Talk:Peppered moth evolution/Archive 1

Microevolution?

I removed the phrase "more specifically microevolution" from the first paragraph. I left the rest, though simply explaining that changing morphological features represent underlying changes in the frequency of alleles is rather irrelevant. "Microevolution" is not a scientific term, and while scientists - not any I've ever met, but I accept there might be some - may use it in a informal and conversational way to refer to a specific type of evolution, it is not part of mainstream scientific literature and creates a false dichotomy between "macroevolution" and "microevolution." They're the same thing in the sense that one leads to the other when a population is in isolation. There's no need to go feeding fuel to the fires of creationist ignorance by using this irrelevant and unscientific term. JF Mephisto 13:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well as an evolutionary biologist, I can say that I do commonly use the term microevolution, and it is in common usage in the literature. Moreover, it is far from proven that microevolution leads directly to macroevolution. Of course, as biologists we accept that microevolutionary do occur in macroevolution, just as the laws of gravity do; but that does not mean that microevolution explains (which, in science would mean predicts) macroevolutionary phenomena. Stebbins, one of the architects of the Modern Synthesis, argues this point at length (see 'Is a new evolutionary synthesis necessary? Science, Vol 213, Number 4155 p967-971). Again, of course, we do not want to provide ill informed creationists with 'ammunition'. But on the other hand, we do not want to retard the course of scientific investigation by putting some questions 'off limits' as 'already solved' when we have no evidence to support those claims. The fact is that microevolutionary theory does not predict a range of macroevolutionary phenomena, ranging from gene regulation networks to punctuated equilibrium. In a similar way, we do not yet have a predictive understanding as to what brings about stock market crashes. That, of course, doesn't mean we should look to god as an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.64.51 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

While it's true that the split creationists often imply is not the case (i.e. that there is a hard and fast line separating speciation from all other changes in allele frequency, when in fact speciation is simply something that happens when enough alleles change), it's an overstatement to say that mirco/macro means nothing to biologists. Macroevolutionary change IS distinct in some ways because we can describe macroevolutionary events (i.e large changes in entire populations or ecosystems like extinction, or long term effects like genetic drift) that have no good analog in microevolution (which, again, is about the process of allele frequency). So it is a useful distinction sometimes: it just doesn't happen to be useful in the way that creationists use it.Plunge 17:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated in this article, the Peppered moth is an example of natural selection. One component of Microevolution, as stated in the wiki article, is natural selection. There is also another Wiki page on just the peppered moth; the same topic that is discused in this article, but with more information. As a quote from the peppered moth page, at the bottom "But the problem, according to the Young Earth creationist Dr. Tommy Mitchell of "Answers in Genesis", is this only represents a case of natural selection, and not of evolution, as a population of a "kind" of moth turned into simply a population of another "kind" of moth. While it is true that this example shows natural selection causing microevolution within a species, it demonstrates rapid and obvious adaptiveness with such change." Aside from the fact that this man is a creationist, the article agrees that the peppered moth is an example of natural selection. More specifically, it is a example of natural selection causing microevolution. Actually, the key componet of microevolution is natural selection, because natural selection entails mutation, gene flow and genetic drift. Macroevolution is also differs from microevolution in the fact that evolution occurs first in microevolutions, of which eventually meld into macroevolutions, because of natural selection's properties. Natural selection has been observed, but I can only say that macroevolution's facts are interpertations. They are interpertations, true or not, because what happened in the past, occured in the past, not the present. P.S. Crationist views are also interpertations. Correct me if I am wrong. L0ud Ninja (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Navigable cohesion with parent article

this child article does not read well on its own. if one has followed it from the parent article the background there adds helpful context. - Rgrant 20:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoax

I removed all fraudalent information, and put in a rough overview of the known facts. If anyone has more knowledge than I do on the hoax, please do feel free to add. The hoax itself is well-documented and sourced, and proponents of Darwinian evolution one way or another have accepted the fact of the hoax for years, as indicated in the NYT article, so please note I am not attempting to discredit evolution as a whole, but only that the rhyme and dance about this particular instance of "evolution" was unmasked for what it was a long time ago, relatively speaking.

