• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Truth About Peppered Moths

Status
Not open for further replies.

thekawasakikid

Active Member
Sep 11, 2003
191
1
52
Glasgow
✟22,827.00
Faith
Christian
My university course (10+ yrs ago ) included the text-book case of the evolution of the peppered moth due to the Industrial Revolution changing their environment.

My friend who is a YEC, discounted the example, saying there were always black peppered moths in the population and that it wasn't therefore evolution. At the time, he told me that the scientific community had withdrawn their interpretation of what had happened to the peppered moth.

Three weeks ago, I was at the Natural History Museum in London. They have a Darwin exhibition and they included the peppered moth as an example of evolutionary theory.

This Sunday, my friend delivered the class - on transitional forms. He also discussed (and again rejected as a preposterous falsification) the evolutionary interpretation of the peppered moth.

Due to circumstances which are outwith the subject of this thread, I kept my mouth shut. However, I was confused and slightly alarmed. I don't for a minute believe that the Natural History Museum would use an example of evolution which had subsequently been disproven, as proof which supports the theory. So does YEC have a valid alternative and if so, what is the Natural History Museum's game?
 

Underdog77

Active Member
May 27, 2004
340
8
38
Edmond, OK
✟23,064.00
Faith
Non-Denom
First of all, there are many evolutionists who will use anything for as long as they can to support evolution, even if it has been discredited.

Some people do not know the real story about peppered moths so here it is:

In Europe there are trees with white bark. The white moths could land on these trees and camoflauge with them and this helped protect them from being eaten by birds. Now the black moths couldn't do this, they would land and because they were black they would be an easy target to see for the birds. Needless to say the percentage of white moths was very high and the percentage of black ones was extremely low.

As the industrial movement progressed, smoke and ash would be released into the air, much of this turned the bark of trees dark. Now the black moths could land on these trees and be safe but the white moths were now the ones that were easily seen and consequently eaten.

Evolutionists would say that because the trees turned dark the moth evolved in order to survive in its habitat. But Creationists would say that because the birds could at first see the black moths easily they got eaten more often and all people saw were the white moths. But when the tree bark turned color, the black moths could hid better and the white ones were eaten more, therefore the people saw mostly black moths around.

I believe the second explanation is the better and most logical.
 
Reactions: TwinCrier
Upvote 0

thekawasakikid

Active Member
Sep 11, 2003
191
1
52
Glasgow
✟22,827.00
Faith
Christian
Underdog77 said:
First of all, there are many evolutionists who will use anything for as long as they can to support evolution, even if it has been discredited...

Really??? Sweeping statement, anyone?


My question was whether either interpretation was incontrovertibly provable - or are these simply two interpretations?

If the evolutionary argument has been proven (and I use that word, as in my OP, on purpose) to be false, why does it still persist in the Natural History Museum?

Conversely, if it has not been disproven and your closing paragraph is the creationist's take on the situation, then it is entirely wrong for creationists to state unequivocally that, in this case, evolutionary theory has yet again found to be wanting.

I should come clean and admit that currently I lean towards TE but that the overriding reason for posting this is that I'd just really like a straighforward, honest answer rather than a partisan defence of one side of the argument or another.

Thanks, Underdog, for your post...

...an overtired and slightly irritable kawasakikid
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Kenneth Miller has done a web page on this very subject. Your friend has clearly been reading Jonathan Wells.

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Elephant stuff/Chapters/Ch 14/Moths/Moth-Update.html
http://faculty.wm.edu/bsgran/melanism.pdf

Underdog - given flood geology, vapour canopies, "lost squadrons", moon dust and seawater residence times, your opening paragraph is one of the worst examples of the pot calling the kettle black I've seen in a long time. I defy you to name a single discredited evidence that is still used by the mainstream science community. For each you can produce, I will produce three used by creationists on a virtually daily basis on these boards.

I'll even give you the first three for free:

(1) Sea creatures on top of mount everest confound mainstream geology but are easily explained by the flood.

(2) Polystrate trees go through millions of years' worth of layers.

(3) Archaeopteryx is a modern bird.

Your go. Put up or shut up.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP


Check my post (#398) on this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t726062&page=40

It's a brief history of how creationism's definitions of evolution have changed since Darwin's day, including the recent move to label as "evolution" only a change that fits their version of "one kind turning into another".

As far as creationists are concerned, even an actual speciation---where you clearly have a new species produced, is NOT evolution, if the new species is the same "kind" as the old. Getting a new species of fruit fly or sunflower or salamander or gull is, by their lights, NOT evolution because the new species is "still a fruit fly, sunflower, salamander, gull, etc."

The Natural History Museum, is, understandably using a scientific definition of evolution which is something along the lines of "a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to another."

In the case of the pepper moth, the gene for pigmentation comes in two forms. (And yes, black moths existed long before industrialization. They constituted less than 5% of the pepper moth population and were highly sought after by collectors because of their rarity.)

