Keep this in your brain pocket for future debates with overzealous 'folks' that might refute the original research.

Independent article on new study

Apeman

Do you really think the doubts will go away? Is skepticism a one-way road?

For example, how can "the relative numbers of these two forms......supposed to be affected by predatory birds being able to pick off selectively either the black or peppered variety, depending on whether they rested on polluted or unpolluted trees" be considered "natural selection" when the pollution was not natural?

Pollution is not "natural", but for the purposes of evolution and natural selection, that's irrellivant. If the pollution came from say.... ash produced by a volcano, the resulting change in moth populations might likely be the same. Natural selection is a process that causes evolution. The factors that influence the natural selection can come from any source, man made or not.

It is nice to have verification when the cities are no longer black. It is not really significant if the selection is natural or man made. If there is selection of one type over the other, it is the simplest sort of logic that genes from those selected to survive will increase. They probably should just call it selection and remove the distinction.

It's natural selection. Humans and what we do are natural.

What happens if all the white moths on black trees got eaten and that was the main dietary consumable for the species of bird preying on them? Does that gene variation go away within that population? Would that not be considered stopping evolution or fixing that species variation (in that regard?). Of course we would have to consider the effect on the predatory bird population as well. Would a variation in that gene pool change them to alter their diet by developing new methods of detecting the moths (infrared, ultraviolet, etc)? Or would is just be a new learning tactic. Is learning natural selection? Was Lamarckian evolutionary theory trying to incorporate learning or behavioral modification with genetics as a unified theory?

What made color variation versus taste, venom or nocturnalism win out with the moths?

Natural selection requires variation within a species or population. Thanks to the occasional DNA mutation, we have lots of variation. Some of it is good (some people can run faster than others), some bad (genetic diseases), others are neutral (hair & eye color). I suspect that the moths color is based on a dominant/recessive gene. Even if all of one colored moth were eaten, occasionally moths of that same color would pop up in offspring.

Natural selection can select for most anything. If a particular trait or character selected for allows an organism to live until reproductive age AND then reproduce, that character will be passed on and incorperated in later generations. Yes, the ability to learn is a trait that can potentially be passed on. A smarter organism may live longer and reproduce more often. It's not always the case, but it is a posibility......it depends on the environment, competition, etc. That's why some species are "smart" and others are not. Intelligence benefits some species, but not others.

Lamark was, in a sense, trying to meld modification with genetics. He thought that if an organism changed it's morphology during it's life time, that trait would be passed on to that organisms offspring. For example: if you work out and gained muscle mass, Lamarkian theory says your children will have more muscle mass. Obviously it doesn't work that way and that's why Darwins theory is excepted over Lamarks. Interestingly, there is new interest in Lamarks theory. There is a subfield of genetics called epigenetics. Epigenetics sort of vindicates some of Lamark's ideas.....but that's way outside the topics of these boards.

-BlueGenes

Does that include humanity?

Is it only genetic variation?

How about ideological?............

One could argue that ideology is genetically based.... I don't think I'm prepared to argue that with conviction however. I suspect some people are the way they are not because of genes, rather because they have hit their heads with solid objects one too many times.

Thanks Apeman for linking a very interesting article!

Touching on a few other posts:

I think pollution is 'natural' as it is the waste product of a natural species just as much as pigeon poop is.

Also, I agree that the behavior of one species, such as humans, should be considered part of another species' environment. We touched on this on the canine thread when we discussed that both rats and dogs had evolved in response to the evolved behavior of humans.

And finally to the Huntster's question, yes it includes humanity, no it is not only genetic variation, and yes it includes environmental influences. In the case of ideology it is both genetic and environmental.

Yes, one could. And it would be a difficult argument to refute.

Why? Because ideology is so varied that it can't be cornered.



Maybe that's what my problem is.....my head has certainly taken lots of serious blows............






Thanks for that.

I agree 100%, but I'll add that ideology includes more than just genetics and environment..........

Well, if you include leaning from parents and peers as environment that pretty much sums it up. Parents and peers, and observation of the environment, then using reason based on those observations, is learning from the environment.