MSTCrow 07:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a single proponent of Darwinian evolution accepts that there was a hoax, because there plainly wasn't one, and the NYT article, which was a book review, did not indicate any of what you claim. Your "edit" (it was plainly and clearly vandalism, but we're supposed to assume good faith even when the evidence contradicts it) stated that the NYT "broke the news" -- but book reviews do not "break news"; if anything, the book "broke the news", but it simply repeated false claims made previously by others and repeatedly debunked by authorities in the field. Basically nothing you have said on this matter, either here or in the article, is true, which was predictable given your real source (Ann Coulter's book). --Jibal 03:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Reference: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/moonshine.htm --Michael Johnson 07:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't revert simply because you find a clearly biased source. Try finding some additional sources, and discussing it here. That is WP. Thanks.

MSTCrow 08:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't simply delete an entire article and replace it with an entirely POV claim from a dubious source. talkdesign is indeed "clearly biased" -- towards facts, science, and providing supporting documentation for its claims. The "clearly biased source" charge is ad hominem and thus irrelevant; the content of their page refutes the charge that there was a hoax by providing the factual details as to what actually took place. --Jibal 03:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a new idea. Why don't we create a pro-hoax and anti-hoax section.

MSTCrow 08:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not how wikipedia works. It relates facts and describes controversies (i.e. can describe various positions) but it doesn't split its tone into advocating the views of one side or another. Plunge 17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Provide a source which is not related to "creation science" or "intellegent design" and I'd be happy to look at it. Scientific source, that is, not a newspaper report.--Michael Johnson 08:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers reports are credible sources according to WP. You are not being fair, and excluding facts based on an ideological basis.

MSTCrow 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The newspaper report is simply a report that some person claims this is a hoax, not evidence of a hoax at all. I'm not being at all ideological. --Michael Johnson 08:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have forwarded this issue to the mediation cabal, so they may help and resolve this issue.

MSTCrow 08:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The mediator stated the obvious: the use of the word "hoax" is POV --Jibal 02:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Link? --Davril2020 09:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Did someone want evidence of the hoax?

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out. He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real. J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36 ^rossnixon 10:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But then again, I've discovered it is far more complex than this. See wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Peppered_moth (would not load for me, so use Googles cached version). ^rossnixon 10:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First, it is false that Jerry Coyne thinks the peppered moth story "has to be thrown out", as is clear from the context of the "prize horse" quote: "this classic example is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention." Second, his doubts about the peppered moth have absolutely nothing to do with thinking that it is a hoax; he does not. There plainly was no hoax involved; the claim of "hoax" is a misrepresentation of the facts. A hoax is a deliberate attempt to mislead, but no one deliberately attempted to mislead anyone; the belief that they did rests on ignorance and misunderstanding. Here is a letter from a relevant expert in the field, pointing out that the source of the claim of hoax practices intellectual dishonesty, including taking said expert's own quotes out of context. Any investigation will reveal that this view that no hoax was involved is universal among evolutionary biologists, including Jerry Coyne. --Jibal 02:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

You might be interested to know that Majerus recently presented 7 years of work attempting to investigate any flaws in Kettlewell's studies on BBC Radio 4's "Material World" programme on 11th Oct 2007. Jerry Coyne explained that whilst his 1998 Nature Review suggested the Peppered moth was no longer a "Well Understood" example of Natural Selection, having now seen Majerus new work he was happy that it is indeed now "Well Understood". The programme can be heard at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/thematerialworld.shtml Majerus' new data is at http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/majerus.htm

