Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Thursday, April 22 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1418
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 22:06:13 -0600
From: PostMaster <Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org>
Subject: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1417
The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org
Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Wednesday, April 21 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1417
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:50:34 -0600
From: Susan Brassfield <susan-brassfield@ou.edu>
Subject: RE: My last word & ad hominem
At 12:48 PM -0700 4/19/99, Brian D Harper wrote:
>Don,
>
>Thanks for your considerate reply. It was exactly the kind of
>response I was hoping for. My post was not intended to be an
>endorsement of Wells but rather it was kind of a knee jerk
>reaction against the approach to debate that seems to be favored
>by some. Wells made some specific allegations that can be dealt
>with specifically. Instead, some seem to want to take the track
>that Wells has no right to raise these objections since his
>robes are not long enough and his hood is of the wrong color.
>This I find enormously irritating and contrary to the spirit of
>science.
I wondered about this. I'm not a scientist of any kind. I'm a fan. I am an
*advocate* for evolution. I figure that you don't need to hire an
oncologist to lance a boil and it doesn't take a PhD in evolutionary
biology to refute creationism.
I know it's pretty common for "creation scientists" to have manufactured,
phony degrees and if Wells was one of those, it needed exposing. But saying
he's only a lowly post doc with only two pubs to his name certainly doesn't
address the cogency of his remarks. Even an idiot can say brilliant things
(e.g. Einstein's wife had their front door painted red so Albert could find
his way home when he went out for a walk) and even a brilliant person can
say stupid things (e.g. Dawkins saying that evolution refutes theism.)
Susan, somewhere between brilliant and idiot
- - -----------
Life is short, but it's also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
- ------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:10:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Wesley R. Elsberry" <welsberr@inia.cls.org>
Subject: Birds and perception
Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
[...]
KLOB>These small "creeper" birds hunt by movement and color
KLOB>contrast, not by pattern recognition.
Cool. As someone with an interest in animal cognition, this
statement is very interesting, as I don't recall seeing the
research that established this. I recall the "What the frog's
eye tells the frog's brain" classic, but frogs are not birds.
"Search image" concepts generate some amount of controversy,
but I did not know that the issue had been settled for birds.
Could you point to a literature review article or something
related in the primary literature?
Wesley
- ------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:49:15 -0500
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Punctuated Equilibrium: reviving the dead man?
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Ami Chopine
> I am not suggesting these mutations are suppressed. I am suggesting two
> things: since under the pressures common to that population, that
mutation
> will not be selected for. Under some circumstances, given enough time, it
> may gradually take over the entire population, much like diffusion. If
> there is a direction, however..a stressor event, or the effective
isolation
> of part of the population in a slightly different enviroment then you will
> see those mutations being selected for. What was once a slow, almost
stand
> still process, will become almost instantaneous in the geologic record.
Mutations are constant, selection is constant, therefore evolution is
constant. That's a simple and reasonable argument. But, supporting PE by
appealing stressor events such as a change in the environment or part of the
population being isolated isn't so clear. I still don't see a mechanism.
It sounds like you're suggesting that mutations are accumulated and kept in
reserve until needed. I believe we already addressed the argument that
environment doesn't affect the rate of evolution, only the group of selected
mutations, so what difference would a different environment make? A monkey
on the way to become a human might instead, if the environment changes, be
on the way to become a bat, but it's still going to change at the same rate.
An isolated population might lose some of the genetic variation of the
parent population, but it's not going to evolve faster, it's just going to
be limited to the genetic variation of the parents of that new isolated
population.
> Without specific pressures selecting for those mutations? A long time.
This is your problem. Pressure is constant (except when the population
changes in size). There isn't going to be stasis while the population waits
for specific pressures. There's always mutation and selection -- ALWAYS.
> When there is a basic equilibrium between the pressure and the species
> original traits. The very great majority of mutations make no difference
> whatsoever. They occur in non-protein coding DNA.
An "equilibrium between the pressure and the species' original traits" never
happens.
In fact, I'm having a very difficult time finding any meaning it. Is that
some form of the argument "species that are perfectly fit aren't going to
change"? If they're so fit, how come the population isn't growing
exponentially? If you mean "the population size doesn't change"
that seems to better fit your wording, but I doubt it's what you were trying
to say.
