Is the theory of evolution correct?

Peppered moths, already an evolved species with 4 polymorphic subspecies DO provide us information how the natural sellection process works. As the article LF posted, its almost a naivete but I think now we will see that the IDers will try to deny random ntural slection when industrial melanism can easily be seen in nature, (Contrary to ID's pronouncements that we "dont see this in action). Well, yes we do. Im sure teachers will still teach the process of natural selection by selective predation and Industrial melanism, where the species are favored by predation (not fixed) based upon the environment in which the moths live. Also, the kids will still look at how the dark( melanic) forms statistically "Took over" where sooty trees were the defining selecting environment.> Ive looked back at one of the earlier evolution texts (college level biological evolution)The Processes of Evolution by Ehrlich and Holm (1963). Nothing that Ehrlich says states that we are observing evolution in action because the polymorphs of Biston betularia (ssp) are subject to the same predation nd the environment provides the selection differentiator. What we are looking at is the statistical migration and frequency increase of on form ovr another.

Maybe the popular press has misspoken what this involved and Creationists just ran with it. Natural selection includes predation and the normal evolutionary results are often spoken of as the "red Queen gambit". A biologist who studied th peppered moth( produced maps of the frequencies of the various melanic forms of Biston betularia, (and the spreading out of these melanic forms). F Kettlelwell maps show how the frequencies of the darker melanic forms increased the deeper the moths went into theindutrial hartlnd of England.

These are actual fcts not anything needing "revision".

Gee, and after I went to all that trouble to find a pro evolution writer, not an ID advocate.

But at least he was an evolutionist that recognizes false evidence when he sees it.

Did you unserstand what he was even saying? I didnt even discount anything he said becuse , if you read carefully, he is merely critiquing the concept that , many of us have been doing the same and it doesnt automatically run to ID thinking.

Why is this vidence "false", It happens, Industrial melanism occures and predation via birds alo happens. He should have poted Kettlewells maps in which he sed "pie diqgrqms" to portray polymorphic percentages from sampling stations all throughout the S UK and "favored Polymorphs" from industrial v non industrial areas can be seen in the maps. Later data, as the industrial areas have been cleaned via air pollution techniques, the percentage fvoring the lighter polymorphs has returned.

If you read What Paul Erhlich said (NOT the magic bullet Ehrlich), he stated that this was an example of ho predation can remove competing polymorph forms as more of a lab experiment in thge wild.

Weve all made that mistake here on A2k, and I take some responsibility when I ws chiding Gungasnake several years ago and may have lft an impression that this was natural selection in action when it was actually demoing predation and industrial melanism that favored already existing polymorphs. The genes for wing width nd melanistic coloring were already fixed. It would only b evolution if some of the polymorph became extinct nd others rose.

Correct!

I don't see the importance of making a distinction here. If natural selection is a factor then certain gene expressions are favorable to the organism.

For instance, in Texas we have a tree called the honey locust, which usually is armed with long thorns. I assume the thorns were useful. during the Pleistocene epoch when very large browsing mammals existed, but they no longer exist so the tree is wasting energy growing these thorns. However, there is a thornless variety I often see in the wild. I can imagine the time in the future when the thornless variety will be much more common than the thorned variety, though it may never disappear entirely. Is this not evolution at work?

do both variwtis of locust hve lrger nuts?
Maybe it int the thorns but the fruits that were of use. I had to look up thevarieties of honey locust (black, thorny, honey) they all had some throny segments of the tree. The honey locusts thorns (according to the Pa extensive arborist annual, That variety had its thorns only at the height where deer would have been deterred. Plesitocene megafauna were often ABOVE the thorn areas but within the sweet nut browse area. '
However , humans have taken to spreading this tree artificially because its found in 39 oof the 50 states and its a source of some kind of sweetened syrup. (BUT the nuts hve to be ground. Apparently not ALL the nuts are wasted on making sweetener (and Mammoths arent crappin em out) So weve got artificial selection.



Polymorphism doesnt always lead to evolution or extinction of several of the "morphs. Like the peppered moth, predation can exist under several means and as long as the moth species is extant, the polymoorphic forms may remain in the pool and the genes are expressed at some ratio that almost appears to be 1 to 1 unless predator pressure "selects" one form out for awhile

Thanks, Hope springs eternal.

Evolution is provable. But then no scientific theory is absolutely correct. I believe it's pretty much how much how people don't get science.

The definition of science is self-explanatory.

True Science died when it was taken over by the "elitists", who now use it as a tool of propaganda.
Differences in Finch beaks and similarities in apes and humans does not "prove" Darwin's theory of Evolution.

There does not need to be polar opposites of Anesthetists and the religious.

Both are probably wrong.

The "best" model is this: "We DONT KNOW".

We don't even know how"nomadic hunter gatherers" instantly achieved the ability to work with monolithic stone, or why they wanted to do this.

Why do people keep insisting that we MUST accept the "current best model" of everything?

THE BEST MODEL IS "WE DO NOT KNOW", and all alternative hypothesis are really silly in comparison to this realization.

yawn. nothing worth responses from your "observations". Other than science isnt about "We dont know". Its always "we dont understand YET"

as opposed to what?

pretty much, and ALL the evidence supports the theory and on toppa that, there is NO evidence that refutes the theory.

