So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

More on the Peppered moth:

www.bbc.com...

I don't think you have read all of these studies yourself. This explains the difference perfectly well. The exact mutation has been found that differentiates the 2 species and and the mechanisms are NOT absent, they have been discovered.

Once there was a final shortlist of 87 DNA differences between the black and pale lab moths, he and his colleagues tested whether each variation, one by one, was present in the wider variety of white moths found in the wild.

"After a long time we eventually managed to get down to a single one, which then had to be the causal mutation. To our surprise, it also turned out to be a rather unusual type of mutation."

The carbonaria mutation was in fact a "jumping" piece of DNA, called a transposon, which had inserted itself into a gene called cortex.

These odd sequences more often have a damaging effect when they disrupt an existing gene. But for one embryonic moth in the early 19th Century, when these extra 9,000 bases landed in its cortex gene, they were in fact the secret to success.

"You can take a sample of chromosomes in the present population, identify all the sequence variance around the mutation, and infer… the number of generations that it would take for that amount of scrambling to occur in the flanking sequence," explained Dr Sacchieri.

Specifically, they estimate the DNA jump happened in a 10-year window centred on 1819 - a date that fits perfectly with a gradual spread of the mutation through the population, until black moths were first spotted in 1848.

en.wikipedia.org...

The evolution of the peppered moth is an evolutionary instance of directional colour change in the moth population as a consequence of air pollution during the Industrial Revolution. The frequency of dark-coloured moths increased at that time, an example of industrial melanism. Later, when pollution was reduced, the light-coloured form again predominated. Industrial melanism in the peppered moth was an early test of Charles Darwin's natural selection in action, and remains as a classic example in the teaching of evolution.[1][2] Sewall Wright described it as "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."[3]

It's basically a slam dunk instance of natural selection. It's not a mystery. There was controversy about it for a while, but it was resolved. In your response you failed to take into account natural selection based on the color of the moth.

rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Colour variation in the peppered moth Biston betularia was long accepted to be under strong natural selection. Melanics were believed to be fitter than pale morphs because of lower predation at daytime resting sites on dark, sooty bark. Melanics became common during the industrial revolution, but since 1970 there has been a rapid reversal, assumed to have been caused by predators selecting against melanics resting on today's less sooty bark. Recently, these classical explanations of melanism were attacked, and there has been general scepticism about birds as selective agents. Experiments and observations were accordingly carried out by Michael Majerus to address perceived weaknesses of earlier work. Unfortunately, he did not live to publish the results, which are analysed and presented here by the authors. Majerus released 4864 moths in his six-year experiment, the largest ever attempted for any similar study. There was strong differential bird predation against melanic peppered moths. Daily selection against melanics (s ≃ 0.1) was sufficient in magnitude and direction to explain the recent rapid decline of melanism in post-industrial Britain. These data provide the most direct evidence yet to implicate camouflage and bird predation as the overriding explanation for the rise and fall of melanism in moths.

Well, it's too late to edit my above posts, but it seems Chronaut also made the fatal error of assuming that the dark peppered moths are a different species from the lighter ones, so he's been misleading me this whole time, talking about 200 generations for speciation and "conflicting with gradualism." They are actually sub species, which means they are more like different "races" of Biston betularia and can breed. It turns out there are actually 5 sub species of peppered moth, not just 2. That's what I deserve for taking somebody's word for something instead of going straight to the data. As you can see there are no missing evolutionary mechanisms here.

I still need to do further research on this, so by all means, correct me if I'm wrong. All this talk about speciation and genetic isolation, when the variety we observe in the peppered moth is simply a result of natural selection due to better blending in with the environment. I apologize for being a bit lackluster in the beginning, I should have just went straight to the sources and research in the first place instead of endless back and forths over irrelevant red herrings and semantics.

Thanks for motivating me to solve the mystery, Chronaut. Sometimes debating you is like pulling teeth, but it annoyed me just enough to go hard in the paint and figure this thing out. It helped me learn some cool new things, so I appreciate it. It would be nice if Raggedy had a response to those studies that prove natural selection beyond the shadow of a doubt, but I'm not counting on it.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut
I will concede the claim about 1 generation per year. It's irrelevant and isn't getting us anywhere in the conversation. I still don't agree that 200 generations is too fast for evolution.

