Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The mutation that famously turned moths black during Industrial Revolution

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: The mutation that famously turned moths black during Industrial Revolution

#41

Post by splawn »

barking wrote: post #36
mikeash wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite sure. What do you think I got wrong, exactly?

The lack of intermediate species was something that i had thought was a big flaw in the theory of evolution. In my question, I don't think that I stated that as a fact but certainly suggested that I thought it was true. As a result of reading the answers on this thread and other internet readings I still believe that there is a lack of intermediate species but I no longer consider that to be evidence against evolutio…

everything alive falls into an "intermediate species" so, no, there is no lack of them.

Re: The mutation that famously turned moths black during Industrial Revolution

#42

Post by maxerickson »

barking wrote: post #32
mikeash wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continuous sorts of things exist: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species Living things evolve in groups which is why it's more common to have clearer lines between them, but it's not always like that.

There are no known examples of ring species it seems https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/there-ar...

There's not really species at all. Species are convenient labels for populations of similar organisms, but the only test for whether 2 organisms can and will reproduce is to see if proximity leads them to produce fertile offspring. Failing this test doesn't prove that they are not reproductively compatible.

Re: The mutation that famously turned moths black during Industrial Revolution

#43

Post by barking »

teekert wrote: post #16
barking wrote: post #3

The black moths could still mate with the peppered variety so they're still the same species just different 'breeds', perhaps, so is this really evolution? I am a layman but one criticism of the theory of evolution that seems sensible to me is the absence of intermediate forms. For example types of ape that could mate with say gorillas and chimpanzees. All the species seem very well defined when you'd expect a contin…

I think it is a good question. But where does the definition of species go when A can produce offspring with B, B can produce offspring with C but A cannot produce offspring with C? Would you be willing to label B as an intermediate form? Moreover, recognizing that the theory of evolution does not really speak of "intermediate forms" but of common ancestors, would you be willing to label an extinct (but well preserve…

I am fairly convinced of its veracity as it is.

I would just like to see more and more evidence as time goes by.

Physicists (and I'm not one of those either) seem to have a completely different attitude to evolution scientists.

Recently more evidence in support of einstein's relativity theory has been found, I believe. But they are still completely open to binning the theory if contradictory evidence appears.

There just seems to be an almost religious fervour around evolution that seems a bit unhealthy

Re: The mutation that famously turned moths black during Industrial Revolution

#44

Post by splawn »

barking wrote: post #43
teekert wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is a good question. But where does the definition of species go when A can produce offspring with B, B can produce offspring with C but A cannot produce offspring with C? Would you be willing to label B as an intermediate form? Moreover, recognizing that the theory of evolution does not really speak of "intermediate forms" but of common ancestors, would you be willing to label an extinct (but well preserve…

I am fairly convinced of its veracity as it is. I would just like to see more and more evidence as time goes by. Physicists (and I'm not one of those either) seem to have a completely different attitude to evolution scientists. Recently more evidence in support of einstein's relativity theory has been found, I believe. But they are still completely open to binning the theory if contradictory evidence appears. There j…

I agree that religious fervor of any kind is unhealthy... However evidence will always crowd out the possibility of "religious fervor". Biologists are just as open to changing their model as Physicists are they just need a reason to do so. All evidence points to evolution. You can find it in the geologic record as well as markers in every living organism's DNA. Speaking of DNA... evolution predicted its existence and mechanisms well before its discovery. Im not sure where your confusion stems from... religious fervor perhaps?

Re: The mutation that famously turned moths black during Industrial Revolution

#45

Post by barking »

maxerickson wrote: post #42
barking wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no known examples of ring species it seems https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/there-ar...

There's not really species at all. Species are convenient labels for populations of similar organisms, but the only test for whether 2 organisms can and will reproduce is to see if proximity leads them to produce fertile offspring. Failing this test doesn't prove that they are not reproductively compatible.

On that basis of that test it sounds like you could not prove that chimps and and gorillas were different species?