As for mutations that are eliminated or that have no effect, we can
disregard them. Unless you have a mechanism that effects which part of the
DNA mutations are most likely to occur, or a mechanism which controls what
amount of mutations will be "good." (this last point is what you seem to be
fishing for)
Andrew
- ------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:49:17 -0500
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Where's the Evolution?
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Susan Brassfield
> According to Webster's 7th New Collegiate (happens to be the dictionary on
> my desk):
>
> Theory: 1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to
> one another;
> 2. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an
> art; 3. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body
> of principles offered to explain phenomena.
You'll note the solid implication that a theory is not a fact. A theory
concerns facts, but it is by definition not a fact itself. Indeed, your
dictionary almost defines "theory" as an OPINION, even if plausible or
generally accepted...
BTW, why are Evolutionists always so quick to squabble over meanings of
words rather than address the real issues? All the fuss about definitions
isn't clarifying anything, rather, it looks more like a dodge.
- ------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:49:19 -0500
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Evolutionary computation (was: Where's the Evolution?)
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Brian D Harper
> If you want a really good yet enormously simple example of
> doing new things you can try Langton's ant.
The mechanism to create complexity that evolutionists have proposed is
mutation+selection. The mutation is random and the selection is based on
competition and environment.
None of the computer programs that have been mentioned even attempt to do
that. That PLGA was based on intelligent selection (a predefined goal).
The Terria project also lacked natural selection. The ant program might
form some sort of ordered pattern, but there's no competition and you didn't
mention anything about mutation. You concede that the outcome is
deterministic (thus does not demonstrate any creativeness).
When there is no natural selection, there is no such thing as anything being
unfit. That alone is why all these programs fail to even begin to
demonstrate evolution or that nature has any significant ability to create
complexity.
> I hope you won't take this the wrong way :), but the above
> description of Tierra World is just wrong.
You could have expected me to want to know "how so."
> >Because this minimal size code "evolved" down, not up, being irreducible
> >isn't a problem (and neither is non-viable intermediate steps,
> see above).
>
> What do you mean by evolving down? BTW, you are the one who says
> evolution *has* to go toward increasing complexity. Whether
> down or up (whatever that means) it is still evolution.
Note the quotes. Besides, if it's not an increase in complexity, then it's
not impressive.
> Let's recall, however, what Ray said "...it has packed a much
> more complex algorithm into less than half the space". According
> to Ray, it is both shorter *and* more complex.
That has nothing to do with the irreducible nature of the code. It's not
significantly more complex, unless Ray thinks cutting the fat is an increase
in complexity. I mean, it doesn't do anything fundamentally different than
its ancestor a million generations ago.
>
> It was more successful than those that died.
The only way to die is to fail to copy some number of times, not that they
competed against each other.
Doesn't a double-digit size genome and millions of mutations (virtually none
of them eliminated due to selection) make any demonstration of "complexity"
unimpressive to you? Now, you want to tell me specifically what the most
complex creature could do that the first one couldn't? Just copy in a
slightly different style ("unrolling the loop")?
Instead of stones for bread (the other computer programs that supposedly
show evolution), how about someone set up a program that has some real
competition between creatures (e.g. a modified Quake 3 engine with bots that
fight each other, those that survive create mutated copies of its script).
Turn off the graphics and let it run for a month. You think after a billion
generations we might end up with sexual reproduction and other wonders of
complexity?
- ------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:12:40 -0500
From: crinoid@midwest.net (Joel Duff)
Subject: RE: Punctuated Equilibrium: reviving the dead man?
>> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Ami Chopine
>
>> I am not suggesting these mutations are suppressed. I am suggesting two
>> things: since under the pressures common to that population, that
>mutation
>> will not be selected for. Under some circumstances, given enough time, it
>> may gradually take over the entire population, much like diffusion. If
>> there is a direction, however..a stressor event, or the effective
>isolation
>> of part of the population in a slightly different enviroment then you will
>> see those mutations being selected for. What was once a slow, almost
>stand
>> still process, will become almost instantaneous in the geologic record.
>
>Mutations are constant, selection is constant, therefore evolution is
>constant. That's a simple and reasonable argument. But, supporting PE by
>appealing stressor events such as a change in the environment or part of the
>population being isolated isn't so clear. I still don't see a mechanism.
>It sounds like you're suggesting that mutations are accumulated and kept in
>reserve until needed. I believe we already addressed the argument that
>environment doesn't affect the rate of evolution, only the group of selected
>mutations, so what difference would a different environment make? A monkey
>on the way to become a human might instead, if the environment changes, be
>on the way to become a bat, but it's still going to change at the same rate.