Correct.

But I maintain that genetics and environment (which includes parents, peers, culture, and more) aren't all that make up humans.

I just want to know what species the peppered moths are going to evolve into.

Chimps?

Or just another variety of moth.

DR

I think anyone who is still looking for proof of Darwinism/Evolution is living in the wrong century. This matter has been settled long, long ago.

I'm afraid not. Darwin's published position includes both "On the Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man".

While it's generally recognized that Darwinism is a landmark theory of biology, what is still resisted by many who ideologically embrace Darwinism is the ideology that man is more than a biological entity.

"While it's generally recognized that Darwinism is a landmark theory of biology, what is still resisted by many who ideologically embrace Darwinism is the ideology that man is more than a biological entity." Has it ever been 'proven' that the reason a human thinks that is simply because he's able to think it, and not because of any other 'force'? Is there anything that makes us 'different' biologically than the rest of the animals? The complexity of the brain? Asking because I don't know.

Nope.



Nope.



Neither do I.

Nor does anybody else.

Please do not mischaracterize the article in order to hijack this thread.

Thank you.

C

The big step that differentiates mammals from other animals regarding brain function is the Neocortex

This is almost exclusively found in mammals and seems to be the difference in intelligence between mammals and other critters. There is a lot of study going on to narrow it down more to the differences between most mammals and primates, and between primates and humans. It is likely that the human neocortex has advanced to the point of forming consciousness, and that is an ongoing field of study.

Along this line, for a fascinating read try 'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind', by Julian Jaynes (1976). While there is still considerable controversy surrounding his theory of human consciousness (as differentiating us from other creatures), there is much to applaud in this daring and very much before its time book. Curiously enough, recent science has begun to reconsider many of the issues raised by Jaynes, all the way to the implications of what is today being referred to as quantum entanglement.
Dudlow

Interesting.

I'll have to read it.

From your link:



This is all fine and good.

But it doesn't explain the differences between man and other mammals.

Even if you consider other species that appear to be near manlike (canines, cetaceans, primates, etc), no other species on Earth has even approached the spirit of man.

You can try to corner man biologically as much as you'd like, but you will not succeed. Man, a biological creature for sure, is yet more.

As in atheism? That's not necesarily the case, the study of evolution and the evidence for it does not dismiss the idea of a spirit or deity. You will find individuals who are atheists, just as you will individuals who are devout members of various religions. Philosophy or Religious studies would more be the realm to contemplate the existence of the spirit or deity.

Evolution is the study of species and how they have changed, nothing more and should not be anything more.



I've witnessed animal spirits that have surpassed those of man. I can no more prove it than I can the spirit itself.

Please explain the point of the thread, then. Now I haven't the foggiest.

Thank you and respectfully.

DR

(Edited to add a connection of this article's import in the sasquatch discussion. Truly, but I did not see it. I may have missed something I should have noticed due to being rather thick-skulled. I need things spelled out these days . )

Re-read the article for the fifth time. Sounds like adaptation, or lack thereof, of a species rather than evolution into another. Some moths are easier to "spot" and be munched than others. Time for a leopard to change its spots.

Sorry, but that's what I gain. So, where's BF fit?

DR

This is a physical change in a species that has been observed and recorded while it's taking place, evidence that it does happen, like an ape changing to walk on two legs, like sasquatch or humans.

The thing that is special about this case, is that the actual point of 'Evolution' is recorded. In the past we could look at the different birds on the different Islands, and see that there were changes, I can't think of any other examples where the actual environmental changes/selections were right there to be recorded.

I wonder if the Birds populations could be monitered over this course of study, Would birds with better vision, pass on their traits? especially when the 'bad' color became extremely rare.

Anyway I love paint.net

I think the proof of the evolution, is that we actually got to see the trees change, and watch the resulting population shift.

