind to the color differences. But it turns out that they are prime feed for raptor birds. The black ones survive on the lava, the ruddy ones on the sand, Lately, they’ve taken to refusing to breed with mice of the other color, the beginning of speciation.
4. The moth story was just a clear demonstration of natural selection exactly as Darwin portrayed it. Evolution involves several other steps — all of which have been observed both in the wild and in the lab. The moths appear not to have speciated — but other populations have speciated, in insects, fish, amphibians, and mammals. While this example doesn’t show speciation, there are many recorded cases of speciation occurring in other populations.
Evolution is solid theory. Evolution to speciation is in the record books. Creationism has been disproven at almost every turn, in contrast.