Should this be reflected in the article?-------- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.123 (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As an FYI, the specific reference of User:MSTCrow to the "New York Times" as stating its a hoax is a fraudulent, or at least ignorant, claim in and of itself. The NYT items are a standard book review of Of Moths and Men and a summary of its contents delivered effectively as a press release. As such they can not themselves be treated as a means to verify its contents nor be an independent source. They should not be considered "admissable" support for the claims. An extremely detailed summary has been written, larger than even the wikipedia entry, of the multiple experiements, with their methods and the means by which scientists addressed the criticisms (made by other scientists, not "creationists") of the earlier preliminary findings prior to the 1950's. The idea that the experiments can be considered a fraud is ridiculous, as it would have involved a secret conspiracy involving hundreds of scientists all across Britain and the United States. Such a claim may be worthy of Ann Coulter, but should not even begin to be treated with any sort of respect by Wikipedia. If you want to reference the "controversy" have a one-sentence entry pointing to Of Moths and Men and let that entry cover it. The chapter on the subject in Ann Coulter's recent book, btw, is a summary of Of Moths and Men, though it appears as though the most she knows about the subject is also from the same NYT articles and that she herself has never read the book nor has she looked at any of the primary articles by the actual researchers that she has decided to call fraudulent.

• Well-said! I've been wanting to say similar for a while now, but didn't have the time or references to back it up. Always refreshing when a little light is shed on a conflict. I don't have any strong opinions as to whether we ought cover the "hoax" claims in detail or not, but if we do so neutrally (i.e., summarizing many of the points you just made above, with appropriate quotations and references) so as not to make it seem like a genuine scientific controversy (which it's clearly not: there are certain aspects of the original experiments which are now disputed, but the underlying principles and conclusions are still universally accepted), we could make this a much more useful page for informing misinformed readers. I agree that the more intimate details of the refutation should be reserved for Of Moths and Men, though—speaking of which, I'm not sure why you keep referencing Ann Coulter. Did you mean to say "Judith Hooper", the author of the book, instead? -Silence 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I see, you were referring to Coulter from the Panda's Thumb article. Nevermind that. -Silence 17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not unlikely that Coulter's book was the impetus for User:MSTCrow's vandalism (I don't think replacing a consensus article with fraudulent claims is anything else) -- his views on other matters are close to hers, and it's almost certainly a book that he would have bought and read, and he says he's an atheist so he didn't get there via the usual route. -- Jibal 12:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on people. Evolution happens, regardless of whether or not it created US. You can still believe God made us from dust under 9000 years ago and REALIZE (NOT believe) that evolution occurs. This is an excellent example. This Youtube video is another example. YOU CAN KEEP ANY AND ALL CREATIONIST BELIEFS, AND STILL ACCEPT THAT EVOLUTION OCCURS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elecbullet (talk • contribs) 05:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You see, the problem never had anything to do with evolution's compatibility to modern belief systems. The problem lies in the tendency for those who disagree with a single aspect of one's claims to become entirely antagonistic to all of that person's or group's claims. 76.95.40.6 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

POV fork

A POV fork seems to have unwittingly arisen in this topic. This article, Peppered moth evolution, has become exclusively about the scientific perspective, without involving the creationism-evolution debate (even though it's important for readers to know about such), while the forked article, Natural selection and the peppered moth (originally named "Creationism and the peppered moth", but moved to this meaningless title by apparent creationist User:Ed Poor), has become exclusively about the creationist perspective. I strongly recommend a merge so that both topics can be handled in tandem, and thus be given a more rigorously NPOV analysis. -Silence 10:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds a reasonable approach. The Natural Selection article definately needed some work. There also needs to be some rigerous analysis of the current state of scientific thought, as well as the creationist attacks on the original research. --Michael Johnson 10:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're making an error in assumption here, most of the attacks on the original research comes from evolutionists, and creationism is only one of the factions that opppose the theory of evolution on its scientific merits. I am not a creationist, for instance.

