Peppered Moth

[Valjean]

It does, and even a lot longer, how long did it take for the moth to even appear as a moth.

Sometimes it takes thousands of years, sometimes it's fast. Largely depends how much need there is to adapt.
You can create a strain of penicillin resistant bacteria just by stopping a one week course of antibiotics on the third day. Pretty quick, eh?
Then again, in a stable environment there might be no selective pressure at all and no change for millions of years.

 

[psychoslice]

Sometimes it takes thousands of years, sometimes it's fast. Largely depends how much need there is to adapt.
You can create a strain of penicillin resistant bacteria just by stopping a one week course of antibiotics on the third day. Pretty quick, eh?
Then again, in a stable environment there might be no selective pressure at all and no change for millions of years.

Yes that's true, just imagine how long it took for us as humans to be fully developed as we are today, mind boggling.

 

[Walter Russell]

What is this wall, this limit on gene expression? How does it work? How does DNA know when to stop changing so as to avoid becoming a new species?

DNA can be mixed and rearranged again endlessly, like letters in a book. Every time an organism reproduces there are mutations and sexual selection. The whole point of sex is to mix genes up and produce variation.
How do you explain the observed examples of speciation? How did that happen?
How do you explain ring species?

What?! That's absurd. It implies no such thing. You really have no grasp of even the basics of biology, do you?
Evolution doesn't improve. It adapts -- to new or changing environmental conditions. London underground mosquitoes aren't an improvement on above ground mosquitoes. Nylon or antibiotic eating bacteria aren't improvements, they're adaptations to new niches.



OK. Tell me at what point the red turns to blue? How can a series of minute changes result in a whole new color, rather than just a variation in shade?

Which post?

I'm not into circular debating so this will be my last statement which is the same as its been.

Genes can do no more than what they have information to do. The limit of the expression is the limit of the information.

Natural Selection, survival of the fittest, to say that evolution or adaptation either one, would not be to make improvements to the species which would be beneficial and the only reason such a process would have cause to evole is absurd.
If your talking micro organisms I could agree on the niches. That doesn't mean the same would hold true on a larger scale due to complexity, reproduction rates etc...

The thing about the colors is that they are both just different aspects of the one white from which they were divided. So seperate parts of the same thing isn't relative to this discussion.

I respect your view, its just not mine because it isn't irrefutable and too many things in the way it propagated just don't add up for me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. You don't even have gravity right, how can I trust you on evolution? :/

What exactly do I have wrong? Are you saying the forces that pull planets together and the force that pulls a pencil to the surface of the earth aren't the same force? Are you arguing that adaptation is somehow a different process from evolution? If so, then what do you call the process which CAUSES adaptation?

As for the rest, sure, I can see your having trouble following so i'll walk you through it.

The article is showcasing the peppered moth evolving per its color change.
This in your mind is an evolutionary step, meaning progressive change.

My statement was that pigmentation differences in humans is no different.
So let me rephrase and ask, Is the newly black colored moth progressing toward an evolutionary change that will at some point cause it to be classified as a new species?

I still don't think you understand. ANY amount of change in a populations of organisms is CAUSED by evolution, because evolution is the NAME we give to the process that causes this change. Whether or not changes WILL lead to speciation in all cases is uncertain, but a large number of changes similar to what happened to the peppered moth can and have been observed to the result in speciation, such as in the case of ring species.

If so than due to Natural Selection, it would be an improvement over its current classification correct?

An "improvement"? Only in the sense that it would provide an advantage in a given environment. The peppered moth hasn't just flatly "improved" on its predecessor - it has merely adapted better to its current environment.

Also if this is the case than the same would apply to humans based on our race.

See above.

That was the reasoning for the eugenics question because there was a time when that very belief was held, so I was inferring that this article when when applied to race is just a rehashing of an old and very bad idea in new packaging and a dangerous one at that.

It's only dangerous if you don't actually understand evolution. When you actually understand how the process works, it can't be used as a justification for eugenics or racism.

If you can show me that the peppered moth didn't already have the genetic information imbedded in its DNA and thus engineered the information on its on and made the change, then that would interest me.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160601141528.htm

No disrespect intended, its just that science as its been given to us is incomplete and not irrefutable like too many too often claim.

It's only as "incomplete" as your understanding of it appears to be. If you think evolution is some sort of progressive "improvement" rather than adaptation, and if you think adaptation and speciation are caused by different processes, and you think evolution can provide a justification for eugenics or racism, then perhaps your understanding of evolution is lacking. It's not the fault of science that you have made poor attempts to understand it.

Politics in science is a real thing.

Evidence of this, please?

 

[David M]

rapid evolutionary change

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36424768

And we are taught evolutionary change takes thousands of years.

No we aren't. We are told that it can take thousands of generations for major changes (but the rates do depend on selective pressures). In humans yes that equates to many tens of thousands of years. For other species not so much.

The evolution of the peppered moth was not a major change in morphology.

 

[jeager106]

I should have said I was referring to humans and primates and other animals
I wan't thinking of insects.

 

[metis]

rapid evolutionary change

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36424768

And we are taught evolutionary change takes thousands of years.

Certainly not always. Bacteria and viruses can change quite dramatically over a very short period of time. The main factor is the reproductive rates relating to time.