The mutation that famously turned moths black during Industrial Revolution • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by 0xcde4c3db » Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 12:59 PM UTC

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…

There is a continuum, but it's primarily over time. Everything seems separate because you're not looking at the dimension over which it connects. If you only looked at the horizontal cross-section of a tree above the trunk, you might similarly ask "how can this be one plant when none of the parts are connected?". Well, they are. You just aren't going to see the connection in that slice.

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

#22

Post by barking » Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 1:19 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #12

barking wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense thanks. I'm not sure how a mutation that prevents breeding would be disseminated from the animal in which it occurred?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but probably this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation The point is that as long as two minimally diverse populations remain in close contact and can interbreed, most of their mutations will cross the population boundary and we will probably classify them as one species, even though both populations may look nothing like their ancestors of 10,000 years earlier. Muta…

That makes sense to me. Take two groups of animals from one species and put them in different environmental conditions, isolated from the other for long enough (maybe millions of generations?) and eventually you will end up with 2 distinct species.

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

#23

Post by Amygaz » Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 1:26 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #6

amelius wrote: post #2

> ... the science behind biology's most famous insect Wouldn't that be Drosophila?

It is a really good question what is the most famous insect in biology. There is a good case to be made for Drosophila, but I would be inclined to select Anopheles first purely on the deaths it has caused [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anopheles

Depends on your angle:

In term impact to the field of biological science, definitely Drosophila melanogaster. Lots of genetics, and now even brain research.

In term of most beneficial to humans: bees (direct economical benefits) and ants (largest environmental benefits, so indirect benefit to human)

In term of biggest threat, the debate is open, and always changing: before mosquitoes (Anopheles and Aedes), houseflies can carry a lot of diseases of every kind (parasites, bacteria, viruses). At one point it was the flea (the Black Death). Grasshopper and crickets also caused a lot of people to die from hunger, and are still significant agricultural pests. Ants and termites (crops, food supplies, infrastructures, diseases...)

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

#24

Post by tim333 » Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 1:42 PM UTC

Amygaz wrote: post #23

danieltillett wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a really good question what is the most famous insect in biology. There is a good case to be made for Drosophila, but I would be inclined to select Anopheles first purely on the deaths it has caused [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anopheles

Depends on your angle: In term impact to the field of biological science, definitely Drosophila melanogaster . Lots of genetics, and now even brain research. In term of most beneficial to humans: bees (direct economical benefits) and ants (largest environmental benefits, so indirect benefit to human) In term of biggest threat, the debate is open, and always changing: before mosquitoes ( Anopheles and Aedes ), housefl…

Mucking about with Google Trends the winner seems to be 'mosquito' for most searched.

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

#25

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 1:50 PM UTC

lanna wrote: post #13

Angostura wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? It absolutely is evolution, what it isn't is 'speciation'. For speciation to occur you would have to have enough reproductive isolation and enough time to allow for sufficient change - let's say in the range of thousands/millions of years, rather than a decade o…

> There are many clusters of species where interbreeding is possible to some extent Do not forget that the offspring itself also has to be fertile. Most hybrids aren't.

[deleted]

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

#26

Post by barking » Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 2:09 PM UTC

richmarr wrote: post #9

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…

> ...criticism of the theory of evolution that seems sensible to me ... Criticism of evolution isn't sensible, it's ignorant (which is fine). It's an observable phenomenon, each piece of which can be reasoned about without too much specialised knowledge. Being ignorant about evolution is fine, and you asked politely and seem to have an open mind, so I don't think you should be downvoted. I think people are just a bit…

>Criticism of evolution isn't sensible, it's ignorant

I am not criticising evolution. I'm not qualified to do that. It seems like it is the best explanation yet to explain the diversity of life on this planet.

Personally, I attach no credibility whatsoever to the creationists' explanations.

I do think that people, even those of us who do not know a lot about it, should be entitled to ask questions without having our motives questioned. Indeed I thought that scientific theories should always be open to criticism. To say that one theory should not be, would be to elevate it to the status of dogma.

And if people are 'very sensitive' to criticism about a particular theory, there is more than one possible explanation for that. Another might be a frustrating lack of evidence. For example, in this thread 2 posters mentioned the existence of ring species and linked to the wikipedia page for that. That page has four examples but then goes on to suggest that there is doubt as to whether these are actually examples of ring species.