Although we cannot absolutely say that evolution is too fast or slow (due to the statistical randomness of some processes), however, we do know that most things in nature proceed at particular rates and can make calculations of the expected overall rates, and their likely minimum to maximum ranges according to probability. Haldane did a lot of work towards providing calculable mean estimates and their maxima and minima and these figures have been revised by observation over the decades, and are available for many phyla and domains.

Spontaneous mutation rate is a plastic trait associated with population density across domains of life

For Lepidoptera, the adjusted spontaneous mutation rate range normally proposed is one per 300 to 600 generations.

This makes the observed dual change over 200 generations appear remarkably rapid. The papers you linked for reference have indicated that the specific change relating to melanism may have been as small as a single gene, which means that the change is less remarkable than a true 'speciational' change (which may imply more than a single gene is changed) but it is, none the less, still faster than expected.

If we assume that the altered gene also has to spread into the environment to the point of becoming the dominant expression in wild populations, you can see that there are additional restraints upon measured changes in population that do not have 'the randomness of mutation' as an excuse for rapidity of spread of the trait.

There may be good and rational scientific reasons for the observed rate of change but so far an explicit explanation eludes us.

None the less, the melanism of the moths and their predation under different selection pressures is a perfect and observed case of natural selection in action.

From the Berkley page: "Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species."

Nothing to do with elapsed time, see, your definition was just plain wrong.

This is pure deception. Do you even know what is being said there? Macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundries of a single species. That precisely means that it is the accumulation of numerous small changes. THAT'S what it is. You keep suggesting that macro evolution is a separate mechanism, when it's the same mechanism over more time. This is now the 3rd time you've completely ignored the mechanism part of it, and it seems you are doing it on purpose because that is the primary factor in my argument and that's the only way you can continue to exploit semantics. Evolution is evolution. Macro is just the description of the accumulation of tons of small changes. It's pretty simple.

Yet there is a difficulty with the specifics of speciational change, especially with observed instances, where the gradualism and the isolation of the mutating population is absent from the picture.

I am not saying that evolution does not happen as theorised. Just that we have instances where it doesn't and therefore either we need to figure out new processes within evolutionary theory, or to acknowledge that it isn't the only way to achieve the biodiversity we observe, and to rigorously define those alternate processes.

I was referring to the mechanisms of genetic bio-incomatibilities that, taken together, we would describe as speciating factors. The fact that you conceive of speciation as something separate to the underlying genetic and biologic mechanisms shows a limitation to your understanding and flawed reasoning.

Again. One couple not being able to conceive is not speciation. If a couple can't reproduce, their genetic line dies, so they are irrelevant to speciation of the POPULATION. Please stop using this completely flawed and illogical argument. Speciation is about changes spreading to an entire population group, not just one couple or one individual having genetic defects. It's apples to oranges. Yes single genetic changes can cause defects like that because no particular gene is off limits to mutation. That's not speciation.

By ignoring that populations consist of individuals and that the genetic changes are expressed fully in individuals before they can spread into populations, you are missing the point that changes that are speciating, no matter how gradually they accrue or how isolated the population, are genetic end of line because the carrier of the accumulated change has no mate. It is a monumental hole in the theory and only by ignoring the actuality of the process of genetic change, can it even be vaguely conceived.

Put simply, the accumulated genetic changes are always expressed in an individual before becoming the basis for a population. Speciating changes are, therefore, always expressed in an individual and that individual can find no mate. It is checkmate for speciation via evolutionary process as it is currently codified.