>An isolated population might lose some of the genetic variation of the
>parent population, but it's not going to evolve faster, it's just going to
>be limited to the genetic variation of the parents of that new isolated
>population.
Mutations are constant? Why must this be so? Also, this paragraph above
seems to assume that all evolution acts upon accumulated point mutations
and sounds very much like only classical beads on a string genetics is
being considered. What about exon shuffling, gene rearrangement etc.. as
a dynamic response to environmental conditions. I would ask why can't
organisms have evolved responsive systems to boost their own
"evolvability?" ie. mutations (point mutations, release of retroviral
components of the genome etc..) may be intentionally elevated to provide a
source of new genetic material. Joel
- ------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:11:21 -0600
From: Susan Brassfield <susan-brassfield@ou.edu>
Subject: RE: Where's the Evolution?
At 12:49 PM -0500 4/20/99, Cummins wrote:
>> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Susan Brassfield
>
>> According to Webster's 7th New Collegiate (happens to be the dictionary on
>> my desk):
>>
>> Theory: 1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to
>> one another;
>> 2. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an
>> art; 3. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body
>> of principles offered to explain phenomena.
Cummins answered:
>You'll note the solid implication that a theory is not a fact. A theory
>concerns facts, but it is by definition not a fact itself.
organisms have been observed to change (evolve) over time. That change is a
fact. It was a fact that had been observed before Darwin set foot on the
deck of the Beagle. The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain that fact.
>Indeed, your
>dictionary almost defines "theory" as an OPINION, even if plausible or
>generally accepted...
a theory is always subject to revision as more facts are accumulated.
That's why the dictionary threw in the phrase "plausible or scientifically
acceptable." (And that's why evolution isn't a religion as some
creationists claim. Religions may not be modified as new information is
gathered--you have informed us of that many times.)
>BTW, why are Evolutionists always so quick to squabble over meanings of
>words rather than address the real issues? All the fuss about definitions
>isn't clarifying anything, rather, it looks more like a dodge.
it was YOU who were fussing about the definition of evolution. We were
attempting to help you with your confusion. If you are going to talk about
exact things, exact language is very important. Don't you agree?
Susan
- - -----------
Life is short, but it's also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
- ------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:10:08 -0700
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Hubert Yockey and Intelligent Design
A few days ago I was using Alta Vista to search for discussions
or reviews of Dembski's book <The Design Inference>
and ran across an article by Phil containing the following
statement:
=======begin quote====================================
That's enough for now. I don't need to make the entire
case for intelligent design, but merely to make the
argument that there is something here worth examining
on a fair basis. I emphasize that, although I am talking
about a minority viewpoint I am not relying on anything
that can be dismissed as fringe science. Behe is a
research biochemist with impeccable qualifications. His
scientific descriptions are echoed by his materialist
colleagues; it is only the philosophy that causes
disagreements. The more theoretical aspects of intelligent
design are discussed in (among many other places) two
books from Cambridge University Press from scientific
scholars with appropriate pedigrees. [Hubert Yockey,
Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge
University Press 1992); William Dembski, The Design
Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
- - -- Phillip Johnson, "How Can We Tell Science from Religion?"
http://www.sydney-christian.net/bigissues/evolution/science-religion.html
========end quote=======================================
This quote reminded me of a question that has kept popping
into my head over the past several years. What is Hubert's
reaction to what seems to be an increasing number of appeals
to his work from creationists, especially those belonging to
the Intelligent Design "movement"?
Since it had been some time since I corresponded with Hubert,
I decided to use this as an excuse to get back in touch with
him. So, I sent him the above quote and asked for his reaction.
I must say that Hubert is one of the most interesting people
I've ever had the pleasure of knowing and he certainly didn't
disapoint by giving a very interesting reply in his usual
"style". Those who've read Yockey will know what I mean by
style :).
Hubert kindly gave me permission to quote from his private
response to me. For now, I will avoid the temptation to
quote his response in its entirety since there are a number
of things which I'm sure people will react to and I really
don't want to detract from the main issue which I want to
address here, namely his reaction to creationists' appeal
to his work.
=======begin quote of Hubert Yockey======================
Subject: My views on Intelligent Design
Dear Brian:
Thank you for your e-mail this morning. I am well thank
you and I hope the same for you.