MSTCrow 11:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Silence and Michael Johnson. Merge is a good way forward. In fact, just checking the article again, I notice that this has been done. New version makes sense to me, and covers the "controversy" pretty well. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

cabal mediation

I have offered to mediate this case. Interested parties should go to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-12 Peppered moth evolution. Rick Norwood 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In regard to the mediator's statement: "In particular, I think that MSTCrow can show his good faith by doing the following. Read the review in Nature by Jerry Coyne (if your local library does not have a copy, they should be able to get a copy by interlibrary loan) and write a brief, impartial summary of what that review says." -- the review is available on-line from Dr. Coyne's website: http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ceb/Majerus_review.pdf --Jibal 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been two weeks now. Mr. Crow has had ample time to respond (and he's been quite active, having made over 90 edits in the interim). Isn't it time to wrap up this mediation?--RattBoy 11:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with this article? It is excellent and presents a neutral point of view in the critcism section. Regardless of experimental design flaws in Kettlewell's experiments ,other researchers have established the peppered moth is still an excellent example of natural selection, predation, etc. A recent artilce by DW Rudge, Myths about moths: a study in contrasts.Endeavour. 2006 Mar;30(1):19-23. PMID: 16549216 does an excellent job of rooting out the debate.GetAgrippa 12:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it now. As you can see from the dates of the entries above, there was a dispute several months ago. Its instigator, MSTCrow, tried to radically change the article, but ultimately disengaged from the debate. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No evidence for evolution

Actually, even as it stands, this demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for ameba-to-man evolution. --Lossenhilien 06:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And how was a "gene" created ? Actually this is not as if some discrete switches are turned on or off. The gene itself is like the species a rather loosely defined. The point is that there is micro-evolution in the sequences and that is reflected in the morphology. Now that is the amount of variation visible in the short span of human history. If you are expecting someone to selectively breed an amoeba into a man within your lifetime by shifting gene frequencies, you are on working on incomplete scientific foundations. If you are talking about creation, then this is not the place to discuss that "theory".

Just my two cents, but, do realize that the point of Kettlewell's experiments was not to demonstrate the appearance of new peppered moth species, but to show how color variants have been able to adapt to changing environments due to industrial pollution (and its reduction) and escape predation (which was why he pinned them to the tree trunks, in fact). You would realize this if you had taken the time to actually read Kettlewell's papers, rather than focusing on what you gleaned from creationist propaganda.--Mr Fink 18:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

_______
Better: Eacock, A., Rowland, H.R., van’t Hof, A.E., Yung, C., Edmonds, N., Saccheri, I.J. (2019) Extraocular photoreception mediates adaptive colour change and background choice behaviour in peppered moth caterpillars. Nature Communications 10.1038/s42003-019-0502-7 2.8.2019
J744 (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting about the caterpillars, the source says nothing about evolution of the adult moth forms. It does say Amy Eacock adds: "We constructed a computer model that can ‘see’ the same way birds do, so we are able to conclude that these adaptations - color change, twig-mimicking, behavioral background-matching - likely evolved to avoid visual detection by predators." Gives further support to concepts of natural selection and evolution. . . dave souza, talk 07:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Title of article

Isn't the real topic something more like: "The peppered moth as an example of natural selection"? It doesn't really seem to be about the evolution of the peppered moth. Steve Dufour 16:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusion: Majerus/Majestus

Hi!

I was reading the article and I see a lot of mentions of Majerus, who is linked & cited. However, halfway down, there is a mention of Majestus in a couple of places. Is this a different guy? If so, he should be introduced. Or is it a typo, in which case it should be corrected?