Regardless, we have observed the rise of new species! We know most of the processes but there are still gaps in our knowledge. Being comfortable with the gaps is not doing science. We must seek the answers and do so by accepting the implications of what we have observed. Propping up a favored theory, where it cannot not actually apply, is not science.

originally posted by: Barcs
Well, it's too late to edit my above posts, but it seems Chronaut also made the fatal error of assuming that the dark peppered moths are a different species from the lighter ones, so he's been misleading me this whole time, talking about 200 generations for speciation and "conflicting with gradualism." They are actually sub species, which means they are more like different "races" of Biston betularia and can breed. It turns out there are actually 5 sub species of peppered moth, not just 2. That's what I deserve for taking somebody's word for something instead of going straight to the data. As you can see there are no missing evolutionary mechanisms here.

I actually agree that the Peppered Moth did not speciate, at least, 'speciation' was not observed or proven (but it was claimed) by any of the studies.

I agree that the studies show evolution and, particularly, natural selection with great clarity and veracity.

There are still issues with many of the studies which assumed that the moths rested on the trunks of trees, which in nature is rare, the moths preferring the branches where dark and light shading have always both been present, with and without industrial pollution.

I still need to do further research on this, so by all means, correct me if I'm wrong. All this talk about speciation and genetic isolation, when the variety we observe in the peppered moth is simply a result of natural selection due to better blending in with the environment. I apologize for being a bit lackluster in the beginning, I should have just went straight to the sources and research in the first place instead of endless back and forths over irrelevant red herrings and semantics.

Thanks for motivating me to solve the mystery, Chronaut. Sometimes debating you is like pulling teeth, but it annoyed me just enough to go hard in the paint and figure this thing out. It helped me learn some cool new things, so I appreciate it. It would be nice if Raggedy had a response to those studies that prove natural selection beyond the shadow of a doubt, but I'm not counting on it.

I have also actually been equally frustrated and enjoyed debating with you.

I don't feel that we have really reached a resolution of the specifics of our conversations but I can agree to disagree.

My point was that there are other things that can also explain biodiversity, which are as equally valid as the MES but are, to some ways of thinking, more controversial.

A few of these 'controversial' things are: ongoing chemical abiogenesis, horizontal gene transfer, catastophism, epigenetics, panspermia and mixes of these things also with evolutionary processes, too.

We have reasonable evidence that all of these things actually occur, yet every time genetic change is observed, the first thing suggested is how it always is an example of evolution, only. This is despite there being some evidence that the specific components of the MES are absent or out of the required order and other explanations also fit the scenario.

Then there is the issue of speciation, and how such a change (or accumulation of changes) actually establishes a new population. Some don't seem to understand stalemate in the argument and keep futilely avoiding checkmate forever.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yet there is a difficulty with the specifics of speciational change, especially with observed instances, where the gradualism and the isolation of the mutating population is absent from the picture.

I am not saying that evolution does not happen as theorised. Just that we have instances where it doesn't and therefore either we need to figure out new processes within evolutionary theory, or to acknowledge that it isn't the only way to achieve the biodiversity we observe, and to rigorously define those alternate processes.

Again, it's not ALWAYS isolation. Sometimes it's natural selection as shown above, and sometimes it's simply genetic drift. Gradualism is not absent. Speciation isn't a single event, it's the result of numerous small changes spreading to the population over time and it's not always an exact determination because we don't have much of the older genome data to know exactly when the species boundary was crossed. You said this exact claim before and used the peppered moth as an example, when it was flawed because it wasn't actually a different species, it was more related to dominant and recessive genes selected by birds based on the moth's camouflage, and chances are the designation of light and dark peppered moths goes back longer than 200 years, it just hadn't been observed before that. Very likely the traits were already there, just the darker gene expression was rare at the time because birds ate them more often than the others. If you have a better example than the moth of your "absent" mechanisms, please post it.

You mentioned that we can estimate and project mutation rates, but that's not the same thing as speciation rates. Maybe there are alternative lesser known mechanisms, but to suggest that we need evidence of such. Logically, you can't just appeal to what we don't currently know, and use that alone to determine there are other mechanisms. Just because we may not know every detail, doesn't mean there is something else, it could very easily be a normal mechanism, we just haven't figured that out yet.

