Talk:Peppered moth

message: Article Peppered moth references listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 30 to May 7 2004, consensus was to keep and move to Talk:Peppered moth/references.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peppered moth references for discussion.  -- Graham  :) | Talk 14:23, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD

message: I have read in "Signs of Intelligence" edited by William A. Dembski that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks for significant lengths of time.  Can anybody verify that for me with another credible source and maybe correct it?
-TT
:See this image. -Silence 00:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which makes it perfectly clear that they rest on tree bark. Question: how many birds exist sympatrically with this moth that are able to pick off a sizeable lepidopteran directly from a vertical tree trunk? Nuthatches and treecreepers are too small, so the answer is "a few woodpeckers, which do not normally feed on Lepidoptera". So there you have it: rather than weakening the evolutionary case of the peppered moth, the observation that they do not very often rest on tree trunks actually strengthens it - because their most favorite resting places have a much higher incidence of predation than do tree trunks... Dysmorodrepanis 16:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please verify

message: I may be wrong, but the section on the evolution of the peppered moth seems biased.  Some theories are left out, while only the easily disputed ones are included. Mike6271 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that this section was very POVed, and it also included a lot of excessive details and had a lack of structure. I've heavily rewritten the entire article, including trimming off many of those details from that section, so as to provide the important facts as concisely as possible. If the removed information is important and NPOV, it should be reinstated at Peppered moth evolution, where there's more room to cover it fairly. -Silence 01:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "controversy" is now well covered at Peppered moth evolution, if it's mentioned here at all it has to show creationist allegations in the context of the overwhelming majority expert view, per WP:FRINGE and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". In my opinion a brief outline is preferable, as at present. Other opinions? . . dave souza, talk 13:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The scientific community does not acknowledge the meaningfulness of the term "kind", which has no proper definition, is based on a vague, unscientific extension of the way a few animals were described in the bible, and corresponds roughly to the way a child or someone without biological knowledge might classify animals. Neither is Genesis a valid source for information according to the scientific method. As the paragraph below is an non-specialist opinion, based on the non-scientific concept of kind and on the interpretation of Genesis (according to the author's website), it does not merit a place in a scientific article about a species of moth. [Such an opinion would be fine in a forum discussion on the Internet]. Also note that evolution is entirely comprised of steps which can be described as "microevolution".
According to the Young Earth creationist Dr. Tommy Mitchell of Answers in Genesis, the example of peppered moths only represents a case of natural selection, and not of evolution, as a population of a "kind" of moth turned into simply a population of another "kind" of moth. While it is true that this example shows natural selection causing microevolution within a species, it demonstrates rapid and obvious adaptiveness with such change.
It is however, entirely appropriate to make it clear in the article that the adaptation involved did not amount to speciation, based on scientific evidence for this fact. Elroch (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience in a scientific article 

message: Hi, here are some of my thoughts regarding the wiki page; I am currently in a biology course that plans on researching butterflies and editing other wiki pages. Overall, I agree with the high-importance, B-class ranking because even though the article does lack some details and other categories that could have made the page even better, all in all, the descriptions and information seems solid. However, on the Talk page, it mentions that the page should be better organized, information split into more specific sections; this comment I agree with very much. It was very hard to determine where to find certain information because it was all written in major paragraph forms. For example, when looking for potential predators, the information was hidden within the life cycles section. Better organization would improve this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.109.40 (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Behavioral Ecology Class

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Peppered moth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615081639/http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf to http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007043307/http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2893896.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2893896.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702152449/http://www.streaming.mmu.ac.uk/cook/ to http://www.streaming.mmu.ac.uk/cook/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724145125/http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/Darwiniandisciple.pdf to http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/Darwiniandisciple.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615081639/http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf to http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615081721/http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/SwedenPepperedmoth2007Ppt.pdf to http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/SwedenPepperedmoth2007Ppt.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117061649/http://www.recercaenaccio.cat/agaur_reac/AppJava/en/interactiu/20091218-betularia.jsp to http://www.recercaenaccio.cat/agaur_reac/AppJava/en/interactiu/20091218-betularia.jsp/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "It is mostly found in the northern hemisphere in places like Asia, Europe and North America."  what other places are 'like' these places in the northern hemisphere?--2607:FEA8:FF01:4E54:D504:381C:8C1E:478C (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "places like"