# The Spotted Moth theory



## ReformedWretch

I know this theory has been proven as a fraud, but someone I am debating about it claims there are only two sources in regard to it's falsehood and because there are numerous other sources saying it isn't then that leans toward proving those two sources incorrect.


----------



## ChristianTrader

houseparent said:


> I know this theory has been proven as a fraud, but someone I am debating about it claims there are only two sources in regard to it's falsehood and because there are numerous other sources saying it isn't then that leans toward proving those two sources incorrect.



What is the theory as you know it?

CT


----------



## ReformedWretch

The peppered moth, Biston betularia (L.), is one of some 2,500 moth species found in the United Kingdom. It became a famous example of evolution by means of natural selection. after the Industrial Revolution. The typica variety of the moth is white with black speckles and is a striking lichen mimic.

Starting in about 1850 entomologists began to notice a dark morph of this moth (termed carbonaria), and a range of intermediately shaded variants (termed insularia). Over the next 50 years, the dark variety gradually became the most prevalent in regions downwind from large industrial centers, where soot and other air pollutants from factories darkened the bark of trees and killed most lichens. The rapidity and striking nature of the change drew scientific attention; in 1896 Tutt proposed that carbonaria might be better camouflaged than typica on polluted surfaces, and that therefore natural selection, in the form of relatively higher bird predation on typica might account for the spread of carbonaria in polluted regions. In 1924 J.B.S. Haldane calculated that the selection coefficient required to produce such a change must have been ~0.3, a selection coefficient much higher than had been previously thought likely for natural evolution. [Q: too technical?]

Starting in 1953, Bernard Kettlewell conducted field experiments on the peppered moth, providing hard evidence that differential bird predation based on relative camouflage was the primary selective force contributing to the different fitnesses of the moth morphs in polluted and unpolluted environments. These experiments became the famous textbook examples of evolution by natural selection in action, and have in the main been supported by numerous subsequent studies. However, due to a strange combination of a few scientific dissidents, antievolutionist propaganda and poor media coverage, the notion has become widespread that Kettlewell and the differential predation hypothesis has somehow been disproven or discredited.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Creationist response

The Peppered Moth: Evolution Comes Unglued

Almost all textbooks on evolution include the peppered moth as the classic example of evolution by natural selection. There are two types of peppered moths, a light colored speckled variety and a dark variety. Prior to the industrial revolution, almost all peppered moths were the light variety. Tree trunks at that time were covered with light colored lichens, which, as the story goes, provided camouflage for the light colored peppered moths as they rested on the tree trunks. The black variety stood out against the light bark and was easily seen and eaten by birds, thus favoring the light moths.

But the industrial revolution created pollution that eliminated the lichens and covered the tree trunks with soot. Now the dark variety of moth was camouflaged better as it rested on the dark, sooty trunks, so birds now ate more of the light moths that they could see better. Natural selection now favored the dark variety, and it became the most common form by 1950 in industrial areas of England.

When anti-pollution laws were passed in England in the 1950’s, the percentage of light moths began to increase, supposedly because lichens started growing on tree trunks again, providing the light moths with the better camouflage once more. In addition, experiments with peppered moths in the 1950’s appeared to confirm the key points of the hypothesis. The peppered moth story has been trumpeted since the 1950s as proof positive that evolution by natural selection is true. In 1978, one famous geneticist called the peppered moth the "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."

However, this "clearest case" of purported Darwinian evolution by natural selection is not true! The main problem with the peppered moth story is that it has been known since about 1980 that the nocturnal peppered moth does not rest on the trunks of trees during the day. In fact, despite over 40 years of intense field study, only two peppered moths have ever been seen naturally resting on tree trunks! Since peppered moths don’t rest on tree bark that birds can see, the entire story of camouflage from predators and subsequent natural selection falls completely apart. The experiments conducted in the 1950’s have also been discredited as flawed science.

So where did all the evolution textbook pictures of peppered moths on different colored tree trunks come from? They were all staged. The moths were glued, pinned, or placed onto tree trunks and their pictures taken. The scientists who used these pictures in their books to prove evolution all conveniently forgot to tell their readers this fact. If the best example of evolution that has been believed and used as proof by eminent evolutionary biologists for over 40 years is not true, how about all their other supposed examples? It makes you wonder, doesn’t it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

houseparent said:


> So where did all the evolution textbook pictures of peppered moths on different colored tree trunks come from? They were all staged. The moths were glued, pinned, or placed onto tree trunks and their pictures taken.



Reminds me of that Monty Python skit where the guy is returning the bird to the pet store because it was dead:

"He would have fallen over earlier if you hadn't nailed him to the perch!"

The articles are interesting. Even granting the point to evolutionists that the moth populations changed due to camoflague (which the latter article seems to disprove), it is still doesn't establish what they hope to prove. It is simply a data point through which one can draw an infinite number of lines that would explain the origin of the moths in the first place.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Thing is, the moth story is written as proof of evolution in most text books in American high schools, even though it's been a noted fake for years! Our kids are being taught this and they believe it's a fact.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

houseparent said:


> Thing is, the moth story is written as proof of evolution in most text books in American high schools, even though it's been a noted fake for years! Our kids are being taught this and they believe it's a fact.



I know that Adam. People still talk as if Giraffe's necks get long because they needed them to be. I remember seeing pics in HS Biology book of the short necked giraffe lying on the ground next to the one with a long neck.

People talk all the time of nature or the animal having some sort of teleogy.

My point wasn't to say that it wasn't used but that it can't establish, conclusively, what they want. All it is is a data point. I could explain it within a 6 day creation framework because the fact that dark moths or light moths are easier to eat by birds says nothing about their origin. It's just convenient that it fits their schema. Knowing it's a lie now is interesting but that point never convinced me anyhow.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Yea, I am just annoyed from debating this guy.


----------



## Answerman

Adam, the main point in this case is that even if natural selection can be shown to be a factor, it is selecting from a populace that has the genetic code for light and dark. This would only demonstrate micro-evolution (variation within a species or gnome) which most creationists believe that God created different species with the genetic information for variety within certain limits. I have searched for years for a single mutation in any species that has added new and different genetic information and none has ever occurred. And if you look at the chances of this happening, you find out that it would take a violation of physical laws to do so. Therefore scientists that believe that this is what happened (and they would have to believe that this had to have happened millions of times) have to believe it on "faith".


----------



## ReformedWretch

Thanks David!


----------



## VictorBravo

Yes, David pointed out the issue. Natural selection does indeed occur within a species. Some deer in the Florida Keys are quite small. Food sources were limited on the islands. The ones with a tendency to be small survived and big deer died off.

It is no different from when I kept heifers that grew faster than others, and sold off the slow ones. Over the years, I developed a herd of cows that had calves that grew to be larger than average.

In the second case, it was human-directed selection. In the first, it was environment-directed selection. In neither case is there any sort of "evolution" going on because the species doesn't change.

Same goes for plant breeding too--unless we are talking about genetic manipulation, which is an entirely different story.

By the way, I always have thought of Jacob in Genesis as a master cattle breeder.


----------



## panicbird

Even if we admit legitimate change in the moths, they are still moths! They did not change into birds or dogs. Seeing such a small change and extrapolating it out into a huge system seems to me to be a great leap of faith. It is kind of like saying, "Hey, I ran 100 feet without breaking a sweat. That probably means that I could run 100 miles too." They take a small example, assume a large amount, and then present the theory as proven.


----------