By ignoring that populations consist of individuals and that the genetic changes are expressed fully in individuals before they can spread into populations, you are missing the point that changes that are speciating, no matter how gradually they accrue or how isolated the population, are genetic end of line because the carrier of the accumulated change has no mate. It is a monumental hole in the theory and only by ignoring the actuality of the process of genetic change, can it even be vaguely conceived.

Populations consist of individuals, but speciation is determined by the POPULATION as a WHOLE changing SLOWLY over time not one single infertile couple that has no bearing on the future gene pool. We are talking about speciation, which does not happen in a single generation in animals without extinction. You have a flawed understanding that speciation happens in one generation and then all of sudden you have a new species trying to breed with the previous generation. That's not how it works, please stop arguing that strawman. As per speciation, "new" species, can't breed with the species from hundreds to thousands of generations ago. You are grossly misrepresenting this. There are usually at least thousands of generations between one species and the next, quite often it's more.

Put simply, the accumulated genetic changes are always expressed in an individual before becoming the basis for a population. Speciating changes are, therefore, always expressed in an individual and that individual can find no mate. It is checkmate for speciation via evolutionary process as it is currently codified.

As I mentioned above there is a big difference between genetic changes, new expressed traits and speciation itself. They aren't equal, and most often a new trait expressed in an organism is NOT a new species. The new trait is expressed and then spread to the population because they are STILL THE SAME SPECIES and can still breed. You are falsely equivocating speciation and individual small changes.

The human trait of lactose tolerance in adults is a good example of what I am referring to. It had benefits to help certain groups of humans survive the last glacial period. There was likely a point where they relied on milk to survive, and the people that did not have this mutation died off in those particular areas. That's why only 1/3 of the population has this trait today and yet they can still breed with the humans that don't have it. It's the same exact misunderstanding you had with the moths. Having different expressed traits is not always speciation and does not happen in a single generation. You have to consider all of the other neutral mutations that organisms acquire over time, it's not just about expression.

A few of these 'controversial' things are: ongoing chemical abiogenesis, horizontal gene transfer, catastophism, epigenetics, panspermia and mixes of these things also with evolutionary processes, too.

Do those things lead to a change in the frequency of alleles in a population? If so they are still evolution. If not, they are unrelated (ie abiogenesis/panspermia).

There is no stalemate, you are misunderstanding speciation.

originally posted by: Barcs



It would be nice if raggedy had a response re proof natural selection

Natural selection, adaptations but not speciation, it's not backed up with real science

I don't think that justifies a horse turning into a giraffe over millions or whatever it's is now, years. It might mean bigger horses breed out small horses in certain conditions but not a new species of animal from a horse

a reply to: Raggedyman

As usual. the onus is on YOU to prove that its not backed up with "real science". We've posted dozens of examples of observed speciation. You ignore it. You clearly are incapable of understanding how the science works.

a reply to: Noinden

Don't be stupid, I am asking for proof
How can the onus be on me, I never made a claim

Why do you hate science

I could ask,for a,peer reviewed article on speciation in nature being observed but you are still working on the opening post, arnt you buddy

Bwah ha ha ha ha ha HA....

You should,find a brick wall and pound your head into it, repeating over and over, I don't understand science, I need to bash some sense into my head
It won't work but it's funny

I will be turning off notifications for this post

You can't show me anything from the op, there is no,chance you will be capable of another answe

I know, a thread on a peer reviewed article on speciation being observed in nature, that will be awesome and you can have kittens again
What fun, I am so excited
And you can look silly all over ,again by not answering the question again

a reply to: Raggedyman

Here we go again.

You have repeatedly been given proof. REPEATEDLY. Once again you ignore this. As usual.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Simply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you

I think, like most people - many are confused with adaptation. And of course, to many (if not all) evolutionists, they call it "micro-evolution".

As such it can now be "peer-reviewed".