I have been aware for some time that creationists have
cited my work to support their views. This may be because
I have shown in my publications and in my book that
materialist-reductionist scenarios of formation of life
by chance, self-organization or epitaxy on clay particles
can not form a genome in a prebiotic soup. There is no
geological evidence that a primeval soup ever existed.
I quote the Bible, especially Hebrews 11:1, when I think it
appropriate but I also quote other literature as well.
[...]
Both Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable [W. W. Norton & Co.
1996] and Dembski's book distort the theory of probability.
There is nothing in my publications that indicates I support
Intelligent Design.
============end quote====================================
Hubert also mentioned that he has a new paper coming out
soon in which he includes some remarks about ID. I'll
try to let people know when this is published.
My question now to ID'ers is whether they can justify
their appeal to Hubert Yockey's work and, if they
cannot, if such appeals will end? IMHO, this is very
unfair to Hubert.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
- - -- E. H. Hiebert
- ------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:51:36 -0700
From: John Lynch <john.lynch@asu.edu>
Subject: RE: Neanderthal/Human Hybrid?
>Known as the Child of Lapedo, the skeleton shows traits of modern man,
>including the jaw, teeth and spleen, and Neanderthal features like the
>size of the femur and tibia, according to Zilhao.
Am I the only one wondering how we know the _spleen_ of a 25,000 old
skeleton is modern?
- - -jml
- ------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 21:40:24 EDT
From: Biochmborg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Birds and perception
In a message dated 4/20/99 6:01:19 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
welsberr@inia.cls.org writes:
> Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> KLOB>These small "creeper" birds hunt by movement and color
> KLOB>contrast, not by pattern recognition.
>
> Cool. As someone with an interest in animal cognition, this
> statement is very interesting, as I don't recall seeing the
> research that established this. I recall the "What the frog's
> eye tells the frog's brain" classic, but frogs are not birds.
> "Search image" concepts generate some amount of controversy,
> but I did not know that the issue had been settled for birds.
> Could you point to a literature review article or something
> related in the primary literature?
>
No, actually, I cannot. I read about it back in undergraduate school (an eon
ago) in a reference book about birds, when I was toying with the idea of
becoming an ornithologist specializing in ethology (animal behavior). It
made sense to me, though, because otherwise camouflage would be useless. A
quick bird, darting about in a shaded canopy looking for food, cannot waste
time or energy on fruitless searches, so instead of evolving the ability to
recognize specific patterns it evolved the instinct to attack contrasts and
small moving targets. Even with color vision, camouflage works better in
shade than in broad daylight, and it works better against a color
contrast/movement predator than a pattern recognition predator. Pattern
recognition predators are more often foiled by mimics and "scare tactics"
than camouflage, or at least so my limited reading tells me.
If you find any research confirming or refuting this claim, please post it; I
would like to see it.
Kevin L. O'Brien
- ------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 22:51:27 -0500
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Punctuated Equilibrium: reviving the dead man?
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Joel Duff
> Mutations are constant? Why must this be so? Also, this paragraph above
> seems to assume that all evolution acts upon accumulated point mutations
> and sounds very much like only classical beads on a string genetics is
> being considered. What about exon shuffling, gene rearrangement etc.. as
> a dynamic response to environmental conditions. I would ask why can't
> organisms have evolved responsive systems to boost their own
> "evolvability?" ie. mutations (point mutations, release of retroviral
> components of the genome etc..) may be intentionally elevated to
> provide a source of new genetic material. Joel
What's the point of your statements? The point of the thread is that
there is no mechanism for Punctuated Equilibrium. Is any of that suppose
to be a mechanism for PE?
- ------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1417
********************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:03:19 -0700
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: My last word
At 10:20 AM 4/20/99 EDT, Kevin wrote:
>In a message dated 4/20/99 12:14:26 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
>bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu writes:
>
>> Thanks for your considerate reply. It was exactly the kind of
>> response I was hoping for. My post was not intended to be an
>> endorsement of Wells but rather it was kind of a knee jerk
>> reaction against the approach to debate that seems to be favored
>> by some. Wells made some specific allegations that can be dealt
>> with specifically. Instead, some seem to want to take the track
>> that Wells has no right to raise these objections since his
>> robes are not long enough and his hood is of the wrong color.
>> This I find enormously irritating and contrary to the spirit of
>> science.