To re-iterate, I would bet that evolution is probably correct, however a degree of humility, not always evident, from its adherents would do no harm. The sun, it turned out, didn't orbit the earth.

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

#27

Post by mikeash » Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

barking wrote: post #26

richmarr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...criticism of the theory of evolution that seems sensible to me ... Criticism of evolution isn't sensible, it's ignorant (which is fine). It's an observable phenomenon, each piece of which can be reasoned about without too much specialised knowledge. Being ignorant about evolution is fine, and you asked politely and seem to have an open mind, so I don't think you should be downvoted. I think people are just a bit…

>Criticism of evolution isn't sensible, it's ignorant I am not criticising evolution. I'm not qualified to do that. It seems like it is the best explanation yet to explain the diversity of life on this planet. Personally, I attach no credibility whatsoever to the creationists' explanations. I do think that people, even those of us who do not know a lot about it, should be entitled to ask questions without having our…

You clearly are criticizing the theory. You state that there is an absence of intermediate forms, give an example of an intermediate between apes and chimpanzees, and conclude by stating that you'd expect a continuum. These aren't qualified with any of the humility you demand from others, they're just stated as bare "facts."

This is typical, though. State a bunch of nonsense, then when called on it say you're just asking questions, people shouldn't be so harsh, and would it kill evolutionists to be a little more humble?

It takes a lot more effort to refute bullshit than to spew it. People naturally and rightfully get frustrated when people spew it.

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

#28

Post by barking » Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 2:34 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #27

barking wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Criticism of evolution isn't sensible, it's ignorant I am not criticising evolution. I'm not qualified to do that. It seems like it is the best explanation yet to explain the diversity of life on this planet. Personally, I attach no credibility whatsoever to the creationists' explanations. I do think that people, even those of us who do not know a lot about it, should be entitled to ask questions without having our…

You clearly are criticizing the theory. You state that there is an absence of intermediate forms, give an example of an intermediate between apes and chimpanzees, and conclude by stating that you'd expect a continuum. These aren't qualified with any of the humility you demand from others, they're just stated as bare "facts." This is typical, though. State a bunch of nonsense, then when called on it say you're just as…

Are you sure that you actually read what i wrote?

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

#29

Post by barking » Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

loudmax wrote: post #14

mikekchar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

An even more impressive demonstration is the existence of ring species: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species Here, you have a population whose geographic range is in the shape of a ring. Say, around the base of a mountain range. Members of the species may display some regional variation, but they can interbreed with their nearby kin. At some point on the ring though, there is a break. Here, regional variations…

You sent me off on a tour of the internet about this topic that I'd never previously heard of and it ended here:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/there-ar...

There are no known examples of ring species, which is a pity because it would be really cool.

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

#30

Post by tremon » Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

barking wrote: post #26

richmarr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...criticism of the theory of evolution that seems sensible to me ... Criticism of evolution isn't sensible, it's ignorant (which is fine). It's an observable phenomenon, each piece of which can be reasoned about without too much specialised knowledge. Being ignorant about evolution is fine, and you asked politely and seem to have an open mind, so I don't think you should be downvoted. I think people are just a bit…

>Criticism of evolution isn't sensible, it's ignorant I am not criticising evolution. I'm not qualified to do that. It seems like it is the best explanation yet to explain the diversity of life on this planet. Personally, I attach no credibility whatsoever to the creationists' explanations. I do think that people, even those of us who do not know a lot about it, should be entitled to ask questions without having our…

I thought that scientific theories should always be open to criticism.

They should be open to valid criticism, yes. But when their results are constantly under attack with baseless and unverifiable arguments, scientists grow weary and distrustful.

That page has four examples but then goes on to suggest that there is doubt as to whether these are actually examples of ring species.

This is an example of the kind of disingenuous arguments that evolution has to deal with; the page actually lists five examples, of which only two are disputed:

- The Larus gull, which may not fit the definition because there are subspecies that are not part of the ring (not because the existence of the ring itself is disputed).

- The Greenish warbler, which is not disputed.

- The Ensatina salamander, which is disputed. The page on the Ensatina itself suggests that there is interbreeding between all subspecies except for one, which suggests that it may actually be two separate species instead of a ring.

- The song sparrow, which is not disputed.

- The Tithymaloid splurge, which is not disputed.