Hard to get lost in that .

Yawn, you are a worn out recording of science from 1890.
What possible cult belief did you call up when you claimed that we should be able to figure out EVERYTHING?

Bit arrogant of you I think.

We don't know (a lot of things) , and there may be things we will never know. This is the truth. Further, there are things we THINK we understand, but probably are totally on the wrong track.
You are clearly a member of the cult of "Scientism". Who believe you are little Gods.

Monolithic stonework suddenly appearing when there were only small tribes of hunter gatherers is UNEXPLAINED by your scientific buddies.

To go from small extended family tribes of nomads with skins for clothes and only stone tools, to suddenly deciding to form very large civilizations and cities using massive stoneworks of advanced methods of construction, along with the knowledge of irrigation and intensive horticulture, and even water supply systems, dams, OVERNIGHT in the evolutionary sense, can not be explained by your "scientist' mates.

So they just pretend it just all happened anyway.

Like the Cambrian explosion. Unexplainable by your science belief models.
(proposed explanations require leaps of Faith)

So why do people not accept Evolution? For many reasons, some irrational in themselves, but some have solid foundations.

Evolutionary theory is not built on solid science as its purported to be.

Im not arrogant, Im just educated and youre not.

If you dint know that the Grant's rom Princeton have been observing finch evolution via adaptive radiation on the Galapagos Islands since the 1950's, you are a science Luddite.

Go back to school and this time try to pay attention.

Well we do know that the "Cambrian explosion" wasnt really "an explosion" at all. It was more like lighting a campfire that extended through the Ediacaran and is actually traceable via fossil assemblages of more complex life forms likeDickinsonia (and radionuclide decay of long lived isotopes) since the end of the Cryogenian and it extended to the end of the Proterozoic into the Lower Cambrian (It extends the "explosion" to about 60 million yeqrs. Weve got excellent age determinations on that. Theyve recently ound fossils of the mid Ediacaran that display "hard parts" (hard parts are what hs classicaly separated the"Cambrian explosion fauna" from the Proterozoic).BECAUSE the lower Cambrian was chosen as a point WHEN life containing shells and /or skeletons first appeared)> Gotta agree that's a pretty lame working hypothesis.


Who knows (yet) maybe there is something there that involved inbreeding of some unknown more advanced genetics,weve only discovered fossils of waaay back species of hominins in the last few years. Im not a paleoanthroplogist. Ive got advanced degrees in chemistry and terminal degrees in Geochemistry. All I can do is read as you say you do, and speculate about paleoanthropoids. Still I see no elements of strangeness in the evolution of civilization. With expanding family groups into settlelments of related individuals, through multi sorted communities and ultimtely settlements with division of labor would come lmost as a natural consequence of successful population growth.
If you read some really old classical works by guys like Herbert Wendt (Ich Suchte Adam and followup In Search of Adam youd read from a purely popular sense, how the artifacts found through time are able to help us understand the very things that seem to puzzle you.

Arrogance isnt meant to be and for that I do apologize. Ive spent my early career jostling with some bobble headed students whove been sent to to our Uni so they can take over the family business in mining or oil production. Ive always said, If they cant understand something, its mostly cause they dont really try. Why not just get an art egree??
These kids come into our department with their "I know it all" attitude and a 800 SAT, and find that theyve jut not been challenged. When they have to work to lrn, some will just give up and become anti-science majors. Thats very few but I alwqys feel that Ive file when the student develops an attitude wherein they come up with "Alternative theories" that are jut flat wrong.

SCience is moving ahead and it dont give a **** whether you buythe theories or not.THEORIES WORK, The theories that dont, get "worked on" and any errors found or the theory modified. Like the theory of continentl drift. It was discovered in the 1930', was poo poo's till the 1960's, was evidenced heavily from WWII electromagnetics data, and is now the lynch key tht connects all aspects of geology. (even paleoanthropology uses theories of geophysics, radioisotopic decay, thermoluminescence, organic hemistry , as well as genomics, art and lingusitics).
were I you, Id either find a site in which folks buy the same story as you seem to believe, or else, try to change your own "anti-science" attitude to be more open to critical thinking.Then try to learn a bit more because I(nd other folks here)will easily tear you a new one with the mistakes you posted above.

PS, I never said that weve learnt everything, I clearly stated that we will always try to find out and fix what we do not know YET. When you open a statement that your correspondent is presenting theories from 1890, I have to chuckle at the abysmal ignorance with which that statement is imbued. You seem to have missed several centuries of evidence because even your errors are way past their "sell by" date.

The fact that you didnt even know that finch evolution by adaptive radiation and its species change has been observed in a persons lifetime is kinda like arguing that we aint ever gonna have anything to replace the horse drawn canal boat.

Well, you know that some big athletic colleges have introductory geology classes that make it easy to fulfill a science requirement. They are locally known as Rocks for Jocks.

we had them too. There was ageo science for art majors and many of the sports guys would take that or climatology. The pro corphad a different turn. The math requirements went into many levels of calc or linear algebra (for the computer modelling students who would NEVER in their lives go into the field and hammer away at the earth with a drill rig).