No it doesn't. It just points out that a single type of moth that possesses different characteristics are predated on by birds relative to it's environment. The peppered moths didn't turn into black moths because they were being eaten in a polluted environment just as the black moths didn't turn into peppered moths in a non-polluted environment. All this study shows is that whatever trait is the most beneficial for survival in a specific environment will be passed on because that species will survive to pass on that trait; it's a good example of microevolution.

Sure it's a physical change within the species. The darker moths will be predated on more than the spotted moths, as the two can interbreed the spotted color will be more dominant in the species, just as the darker color was during industrialization.

http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biolog...in/391/moth.htm

I'm with DR on this one. Maybe you can show selectivity with the famous moth experiment but what else? The intelligent design folks still take the position that evolution is just a theory which is as yet unproven. The two sides could argue about this stuff forever.

Is there a reason for running with this topic on a BF forum? The only thing I can see as sort of related to the BF discussion is the idea of applying principles of natural selection to observation and predictions regarding BF behavior. I.e., if BF biology and behavior is not random and instead results from trial and error that has led to BF survival, what then? Should we speculate on why BF evolved in this way? Would that help us find one that can be convincingly filmed? Should researchers look for patterns in the sightings so as to predict what they might do shortly after any reported sighting?

One thing that I think is apparent from the sighting reports is that BFs are always moving, like a bird in constant flight. Is this an evolved survival strategy that is now hard-wired in them? So that they are not territorial and never settle and stay in an area, but are constantly and randomly moving and foraging? If so, what does that say about predicting what BF hunters should do and where they should look when they get a fresh sighting report? Are there any other animals that do this and that we know about? Giant squid maybe?

LL

Not to perpetuate a thread that may have gone bad but....... the moth study was simply an example of selection, call that selection natural or "unnatural", it's just selection. Without selection Darwinian evolution simply can not occur. The reason the study has received so much attention relates back to the old "I'm not the son of monkey" debate. To this day evolutionary scientists still (I think unfortunately) need to show the world examples of selection, and hence evolution in action. It's true, there are few examples of evolution that can and have been observed in recent history (the past 100 odd years or so). There are some examples in bacteria, plants and insects. The mass of evidence comes from observations of the morphology (and DNA) of currently living organisms and tracing it back to a common ancestor.

So how does this relate to BF? My arguement might be thus: Like millions of species that have come before and will come, BF is just one more example. BF evolved and adapted from a long line of other species (of which we are likely related to) to it's environment. We know from history that no environment ever stays the same. As the environment changes (sun spots, natural warming or the actions of man) other species must respond. Some species may naturally be adapted to the new environment (like pigeons and rats). Others will evolve new characteristics to deal with the new environment (a common grass called Agrostis has evolved the ability to grow on mine tailings of high metal content). Yet other species will go extinct (examples of that I need not list). So.....BF may be so rare today because the environment has changed and it did not have characteristics to exploit it's new environment or evolve fast enough. What we may be seeing is the final act of a species, if it hasn't already occured.

As far as what makes Homo sapien so different from other animals (and yes we just animals): Not much. We know that our DNA differs by only a small amount from other primates. Morphologically and intellectually we are not all that different from chimps. We are just a species that survived, some 200,000 years ago, admist many other species. We just got lucky, in other words. Yes, we are a bit more clever than other animals, but that cleverness is likely just one part of the reason we are here (like when playing blackjack or poker) . As I said before, millions of species have come before and millions will come long after we are gone. To attach any specialness or God given choseness to man is just hubris.

BlueGenes

My mommy always said I was special, so

Wow, I never imagined this thread would generate much interest. Not sure if it is a reflection of real interest in evolutionary mechanisms; people's misappropriated passions about "evolution v. religion;" or just the usual propensity for BFFers to debate each other on any subject whatsoever!

I threw this out only for the reason I stated in the first post, not everything here is directly related to bigfoot so there's no need to make unwarranted connections.

It seems some of you either aren't familiar with this story as a textbook example, or didn't bother to read the article. The sentences Hunster quoted in post #2 pretty much sum up the significance of this case, is really only about natural selection or selectionism if you will.