>>
>
>To my knowledge, no one said that Wells did not have the RIGHT to raise
>objections. What we were saying is that his lack of knowledge of the
>peppered moth and his lack of experience in biological field work (and
>apparantly in scientific research in general), not to mention his more
>political ambitions, has led him to make foolish accussations that he cannot
>support, yet stubbornly clings to even after more knowledgeable and
>experienced people have explained how and why he is wrong. We do not object
>to Wells because he has the wrong credentials; we object to Wells because he
>is a fool.
>
How nice for you. I have no expertise in industrial melanism,
biological field work etc. I do know something, however, about
experimental methods. Nothing Wells has said in this regard
strikes me as foolish. In fact, quite the opposite.
BTW, I take it you are an expert in this field?
[skipping some]
BH:===
>>
>> What occurred to me originally was that a photograph of a moth
>> sitting on an exposed tree trunk will reinforce not only the
>> idea of increased visibility due to coloration but also increased
>> visibility due to being out in the open on an exposed tree trunk.
>>
>
KO:===
>If you did not already know that the moths were resting on tree trunks, how
>could you distinguish that from say a large diameter bough? The point is
>still, though, that the PLACE mattered little, only the color contrast.
>
Interesting. Below you give differences in hunting styles which
show that the place does matter. Of course, this would matter
little wrt the central claim that bird predation is the cause
for the differential success of the two colorations. Nevertheless,
it is an indication that place *might* matter. Has anyone demonstrated
empirically that selective predation occurs where moths normally
rest? As another possible influence of location, would you happen to
know off hand whether lichens grow better on tree trunks as opposed
to branches?
The brief quote I gave from Futuyma indicated that viability
of the two forms differs even in the absence of predation.
This suggests to me that it might be important to figure
out what the mechanism for this is (perhaps someone already
has) and then to check whether air pollution might have some
effect on this mechanism.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm feeble minded, but being in an exposed position
>> seems to accentuate the importance of coloration and to accentuate
>> the hypothesis that such coloration affects bird predation. One gets
>> a ready minds eye picture of how easy it would be for a bird to
>> swoop in and nail that sitting duck :).
>>
>
>That's part of the reason why the situation is more complicated than Wells
>(or the standard high school textbook description) make it out to be.
>However, there are bird species -- nuthatches, titmouses, chickadees, small
>woodpeckers and the like -- who actually hunt insects by crawling around the
>upper trunks and smaller branches up inside the canopy. As such, these birds
>would be the most likely predators rather than say blue jays that hunt "on
>the wing" so to speak, and while they would be closer to their prey, a well
>camouflaged moth that remains still would be overlooked, whereas one whose
>body color was a sharp contrast to the background would be attacked even if
>it did not move. These small "creeper" birds hunt by movement and color
>contrast, not by pattern recognition.
>
Which brings me back to one of my questions above. Is there
empirical evidence for differential predation in an environment
such as you describe above?
Please accept my humblest apologies if I am acting overly
foolish :).
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
- -- E. H. Hiebert
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:21:12 EDT
From: Biochmborg@aol.com
Subject: Re: My last word
In a message dated 4/21/99 12:02:52 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu writes:
> >To my knowledge, no one said that Wells did not have the RIGHT to raise
> >objections. What we were saying is that his lack of knowledge of the
> >peppered moth and his lack of experience in biological field work (and
> >apparantly in scientific research in general), not to mention his more
> >political ambitions, has led him to make foolish accussations that he
> >cannot
> >support, yet stubbornly clings to even after more knowledgeable and
> >experienced people have explained how and why he is wrong. We do not
> >object
> >to Wells because he has the wrong credentials; we object to Wells because
> >he is a fool.
> >
>
> How nice for you. I have no expertise in industrial melanism,
> biological field work etc. I do know something, however, about
> experimental methods. Nothing Wells has said in this regard
> strikes me as foolish. In fact, quite the opposite.
>
Then I guess you haven't been paying attention to what Don Frack has been
saying.
>
> BTW, I take it you are an expert in this field?
>
Majerus is, and Don Frack is the closest thing we have to an expert in this
group itself. Both are saying the same thing I am; in fact, I am simply
reaffirming their own conclusions. If Wells believed that he had a
legitimate critique, as a scientist he should have submitted a letter or a
short paper to a peer reviewed journal so that the experts on the peppered
moth could examine it. If they agreed with him, they would have said so; if
however he was mistaken they would explain how. It would then be up to Wells
whether he accepted their expert opinion or not, but most scientists in his
place would be relieved to discover they were wrong.