Re: The mutation that famously turned moths black during Industrial Revolution

#46

Post by maxerickson »

barking wrote: post #45
maxerickson wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not really species at all. Species are convenient labels for populations of similar organisms, but the only test for whether 2 organisms can and will reproduce is to see if proximity leads them to produce fertile offspring. Failing this test doesn't prove that they are not reproductively compatible.

On that basis of that test it sounds like you could not prove that chimps and and gorillas were different species?

Sure, but so what, the point is that those are arbitrary human labels.

I certainly wouldn't go around expecting them to make a baby based on what I've said, I just phrased things the way I did to try to emphasize the above point.

Re: The mutation that famously turned moths black during Industrial Revolution

#47

Post by marcosdumay »

mikekchar wrote: post #7
barking wrote: post #3

The black moths could still mate with the peppered variety so they're still the same species just different 'breeds', perhaps, so is this really evolution? I am a layman but one criticism of the theory of evolution that seems sensible to me is the absence of intermediate forms. For example types of ape that could mate with say gorillas and chimpanzees. All the species seem very well defined when you'd expect a contin…

When you have a continuum, species don't diverge. They interbreed. So the whole will just carry on. If a mutation occurs that stops interbreeding, then that line is likely to die out because of competition with the main line. However, imagine rabbits on an island. There are zillions of them everywhere and there is a wide variety of mutations. Mostly it doesn't matter because most of them can interbreed, and the ones…

> Each time, they almost all die.

It's a detail, but I think it's an important one. Evolution drivers do not have to kill most individuals. In fact, it does not have to kill any single one. Just a small decrease in fertility is enough to extinguish a genetic trait.

Killing a huge number of individuals does make it act faster, but is by no means necessary.

Re: The mutation that famously turned moths black during Industrial Revolution

#48

Post by barking »

splawn wrote: post #44
barking wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am fairly convinced of its veracity as it is. I would just like to see more and more evidence as time goes by. Physicists (and I'm not one of those either) seem to have a completely different attitude to evolution scientists. Recently more evidence in support of einstein's relativity theory has been found, I believe. But they are still completely open to binning the theory if contradictory evidence appears. There j…

I agree that religious fervor of any kind is unhealthy... However evidence will always crowd out the possibility of "religious fervor". Biologists are just as open to changing their model as Physicists are they just need a reason to do so. All evidence points to evolution. You can find it in the geologic record as well as markers in every living organism's DNA. Speaking of DNA... evolution predicted its existence and…

Yes I am sure evidence will win out in the end regardless.

Re: The mutation that famously turned moths black during Industrial Revolution

#49

Post by mikeash »

barking wrote: post #36
mikeash wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite sure. What do you think I got wrong, exactly?

The lack of intermediate species was something that i had thought was a big flaw in the theory of evolution. In my question, I don't think that I stated that as a fact but certainly suggested that I thought it was true. As a result of reading the answers on this thread and other internet readings I still believe that there is a lack of intermediate species but I no longer consider that to be evidence against evolutio…

Your concluding statement of "All the species seem very well defined when you'd expect a continuum." reads to me as an unqualified factual statement that happens to be quite wrong. (Depending on how you look at it, either the first or the second part is wrong.) That contrasted with the call for humility from people who actually understand this stuff really does not sound at all like "musings and questions" to me.

Re: The mutation that famously turned moths black during Industrial Revolution

#50

Post by splawn »

barking wrote: post #48
splawn wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that religious fervor of any kind is unhealthy... However evidence will always crowd out the possibility of "religious fervor". Biologists are just as open to changing their model as Physicists are they just need a reason to do so. All evidence points to evolution. You can find it in the geologic record as well as markers in every living organism's DNA. Speaking of DNA... evolution predicted its existence and…

Yes I am sure evidence will win out in the end regardless.

Considering we are 200 years in and have proceeded to continually make discoveries in Biology to the point of engineering technologies that drastically extend our life spans... All without finding anything contrary to natural selection. I would say evidence as far as this topic is concerned has already won out.
Post reply on HN