The Evolving Peppered Moth Gains a Furry Counterpart

NY Times ^ | 6-17-03 | CAROL KAESUK YOON

[Al Simmons]

I see. But having fish eventually turn into furry mammals (your position) makes you a genius.

[Dimensio]

Just for fun, what is your opinion about those fossilized human prints found in the Polluxi (sp) river bed?

What human prints? The dinosaur prints that have been misrepresented as human by the charliten Carl Baugh who has been criticized by other creationists for his sloppy methodology??

[Dimensio]

But having fish eventually turn into furry mammals (your position) makes you a genius.

When did I claim to be a genius?

[plusone]

Probably. Don't know many details, but just remember a documentary about them. One thing I recall was that when they dug up parts of the river bed that had not recently been exposed, they found a trail of human-looking prints in the sandstone. On a similar theme, there is a fascinating book, 'The Hidden history of the Human Race', which deals with out of place artifacts, things which are impossible to explain. There is no shortage of peculiar things out there. I doubt very much that they are all fake.

[skinkinthegrass]

So, when do we start seeing hunter-orange deer?

Darn Good Question...or some other color. :)

[skr]

"*Sigh* What they described is NATURAL SELECTION (ie, the light colored mice on dark lava flows get eaten, the dark ones do not and reproduce, and *voila!*)"

Good point. It's about the only part of Darwin's Theory that has some logic to it, although not in all instances.

"...and found that owls, a major predator of mice, could easily spot a mouse on a mismatched background."

I wonder how much money it took to come up with that news flash.

"...to see how many genetic solutions these other animals have come up with to turn dark."

I'm certain that the author didn't really mean to imply that animals plan their camouflage genetics, but the wording sure gave me a chuckle.

[LiteKeeper]

dittoes

[Aric2000]

I'm sure that will be coming soon, look to the creationist website near you.

They gotta get their flocks up to speed you know!!

[Geritol]

You are correct, this is natural selection. It is the weeding out and reduction of genetic variation when the dark variations are all gone, if that ever actually occurs. This is not evolution. Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information. We see differences in the genetics between the dark and light forms. We see different ways to do this in different species. This is not evidence of the creation of new genetic material for the different colors in modern times. Nor is it proof that new genetic information has not been created/manufactured/mutated into being in modern times. The existance of different color forms simply has nothing to do with proving or disproving evolution OR creation. Natural selection has to do with the removal of genetic material from local gene pools, and from the whole planet under extreme conditions, but can not be used to prove creation of genetic coding.

[chichipow]

So... natural selection is accepted by non believers of evolution, but mutation is not - because there are no instances of the adding of information, just the loss of it?

[jennyp]

This is not evolution. Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information. We see differences in the genetics between the dark and light forms. We see different ways to do this in different species. This is not evidence of the creation of new genetic material for the different colors in modern times.

Stop & think: You're implying that Noah had to put a pair of sandy pocket rocket, er, rock pocket mice and a pair of dark rock-pocky mice onto the Ark? Because if mutations don't happen that's the only way you could have both sandy and dark pock rockets today. The study showed that the differences between the sandies & the darks were indeed because of differences in their genes.

But you have to get current on the apologetics. As you can see here, even Answers in Genesis, the predominant YEC organization, accepts speciation by natural means. In fact, they accept much more rapid speciation than mainstream science says is possible! This is because they have to get from a limited number of animals on the Ark to the millions of species we see today, in only 4000 years. So their apologetic conundrum forces them to believe in speciation that's way too fast!

(You do have the "no increase of information" dogma down correctly, though.)

[jennyp]

I think this is the most ironic passage of all:

Dr. Majerus said many kinds of animals showed light and dark forms, from deer mice to squirrels and chipmunks. There are even black ladybugs. ...

But while many dark forms are abundant and can be studied at scientists' leisure, Dr. Majerus said that of the peppered moth was slowly disappearing.

So while there is nearly unanimous praise for the increasingly clean air in industrialized regions of the United States and Britain, there may be, at least for some scientists, a downside. "We've got about 15 or 16 years," Dr. Majerus said, "before those black forms, if they continue to disappear at the current rate, disappear completely."

[ccmay]

What evidence is there to support such a claim?

Recapitulation of lower species in embryology.

-ccm

[ccmay]

Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information.

That's no silver bullet against the existence of evolution, as such creation happens all the time. Bacterial genetic exchange occurs via a number of mechanisms and results in DNA sequences that have never before existed.

Hence your implied proposition that "evolution is false because there is no way new genetic material can be created" is disproven by example. Game, set, match for evolution.

Go back to your bible thumping and quit trying to play scientist. Some things are ouside the province of science, and some are outside the province of religion, at least in the sense that it can be comprehended by humans.

-ccm

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[PatrickHenry]

Belated ping.

[Junior]

Placemarker

[Ichneumon]

But this is just adaptation, varietization, etc. How do you go the next big step and link this to general, macro evo'n? What evidence is there to support such a claim?

Here you go: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

Note that this is 29+ *separate lines* of evidence for macroevolution. Each type of evidence is supported by literally thousands (in some cases, millions) of individual pieces of evidence and experimental results.

[Ichneumon]

One thing I recall was that when they dug up parts of the river bed that had not recently been exposed, they found a trail of human-looking prints in the sandstone.

"Human-looking" does not equal "human". You appear to be talking abou the Paluxy River tracks, which even most creationists have backed *way* off from. They were dinosaur tracks (of a known species, I don't recall offhand) which bore only a superficial resemblance to the shape of a human sole (but not even toes). The clincher was the mark of the tail behind dragged through the sand between the footprints.

On a similar theme, there is a fascinating book, 'The Hidden history of the Human Race', which deals with out of place artifacts, things which are impossible to explain. There is no shortage of peculiar things out there. I doubt very much that they are all fake.

No, not all fake, of course, but there are some folks who are overly eager to read "human artifacts" into naturally broken stone pieces, and/or overlook the questionable provenance of human artifacts (i.e., did the skull actually come from *within* the coal seam, or was it just found buried in the gravel nearby?) in order to have a better story to tell.

It's like the people who are too willing to believe that the odd light in the sky that they saw was clearly an alien spacecraft. They're not lying exactly, but they're not being as objective as they should, either.

[Ichneumon]

So, when do we start seeing hunter-orange deer?

Well, it certainly didn't take hunters long to evolve *away* from deer-colored outfits.