Apeman

PS- BlueGenes, though I agree with you 100% you should realize that the last sentence of your last post (#32) is arguably enough to get this thread closed (i.e. it breaches the taboo subject of religion) and yes, it's probably not the only post in this thread to be close. Welcome to The BF Forums!

Maybe. Or maybe not. Of course, with a speculative species, whatever inferences one draws are equally speculative. The current condition of worldwide ape populations doesn't paint a hopeful picture, and 95% of the problem is loss and fragmentation of habitat.

Still, for a presumptive forest-dwelling ape, temperate North America is arguably the best place on earth to reside. Roughly 1/3 of the U.S and 2/3 of Canada are under forest cover. The U.S. figure is about the same as it was in 1920, the general picture being western loss counterbalanced by eastern reforestation.

But there is little doubt that while the U.S. has sustained almost no net loss in 87 years, the forest lands are more fragmented. And admittedly, a significant chunk of North American forest land is under intensive management, which may not offer the diversity of resources as "natural" forest. Much would depend on the ability of the species to adapt to additional human contact/disturbance.

While there is no cross-species transferrence, it is interesting to note that several species may be better adapted to nonwilderness conditions than was once thought. Wolverines and wolves come readily to mind.

-vern

Wow... a Vern sighting!

Welcome back.

No kidding! I just about fell out of my chair (and it's a barstool, so that woulda hurt!).


I agree that the sentence goes too far into the subject that will not be discussed, but I can also see quite easily that the opposite view is represented in this (and just about every other evolution) thread and understand why someone with BlueGene's position would say it.

Honestly, I think we have a problem in every thread that breaches evolution theory since they inevitably turn into a God v. Darwin conversation fully in the face of the no religious conversation policy. Apparently, they have become two sides of the same coin. This thread will not be closed (by me, anyway - not yet) since the other moderators and I have been discussing this very topic for a couple of weeks. There's more to come on this subject.

I tend to believe in evolution by natural selection within a species. The problem for
me (at least) arises when I'm told that all life on this planet evolved from single
cell organisms that existed in some primordial soup during the early days of earth's
creation. (Whoops, sorry, Freudian slip!) Yes, I know there has been ample time
(several (4?) billion years) for this to occur, but I (for one) can't fathom the
multitude of varied life we have on this planet all originating from microscopic
organisms.

(Ironic that science was always my favorite subject, no?)

A couple things (from an undereducated person): Darwinian evolution (ample evidence) and ID (theory) are a great discussion. Worthy topic. But in the late 20th century, conservation became an important part of wildlife study and management. Groups like Sierra Club (fractured since the issue of population/immigration tore us apart in the late 90's) have practiced this approach. Now, we still have Greenpeace, with its marvelous work with humpback whales taking on other issues that seem abandoned by the established groups. If we could prove to them (Greenpeace), and provide them with evidence of sasquatch, they would not be deterred by weak government statements and denial.
But letting sasquatch die out because of 'natural selection, evolution, survival of the fittest' is an outdated approach to our earth environment.
That's my view, not trying to attack what's been said.

My official apologies for breaking the "no religion" rule. I honestly didn't mean to ruffle anyones feathers or fur. In my own defence.........I love debating the subject. I have greatly enjoyed reading all of the posts in this topic, whether I agreed with them or not. The ability to have a discussion is wonderful thing. Don't take the privilege lightly.

BlueGenes

You are special.

Me and RB echo Mommy..........

Just a very loose poll.

Who has read "The Origin of Species" in its entirety?

I haven't.

DR

Respectfully, once an ape, always an ape, even though a bi-pedal one. Now, a bipedal ape.

Once a mottled moth, now a dark moth. Not the same moth. Perhaps, a third or fourth generation moth from the original moth.

Yet still a moth.

DR

PS: No ID preaching here. And not pickin' on ya', per se, but...

But, my last post on this....

I think it can include atheism, but that it isn't restricted to that.



And change might include evolving into more than a biological entity.



Did those animals include bugs?

I can't imagine that anything of that depth can be proven while we're debating with such a basic as biological evolution.