Paul

This is amazing a dodgy experiment which proves microevolution
somehow is cited as evidence for macroevolution.

what I would like to know is was this acheived by sexual variation or mutation? Although this experiment was not correctly
done. Is there any prove that the black moth which had no advantage was a varient of the grey moth or were both spieces living along side each other before the industry caused cause the black moth to appear is their evidence that the black moth was not a minority and then due to a population shift became the dominate moth.

Paul

Well entire forests were covered with sediment and the pressure
caused coal to form rapidly.

Paul

genetic?

what about the hamsters?

RufusAtticus

Find me a single biological source that uses peppered moths as evidence for macroevolutionary change. Until you do so, you are only arguing against a strawman.

Genetic variation is the product of mutation. The black & white morphs are controled by different alleles at the same autosomal locus.

Really? Would you happen to be able to quote the errors in Ketterwell's papers?

Yeap. Hobbists in Britian have maintained moth collections for a long time. If you have actually read anything about the experiment, you would see that the researchers were able to use historical records to show the flucuations in allele frequency in the population did happen in the past and coincided with the industrial revolution and subsequent polution clean up.

RufusAtticus

Reference from petro-geology literature please.

RufusAtticus

What about them? You got any evidence to support your claims? Science is pretty clear about human-chimp similarity.

Paul

Ar'nt small microevolutionary changes ment to bring about macroevolutionary changes such as the developement of a new organ

RufusAtticus

The accumulation of microevolutionary difference leads too macroevolutionary differences. This has been well supported by Genetics and evolutionary theory by over 40 years. However, you claimed that the peppered moth was used as evidence for macroevolution, which is false. Look at any biological textbook. It is evidence for the power of selection to opperate of phenotypic variation and how selection changes with a changing environment.

Mageth

Posted by Paul:

And maybe also tell me why Humans are more geneticly similar to Hamsters then Apes.
...
what about the hamsters?

I'm curious to see what you're basing this claim on.

I think you're getting confused because the mouse genome has been mapped and found to be remarkably similar to the human genome (the mouse is a close relative of the hamster; I don't think the hamster genome has been fully mapped). That's one reason mice (and hamsters, I suppose) make such excellent lab animals.

But note that while "mice and men" share about 80% of their genes, humans and chimps/bonobos share about 98-99% of their genes.

gcameron

I thought that had been downgraded to ~95%? Can't remember where I read that, but I saw it somewhere recently...