Patrick O'Brian Discussion Forum


Re^4: What?

YA


My point was he denies adaptation occurs, then describes the process of adaption.
"...the famous moths didn't adapt... light-winged moths started to die off, and dark-winged moths correspondingly prospered."

If his implication is that the light winged moths died of depression at not being able to affect color change by force of will, I missed it, and it's moot to my point.  

Anyway, here's proof of Lamarkianism:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbLSFECkhx0


On Fri Aug 25, akatow wrote
---------------------------
>I'm missing your point.  The NYT's article was stating the Lamarckian solution (swapped speckled wings), not Bob.

>But Bob said, "We were told....etc" as if that had been presented to him at some time as a fact.  I certainly hope that is not the case.

>And I'd be really happy if the 'Trilobites' author rewrote that piece to reflect reality because it's the same fuzzy logic as what the Flat Earth Society is using,e.g. -  The horizon is flat therefore the Earth must be flat.  Don't you believe what your own eyes tell you?

>The moths didn't swap out their wings and the snakes didn't change their color.

>On Fri Aug 25, YA wrote
>-----------------------
>>"light-winged moths started to die off, and dark-winged moths correspondingly prospered."

>>Or, ya know, the population adapted through natural selection.

>>Enjoy your game of pigeon chess, I'll be over here popping popcorn.

>>On Fri Aug 25, akatow wrote
>>---------------------------
>>>Beware the uneducated...

>>>Check out YouTube for a stupendous amount of stupidity related to 'proof' of the Earth being flat.  These people are serious - they have 'proof'. Mathematics, Physics and Logic are not subjects with which they are familiar.

>>>What does this sentence mean? -

>>>"We were told at the time that they did, but I gather the later conclusion is that light-winged moths started to die off, and dark-winged moths correspondingly prospered."

>>>Who are 'We' and who told you that?  This happened 150 years ago - in Europe.

>>>YOU should never have been told that was true in any American science class.

>>>The black/white moth scenario is a classic example of Charles Darwin's Natural Selection. The white moths die off; the black moths live to procreate.

>>>Lamarck's theory was that species could 'adapt' (alter their appearance, or whatever other change was necessary) within a single lifetime and pass that change onto their progeny.

>>>Genetics, anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Fri Aug 25, Bob Bridges wrote
>>>--------------------------------
>>>>The article says in part "It’s sort of like the moths in Europe that swapped speckled for black wings during the Industrial Revolution, evading hungry birds by blending in with coal dust."  I read that without a qualm the first time through, forgetting until just now that the famous moths didn't adapt.  We were told at the time that they did, but I gather the later conclusion is that light-winged moths started to die off, and dark-winged moths correspondingly prospered.

>>>>I have a hard time taking the Flat-Earth society seriously, by the way.  I got the impression somewhere that it's sort of an insider joke, that they don't really believe the earth is flat.  I shouldn't underestimate the stupidity potential—maybe a few do—but not the membership as a whole, surely.

>>>>On Sat Aug 19, akatow wrote
>>>>---------------------------
>>>>>First we have the swelling ranks of the 'Flat Earth Society', now we have a 'Science' writer for the NYT talking about moths, pigeons and sea snakes 'adapting' (quickly, no less) to pollution!!!!

>>>>>LaMarck would be proud.

>>>>>On Sat Aug 19, Hoyden wrote
>>>>>---------------------------
>>>>>>www.nytimes


[ Previous ] [ Next ] [ Index ]           Fri Aug 25
[ Reply ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]           This message read 62 times
[ DIGEST ]