Instead Wells went public with accusations of fraud, for political purposes
rather than scientific ones. And when the experts explained to him that he
was wrong and how, he rejected their explainations on the grounds that they
were simply blinded by Darwinian bias. His claims were legitimate until they
were shown to be wrong; now they are simply rhetoric meant to try to create a
problem where none exists. It's obvious, both to me and to others, that
Wells is not interested in correcting science or his own opinion; rather he
seeks an issue he can use to try to convince lay people and school
administrators and textbook publishers that evolution is false. That he is
promoting an issue he knows is false is what makes him foolish.
>
> [skipping some]
>
> BH:===
> >>
> >> What occurred to me originally was that a photograph of a moth
> >> sitting on an exposed tree trunk will reinforce not only the
> >> idea of increased visibility due to coloration but also increased
> >> visibility due to being out in the open on an exposed tree trunk.
> >>
> >
>
> KO:===
> >If you did not already know that the moths were resting on tree trunks,
how
> >could you distinguish that from say a large diameter bough? The point is
> >still, though, that the PLACE mattered little, only the color contrast.
> >
>
> Interesting. Below you give differences in hunting styles which
> show that the place does matter. Of course, this would matter
> little wrt the central claim that bird predation is the cause
> for the differential success of the two colorations. Nevertheless,
> it is an indication that place *might* matter.
>
Look again at what I said: I said the place matters little, I didn't say it
didn't matter at all. By the way, the differences in hunting styles do not
increase the probability that place would matter. Pattern recognition
predators can still be fooled by camouflage; the classical experiments and
the more recent follow-up experiments demonstrated that when the moths did
rest on trunks that pattern recognition predators still preferentially took
moths whose color had the highest contrast with the background. As such,
since camouflage is even more effective against movement/color contrast
predators, you would expect the preferential predation would be even stronger
in the canopy.
>
> Has anyone demonstrated
> empirically that selective predation occurs where moths normally
> rest?
>
According to Majerus, yes; the details and references are in his book.
>
> As another possible influence of location, would you happen to
> know off hand whether lichens grow better on tree trunks as opposed
> to branches?
>
It depends upon the species, but generally no.
>
> The brief quote I gave from Futuyma indicated that viability
> of the two forms differs even in the absence of predation.
> This suggests to me that it might be important to figure
> out what the mechanism for this is (perhaps someone already
> has) and then to check whether air pollution might have some
> effect on this mechanism.
>
You have a later edition than I do. Again, however, this simply indicates
that the scenario is not as simple as textbooks or Wells make it out to be.
And there is still no evidence that pollution has any effect on gene
frequency in any form. Until there is, this simply remains speculative, and
it still does not refute the results showing that preferential predation is
the main cause of the phenotypic shift.
>
> >>
> >> Perhaps I'm feeble minded, but being in an exposed position
> >> seems to accentuate the importance of coloration and to accentuate
> >> the hypothesis that such coloration affects bird predation. One gets
> >> a ready minds eye picture of how easy it would be for a bird to
> >> swoop in and nail that sitting duck :).
> >>
> >
> >That's part of the reason why the situation is more complicated than
Wells
> >(or the standard high school textbook description) make it out to be.
> >However, there are bird species -- nuthatches, titmouses, chickadees,
small
> >woodpeckers and the like -- who actually hunt insects by crawling around
> >the
> >upper trunks and smaller branches up inside the canopy. As such, these
> >birds
> >would be the most likely predators rather than say blue jays that hunt
"on
> >the wing" so to speak, and while they would be closer to their prey, a
well
> >camouflaged moth that remains still would be overlooked, whereas one
whose
> >body color was a sharp contrast to the background would be attacked even
if
> >it did not move. These small "creeper" birds hunt by movement and color
> >contrast, not by pattern recognition.
> >
>
> Which brings me back to one of my questions above. Is there
> empirical evidence for differential predation in an environment
> such as you describe above?
>
Again, according to Majerus there is, and the details are in his book.
>
> Please accept my humblest apologies if I am acting overly
> foolish :).
>
For someone who criticizes others for discourtesy in their writings, you can
be very sarcastic when you want to be. You at least have an open mind and
want to learn the truth. Wells was never interested in learning the truth,
but in gaining a weapon he could use against materialism and dogmatic
Darwinism.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1418
********************************