Volcanic Eruptions Caused Ancient Warming And Cooling

[HAL 9000 96]

Or the Great ####### in the UK. This is the original species studied by Tutt. You know- the guy that came up with the theory in the first place that predation was removing white moths from soot-covered trees more than 100 years ago. There was no glue involved in that experiment either.

And Great Tits are nocturnal...

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Plus it would bear to state that a photo op is precisely that.

Predation based on mimicry (camouflage) is then the study is it not? Even if the original experiment glued the moth to the tree, if the bird can't see it, it won't swoop down to pick it. Imagine someone spending years capturing or raising moths to glue on trees to then create data based on that. Still valid. Unless you'd like to argue that the birds have smell from flight or more than 25m away... by all means I'm all ears. But that isn't the case, and bird brains do not have a huge amount of brain space dedicated to olfactory processes. There's another Chicago researcher called Cliff Ragsdale you should look up on that too.

You just proved that you don't read what I say either.

Birds do not eat the moths - Birds diurnal, moths nocturnal - do not rest on trees. There has never been an instance where birds were naturally observed eating the moths. Yet in almost every science textbook its still there in black and white.

I don't care about whether its about evolution or creation in this instance. Its just a strange tactic to use when there are far better examples of variation.

Its still there because the experiments have been validated.

Predation is a fact of life.

The whole premise is false. That the bark on the trees was lighter or darker based on the pollution. This made darker or lighter moths more vulnerable during the day depending on the situation.

THE MOTHS DO NOT REST ON THE BARK OF TREES DURING THE DAY - AND SCIENTISTS STILL DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY GO - BIRDS ARE NOT AWAKE EATING MOTHS AT NIGHT - SO THEREFORE ITS BS

So the grad students I know that collect starlings from 1AM until 4AM must be full of #######. Or the collections from 2PM until 5PM.

And STARLINGS ARE BIRDS.

(and they eat moths, among other bugs)

Seriously Joe... please... if you don't know what you're getting yourself into... don't play.

Hal you know you are being dishonest here. The "validation" did not examine the stomach contents of starlings, nor did they ever observe starlings eating the peppered moth.

The birds observed eating the glued on peppered moths were not starlings and happened in the middle of the day. You should know that starlings are almost exclusively TERRESTRIAL insect eaters, and could not effect the variation of a non-terrestrial moth. They eat almost exclusively terrestrial beatles, and dig them from grass/dirt.. They are limited to these. They are not suited to picking moths out of trees.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Peppered Moths and Natural Selection.

Another common criticism involves well-known pictures of moths resting on trunks, used in many textbooks. These photos were prepared (dead moths pinned to branches), which has been conflated into the idea that all the studies were staged, ignoring the point that professional photography to illustrate textbooks uses dead insects because of the considerable difficulty in getting good images of small, relatively fast moving, animals, and that the studies actually consisted of observational data rather than using such photographs. The photographs in Michael Majerus's 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action are unstaged pictures of live moths in the wild, and the photographs of moths on tree-trunks, apart from some slight blurring, look no different than the "staged" photographs.[19]

Furthermore, while an experiment did involve the gluing of dead moths to trees, this practice was just one of many different ways used to study different individual elements of the overall hypothesis. This particular experiment was not meant to exactly reproduce natural conditions, but instead was used to assess how the numbers of moths available (their density) affected the foraging practices of birds

And the references used in the wiki article - here and here.

[HAL 9000 96]

Plus it would bear to state that a photo op is precisely that.

Predation based on mimicry (camouflage) is then the study is it not? Even if the original experiment glued the moth to the tree, if the bird can't see it, it won't swoop down to pick it. Imagine someone spending years capturing or raising moths to glue on trees to then create data based on that. Still valid. Unless you'd like to argue that the birds have smell from flight or more than 25m away... by all means I'm all ears. But that isn't the case, and bird brains do not have a huge amount of brain space dedicated to olfactory processes. There's another Chicago researcher called Cliff Ragsdale you should look up on that too.

You just proved that you don't read what I say either.

Birds do not eat the moths - Birds diurnal, moths nocturnal - do not rest on trees. There has never been an instance where birds were naturally observed eating the moths. Yet in almost every science textbook its still there in black and white.

I don't care about whether its about evolution or creation in this instance. Its just a strange tactic to use when there are far better examples of variation.

Its still there because the experiments have been validated.

Predation is a fact of life.

The whole premise is false. That the bark on the trees was lighter or darker based on the pollution. This made darker or lighter moths more vulnerable during the day depending on the situation.

THE MOTHS DO NOT REST ON THE BARK OF TREES DURING THE DAY - AND SCIENTISTS STILL DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY GO - BIRDS ARE NOT AWAKE EATING MOTHS AT NIGHT - SO THEREFORE ITS BS

So the grad students I know that collect starlings from 1AM until 4AM must be full of #######. Or the collections from 2PM until 5PM.

And STARLINGS ARE BIRDS.

(and they eat moths, among other bugs)

Seriously Joe... please... if you don't know what you're getting yourself into... don't play.

Hal you know you are being dishonest here. The "validation" did not examine the stomach contents of starlings, nor did they ever observe starlings eating the peppered moth.

The birds observed eating the glued on peppered moths were not starlings and happened in the middle of the day. You should know that starlings are almost exclusively TERRESTRIAL insect eaters, and could not effect the variation of a non-terrestrial moth. They eat almost exclusively terrestrial beatles, and dig them from grass/dirt.. They are limited to these. They are not suited to picking moths out of trees.

I did not claim that starlings were the birds in the validation study.

Since you have done some googling or gotten some kind of indoctrination on the topic (likely from misquoted Coyne papers)... google Michael Majerus. His work validating Tutts' hypothesis isn't exactly what Coyne stated as invalidatory. As a matter of fact, Coyne has disagreed with the validation experiment on no account.

Do not fall prey to misinterpretation of Coyne's work as do others that purposefully misrepresent his work. As a matter of fact, Coyne and Majerus have spoken on this topic and agreed far more than you will ever accept as fact.

Peppered Moths and Natural Selection.

Another common criticism involves well-known pictures of moths resting on trunks, used in many textbooks. These photos were prepared (dead moths pinned to branches), which has been conflated into the idea that all the studies were staged, ignoring the point that professional photography to illustrate textbooks uses dead insects because of the considerable difficulty in getting good images of small, relatively fast moving, animals, and that the studies actually consisted of observational data rather than using such photographs. The photographs in Michael Majerus's 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action are unstaged pictures of live moths in the wild, and the photographs of moths on tree-trunks, apart from some slight blurring, look no different than the "staged" photographs.[19]

Furthermore, while an experiment did involve the gluing of dead moths to trees, this practice was just one of many different ways used to study different individual elements of the overall hypothesis. This particular experiment was not meant to exactly reproduce natural conditions, but instead was used to assess how the numbers of moths available (their density) affected the foraging practices of birds

And the references used in the wiki article - here and here.

Like I said- a photo op is a photo op.

[Ban Hammer 13,676]

And Great Tits are nocturnal...

*plans to stay up later now*

[HAL 9000 96]

And Great Tits are nocturnal...

*plans to stay up later now*

They are killers.