Cheers, --80.193.22.182 13:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Peppered Moth - Pattern or Design

"...he Peppered moth story: http://www.icr.org and Wells misses the point. Even if the moths were staged and the research a fraud - it doesn't matter. The confusion is one of semantics and intent, specifically the difference between the words "detection, pattern" and "selection,design". Lets say I walk past a black floor with white marbles on it but I had no original intent of selecting for marbles and just casually walk past, filing the image somewhere in my subconscious mind. Tomorrow somebody looking for marbles wanting to "select" for marbles asks me about marbles and I remember about the visual contrast the previous day that I *detected*. The other person implementing his goal directed decision to select for marbles would have stopped to pick them up had he seen them..." Read the rest of the thread at http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/bc2f37c94ca7a2eb/5c5361a46b390e85?#5c5361a46b390e85 I take a completely different view on the whole peppered moth story based on the premise that Natural Selection is a semantic impossibility. The thread is at nr.6 out of 24900 Google hits, my alias was backspace TongueSpeaker 20:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No evolution

There is no "evolution" here, just God gave moths two genes to survive, one pepper, one black. When the trees were peppered, epigenetics that showed peppered survived, when the trees were black, epigenetics that showed black survived. No new gene mutated into existence, just a pre-existing gene, through epigenetics, camoflaged the moth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.49.13 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

See NPOV: Making necessary assumptions .. dave souza, talk 06:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Example of what?

There is no doubt that the proportion of light and dark varieties of this moth have been seen. I don't recall reading anything questioning the cause of this change.

If I understand ecology at all, I think I may say without contradiction that when the environment changes, the numbers of individual animals and plants in that environment change in accordance with the new conditions. The classic example is predator and prey, which sometimes results in a cyclical relationship. For example: More deer, more wolves. (They get more food, so they have more cubs.) Mover wolves, less deer. (More wolves are hunting now, which results in more deer getting killed.) I bet there are dozens of examples of new species or varieties crowding out old one, as when travelers deliberately (or accidentally) brought animals or plants to another continent.

What I'm wondering is how to write about this. When we say "evolution", do we mean the appearance of a new species of moth (i.e., one that did not exist beforehand)? Surely biologists are not using the peppered moth as evidence of the origin of a new species due to natural selection. If I understand the science I've read lately, both varieties (light and dark) existed before all that soot polluted their environment.

So what is this an example (or proof) of? And in case you're wondering why I ask, I'm preparing to write about Icons of Evolution by Jon Wells. And it's in response to conflicting reports as to whether the peppered moth is being used by educators as "evidence for evolution". (Some sources say that it's not being used as "evidence" but merely as an "example", but I don't understand the distinction being made.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I thought you were under some restrictions on evolution related articles. However, since you ask so nicely, do please read the article, particularly the section headed Genetics which starts:

Evolution is defined as "a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool",[3] an occurrence that causes a population's genetically inherited traits to change over successive generations. Evolution in the wild is chiefly caused by two mechanisms: natural selection, the process by which individual organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, and genetic drift, the statistical drift over time of allele frequencies in a population from random sampling effects in the formation of successive generations.

In peppered moths, a change from light to dark tree bark exposes light coloured moths to more predation, and the allele for light colour of the moths becomes less frequent in proportion to the population, while the allele for dark colour of moths becomes more frequent. That's what we call in the trade evolution. It's not speciation, both moths are morphs of the same species and can freely interbreed. Alles klar? . dave souza, talk 20:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on probation as follows: "He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking." There's also a page ban for ID. But ID is religion, right? I'm talking about evolution, which is science.

I have trouble understanding that passage - which I've read dozens of times - because terms like allele, gene pool, genetic drift, and speciation aren't in my vocabulary. I do know what a heritable change is; it means your kids pass it on to their kids, and so on.

My question is what sort of "evolution" is the peppered moth an example of? Did a new variety appear, whose inherited traits would then be passed on from parent to child?

Or were there (as I suppose) already two varieties, with light predominating? And then the ratio of light to dark varieties changed during the sooty decades? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Icons of Evolution by Jon Wells is classic ID lies for children – if you check out the links on this article, you'll see that he translated "only two instances have been found of the moths resting in exposed positions on tree trunks" into "moths never rest on tree trunks", and has it in his book despite being corrected beforehand. As I recall.