It's akin to redifining the word "nothing" as "a quantum bubble" hence not "nothing" but something.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

It would be nice if raggedy had a response re proof natural selection

Natural selection, adaptations but not speciation, it's not backed up with real science

I don't think that justifies a horse turning into a giraffe over millions or whatever it's is now, years. It might mean bigger horses breed out small horses in certain conditions but not a new species of animal from a horse

So your response to that research paper is?

a reply to: edmc^2

Adaptation (or micro evolution) IS EVOLUTION. You guys dishonestly replace the word "evolution" with adaptation to separate it as if evolution has nothing to do with it. It's completely dishonest and does nothing but argue semantics, like our friend Chronaut above. The simple truth of the matter is that you guys do not have an argument against evolution, so you need to straw man it, and that's just sad.

There is absolutely no difference in mechanism between "micro" and "macro" evolution. They both follow the same exact thing, genetic mutations and natural selection. It's funny how stubborn you guys are to try to promote a religion. It's old. Lying about science doesn't change what the science actually says. You can't believe micro evolution without believing macro evolution. Sorry to burst your bubble. They are both Modern Synthesis, one just involved more accumulated changes. Can't believe how many times I have to repeat this fact. But hey, liars gonna lie. It's the theist way.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

It would be nice if raggedy had a response re proof natural selection

Natural selection, adaptations but not speciation, it's not backed up with real science

I don't think that justifies a horse turning into a giraffe over millions or whatever it's is now, years. It might mean bigger horses breed out small horses in certain conditions but not a new species of animal from a horse

So your response to that research paper is?

What paper
I am not trawling this thread for another stupid assumption you have offered to your god

a reply to: Raggedyman

The paper that I was referring to when you misquoted me above. Don't be lazy, read the other posts.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

Adaptation (or micro evolution) IS EVOLUTION. You guys dishonestly replace the word "evolution" with adaptation to separate it as if evolution has nothing to do with it. It's completely dishonest and does nothing but argue semantics, like our friend Chronaut above. The simple truth of the matter is that you guys do not have an argument against evolution, so you need to straw man it, and that's just sad.

There is absolutely no difference in mechanism between "micro" and "macro" evolution. They both follow the same exact thing, genetic mutations and natural selection. It's funny how stubborn you guys are to try to promote a religion. It's old. Lying about science doesn't change what the science actually says. You can't believe micro evolution without believing macro evolution. Sorry to burst your bubble. They are both Modern Synthesis, one just involved more accumulated changes. Can't believe how many times I have to repeat this fact. But hey, liars gonna lie. It's the theist way.

Adaptation (or micro evolution) IS EVOLUTION.

Says who? By whose authority? Evolution Scientist / Scientist who are proponents of evolution?

As to this:

Can't believe how many times I have to repeat this fact. But hey, liars gonna lie. It's the theist way.

weak.

a reply to: Barcs

No don't you be lazy young man
Please post the link, I have read millions of stupid d dumb links by people with the minds of infants, I know yours like all your other ones is the same

I am not interested in what you think you have, run along

Micro/macro, you are just playing word games, all you can do is play word games because you have nothing valid to respond with

13 pages, I am happy to dismiss you as another uneducated nobody wannaby, please run along, you are insincere and not capable of dealing with the op in a capacity as expected

Barcs, you are not smart enough, please leave me alone with your dumb comments


Again, open challenge to everybody, ( except Barcs) supply me with a peer reviewed journal... As stated in the op, what is outlined

a reply to: Raggedyman

No Don't be lazy. GO BACK to previous posts, and follow the links, you avoided previously.

a reply to: Noinden

He already said he isn't going to read what anyone supplies him, just as he's been doing this entire thread, and many others...

And he straight up lied when he said he has already read "millions" of links people have given him

Anyone who has bothered to read even a little of the kind of posts raggity and his religious friends write knows they don't read anything... never have, never will

I know its amusing to deal with stupidity but there comes a point...

Mine usually comes when he asks people why they hate science, when he barely understands the word

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Simply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you

I just don't get it, you want science to prove science is wrong? Why don't you ask for a peer review and a paper from the church specifying all the reasons creation 6000 years ago is true and impossible to deny? How are you mixing them up? Even the church thinks evolution is right and they use science in several ways.

How can you ask for 'scientific proof that science is wrong'?

a reply to: Akragon

You know this
I know this
Barcs certainly knows this.

However the right thing is to challenge this luddite behaviour each and every time.