As for your question, you're getting there with the "two varieties" idea, but these aren't two separate "kinds". As the good monk Mendel found, if for example there are genes for dark and light hair, dark haired and light haired parents will produce some children with dark hair and some with light hair, and the "varieties" can pop up in grandchildren or great-grandchildren quite unexpectedly if it's a recessive gene. All offspring show variations, and it doesn't really matter that much how the variations come about, the essential point is that variations occur. A plant breeder can choose variations giving a desired colour, and in a similar way the birds as predators were choosing variations that were more visible. That's evolution. An example of evolution by artificial selection would be a farmer deciding not to bother dying wool for socks, and instead selecting black sheep to breed from. He'd end up with a black flock, with occasional white sheep. And if a new farmer decided to breed them white again, that's what would happen. Caution: that's no doubt an oversimplification, and I'm not an expert. Hope that makes things a bit clearer. . . dave souza, talk 23:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Thanks for the tip about that children's book ^_^ by Wells. If he wrote never when almost never would be more accurate, then his publisher better correct him in the next edition. That's what I like about Wikipedia: anyone can make a correction.
2. You seem to be saying that birds eating the more visible (lighter) moths is an example of natural selection - as opposed to the artificial selection done by the farmer. (Great example, by the way: I never would have thought of saving dye. It makes the example more vivid and thus easier to remember.) I'm assuming the answer to my question is that no new variety appeared; the lighter moths had already been seen but merely became more numerous in proportion to the darker moths. Is this what you're saying? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. The sequence was dark moths rare, as trees darkened from pollution, dark moths became common, as trees lightened after pollution, dark moths became rare. That's evolution, and Darwin understood it without knowing how the variations arose, he just established by investigation and experiment that heritable variations did occur. Wells is unlikely to make the correction, on past behaviour, and note that he's making a big issue about whether the moths rest on tree trunks or branches. Read the recent article by Majerus and look closely at fig. 4. . . dave souza, talk 20:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and looking over the Majerus article it does seem to imply that ther had been a mutation of a specific gene introducing the black form which was first found in 1848 in Manchester. The logic to me is that mutation could happen every now and then, and in unpolluted woodlands the dark moths would be eaten. It was only when pollution provided an advantage that the black moths became common. These variations can accumulate, in this particular case it was a very simple variation which had a dramatic effect on predation, and hence on natural selection. . dave souza, talk 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The supposition that there was an earlier mutation that allowed black coloration in the first place has little to do with observations discussed in this article, though it could be cited. The observations show a variation in proportions of a pre-existent gene, not the creation of a new trait. The "accumulation" here is not due to mutation but simple population genetics and natural selection, these mechanisms (just population genetics and natural selection) do not cause any variation above the most minor level. As the articles cited in the current version state, the mechanisms needed for (most) micro-evolution and (all) macroevolution include mutation. While there are plenty of examples where the microevoluion/macroevolution dichotomy is nonsense, this is not one of them. The discussion of there being no division between microevolution and macroevolution does not fit in this article because that discussion presupposes you are looking at a situation where there is (a little) mutation going on (please read the articles cited, which essentially claim there is no real difference between evolution within a genera and variations with a family, etc. However that same article defends this view by listing mutation as one of the absolutely required parts of that evolution. In the case of Kettlewell's moths, there is no such mutation. I am editing it to more or less fit the discussion in the Peppered moth article, which is accurate.67.166.176.181 (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point. Macroevolution and microevolution are scales of study, not different processes. So saying that "and accept that it is not proof of macroevolution" is nonsense. Guettarda (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you miss the point. The article you cite indicates that the REASON microevolution and macroevolution generally is a false dichotomy is that both are fueled by the same mechanisms: mutation and natural selection (read Eldridge's quote). In this particular case, the former is not present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.176.181 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing variation with mutation, which is one of the sources of variation. Variations, whether through mutation or another mechanism, are present at all scales of evolution, "micro" or "macro". . . dave souza, talk 16:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not confusing anything. The simple fact is that the type of variation present in the Kettlewell moth observation is not the type of variation that can lead to new species. Saying "it's all variation" is ludicrous, as macroevolution would be impossible without mutation. If the ONLY variation available were the type of variation shown in the observation, no macroevolution could occur, and that is a simple fact. In essence, the paragraph is conflating two different definitions for the word "microevolution" and using something that is true about one definition to discuss the use of the word in the other way. There is "microevolution" qua "variation within a kind" (WHICH does include mutations and all the instruments of variation considered necessary for "macroevolution") and "microevolution" qua "change in genotype frequency without introduction of new genetic types" which does not include the full range of tools considered necessary for macroevolution.

See the third quote by Eldridge in "Straight Dope: Do Creationists Accept Macroevoluion":

The evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described--primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection--going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species--i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life [emphasis in original, p. 76].

I am rewriting the paragraph to remove this illogical conflation of two separate meanings for the word "microevolution."67.166.176.181 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your deletion of sourced text. You have a misunderstanding that there are two kinds of microevolution,; there are not. "Within a kind" is not a distinction that evolutionary biologists make, it is OT scripture, not science. Auntie E. (talk)

In particular recombination can be a source of variation because many characteristics are influenced by more than one gene. Thus in organisims that reproduce sexually you can get new traits by mixing up existing genes in new combinations. The importance of peppered moths is that they provided a historically important clear demonstration of the power of natural selection to change the characteristics of a wild population, which is one of the aspects of evolution. There are even better examples known now such as antibiotic resistance and pesticide resistance and recent studies on how periods of draught alternating with periods of heavier rainfall affect beak size in some of Darwin's Finches and how predation affects color patterns in male guppies. Unfortunately I can't find any documentation of the last two on Wikipedia, something I think I will fix. None of those examples demonstrate a combination of mutation with natural selection. For that you want to see nylon-eating bacteria or better still E. coli long-term evolution experiment. If you want to see examples of actual speciation in progress you want to look at apple maggot and the discussion of it at speciation or any of the examples of ring species. Evolution is a complex process and different examples best illustrate different facets of the process.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see

So the moths started out both dark and light colored, and then when soot covered the trees, birds started to eat the light colored ones who could not hide in the soot as easily. Thus, dark colored moths became predominant. And when the trees weren't covered with as much soot, the light colored moths started appearing in equal numbers again.

I thought of a good way to illustrate this: Before mass communication had made it possible for Hats 'n Stuff, a business in England, to outsource their sales representative departments to India, sales representatives for Hats 'n Stuff were predominantly English. When technology made cheap labor available in India, to do the same job at a lower cost, Hats 'n Stuff's sales representative department became predominantly made up of citizens of India. However, when economic conditions made it feasible to hire workers from England again, the worker pool reached an equilibrium. Thus, the wonders of evolution!

Commenting on the article's fallacy: What indicates that the moths stopped producing light colored offspring? Without assuming that Natural Selection is an active vector (or scalar, whatever you prefer), the first logical conclusion is that predation is drastically reducing your ability to observe light colored moths. What reason is there for light colored moths to return - had there been a sudden drop in dark colored moth populations? Or did the light colored moths return because reduced levels of soot on trees made their ability to live and reproduce much easier?

No, I'm not denying that genetic material adapts and changes. But the analogue is quite fallacious. We go from A to D, missing all parts in-between, to rest at a conclusion: that there is a force, a direct and purposeful (mysterious?) force, that tells animals to change their genetic nature. Really, "Neutral Selection" as observed, is an innate force that causes genetic features to be prominent through force of circumstance rather than an animal deciding that it wants to change (or genetic material somehow 'understanding' the creature's circumstance and causing it to change). An example would be: Dark peppered moths in an area can only find other dark peppered moths with which to mate. Thus, the parents might have a higher chance of producing another black peppered moth (I'm not saying this is an explanation for the phenomenon as discussed in the article). And what indication is there that genetic material continues to extrapolate, that there is no "cap" on its change and expansion? The white moth, as seen here, returned. Answer the previous question without a Point-A-straight-to-point-D explanation (IE, "There is evolution, so there must be natural selection! The end.")

Really, I could go on about this for awhile (if bears start to depopulate in an area, does the sudden growth in the dear population indicate that bears are turning into dears?). I'm sorry if this all seems somewhat hard to understand, or pointless; its 4am here and I've been up for awhile. Still, think about it: Just because something is commonly accepted in a social system doesn't mean that it actually makes sense. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking about this, but the talk page is for discussion of specific proposals for improvements to the article, not not a general forum. The article shows and discusses how research on the moths demonstrated natural selection in action, shifting the predominant colour of the population and hence by definition evolution of the general population, but not formation of a new characteristic so not evolution of a new species or subspecies. If there's something in our sources that isn't well explained, please propose discussion of the specific wording involved. . . dave souza, talk 19:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation and update

In response to edits that put other criticisms before the creationist claims but seemed to muddle the section, I've reorganised the section on the controversy to reflect the main sequence of events, and have also added an update discussing the new paper: Cook, L. M.; Grant, B. S.; Saccheri, I. J.; Mallet, J. (2012). "Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: The last experiment of Michael Majerus". Biology Letters. 8 (4): 609–612. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.1136. PMC 3391436. PMID 22319093. . dave souza, talk 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on title of taxon evolution pages

Hi, There is a thread here you may be interested in, about a consistent naming for articles dealing with evolution of taxa. Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 17:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight

Hi, you've tagged Peppered moth evolution#Controversy but so far haven't explained your reasoning on the article talk page. Please present proposals for improving the article, . dave souza, talk 18:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I wrote something on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Evolutionary_biology#Massive_undue_weight_problem_in_Peppered_moth_evolution.23Controversy but I guess you're right I should use the article talk page. Thanks for the heads up. --Cyclopia^talk 19:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just spotted that when checking I'd not missed a talk page comment by you. I think it's a useful story of misunderstandings, press misrepresentation, and various false claims being made both by Hopper and by ID creationists, resolved by further research. There could be a case for splitting the detail off into a "controversy" article and giving it a minimal mention in the main article on the topic. . dave souza, talk

The story is indeed nice, but IMHO overall the article gives too much weight to fringe views -it gave me the impression, at a glance, that it wants to describe a real scientific controversy, which is problematic. Apparently IIRC there was a split article that has been then merged. I would keep the information, just perhaps more succinct and more WP:FRINGE-compliant. --Cyclopia^talk 19:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if we can tighten it up without losing necessary detail that would be good. Perhaps there could be a better title for the section to avoid any suggestion that it's a real controversy in science, but nothing comes immediately to mind. It might also help to have a brief summary at the start of the section. Anyway, best to sort it out on the article talk page. . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I can move this thread there, for a start, if you agree. --Cyclopia^talk 22:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, my issues with the section are:

• Size compared to the rest of the article
• In particular, lots of space is for example given in the lead of the section about a single controversy about a single book (the Majerus one). It is relevant of course, but perhaps could be summarized and then the bulk moved to the book's article
• The latter part is about a supposed creationist vs evolutionists controversy. This is IMHO too lenient towards creationist and gives undue weight to creationist fringe views. The paragraph which starts with "The use of the peppered moth as an example of evolution had already come under attack by creationists who disputed it as evidence of evolution...", for example, has only an AIG article (a primary source) as representing the creationist view -it doesn't look like it's a noteworthy debate.
• In general, it seems to me that a lot of space is given to what looks like run-of-the-mill creationist viewpoints and subsequent debunking. That this has to be in the article somehow is good, but it can be summed up, and details about the reviews, answers to them etc. could mostly go in the books' articles.

Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 10:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)