During the period of industrialization, the frequency of the allele for melanism increased. After pollution controls became common, the frequency of that allele decreased. That fits the scientific definition of evolution.

Kettlewell's work also established that bird predation and the camouflage involved in having the appropriate colour for the environment were important factors.

That is what makes the pepper moth a valid example of natural selection. It is not, and never was, an example of mutation, nor of speciation.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
To really look at natural selection in a real world setting read:
The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time
by Jonathan Weiner

here is my review of this excellent book

there are several more chapters, i didnt finish the review
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wait, so...

If because of the birds eating the others, there's mostly black moths left, won't they be more likely to have black moth children? So, in other words... Wouldn't the creationist explanation give you the exact claim made by the evolution folks?
 
Upvote 0

Underdog77

Active Member
May 27, 2004
340
8
38
Edmond, OK
✟23,064.00
Faith
Non-Denom
No. The evolutionist would say that because the trees turned colors the white moths evolved to survive and that gave us black moths as well as white ones.

The Creationists would this is truly survival of the fittest. The black moths were not fit to survive the environment (white trees) at first so they were usually picked off. But as the trees turned color it was the white moths who weren't adequately equipped and they became the ones who were eaten while the black moths survived easily.
 
Upvote 0

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,619
935
60
✟43,600.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Underdog77 said:
Evolutionists would say that because the trees turned dark the moth evolved in order to survive in its habitat.
no, evolutionists would say this proves natural selection. When the trees turned dark, the moths with the gene telling it to be dark had a naturally better chance of surviving and reproducing, thus furthering the gene that made them dark. The white ones previously had the advantage with the same mechanism. Natural selection says not only that the fittest have the best chance of survival, but that the fittest have the best chance to reproduce over generations and thus preserve their own genetic code
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Underdog77 said:
No. The evolutionist would say that because the trees turned colors the white moths evolved to survive and that gave us black moths as well as white ones.

Huh? I don't think you understand the evolutionary explanation of this.


Well, yeah. That's the evolutionary theory, in a nutshell; over time, the population adapts to match the environment, because the fittest survive more often.
 
Upvote 0

Underdog77

Active Member
May 27, 2004
340
8
38
Edmond, OK
✟23,064.00
Faith
Non-Denom
seebs said:
Huh? I don't think you understand the evolutionary explanation of this.
Then please explain it to me.


Well, yeah. That's the evolutionary theory, in a nutshell; over time, the population adapts to match the environment, because the fittest survive more often.
Evolution=change correct?
If so then there no genetical change going on here at all. All that is happening is one kind is surviving better than the other. Nothing new is being produced, just more of one moth than the other.


Natural selection does not benefit evolution. It doesn't hinder it but it doesn't give proof that it happened at all. I don't see how/why some evolutionists use it as proof.
 
Upvote 0

Underdog77

Active Member
May 27, 2004
340
8
38
Edmond, OK
✟23,064.00
Faith
Non-Denom
1) I have heard some say that the moths evolved. If that's not your view then pardon me.

2) Yippy. Natural selection is true. So what? That doesn't help or hinder the evolution belief. Nothing new was produced therefore evolution has not occured.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Underdog77 said:
Then please explain it to me.

I'm trying.

Evolution=change correct?

Yes.

If so then there no genetical change going on here at all. All that is happening is one kind is surviving better than the other. Nothing new is being produced, just more of one moth than the other.

So?

If in 1960, 70% of moths are white, and in 1970, 70% of moths are black, that's a change.

There's two separate questions here. One is whether a trait can become more or less common over time. Another is where traits come from.

The moths show how a trait can become more common over time.

Natural selection does not benefit evolution. It doesn't hinder it but it doesn't give proof that it happened at all. I don't see how/why some evolutionists use it as proof.

It's proof of the core claim, which is that, no matter how you get there, if you have a species in which there are different characteristics, over time, the more successful ones will become more popular.

So.

You grant, I take it, that, if we have both white and black moths, and the trees are white, that we will gradually see more white moths survive, until most of the surviving moths are white.

What happens if the moths are all black, and the trees are white, and a genetic "defect" makes an albino moth? That albino moth has a very good chance of surviving to have offspring, which will likely also be albino. Over the course of a number of generations, that one "freak" defect could spread and become commonplace.

That's why this matters so much; natural selection is what gets us from a one-time mutation to a widespread trait, if that trait is proving to be a reproductive advantage!
 
Upvote 0

Underdog77

Active Member
May 27, 2004
340
8
38
Edmond, OK
✟23,064.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Excellant. You are explaining what I'm saying. The two questions are whether a trait can become more or less common over time (natural selection) and where do the traits come from (evolution/creationism).

The pepper moths explain the first question but have nothing to do with the second.


You are assuming the blacks produced the whites when there is no evidence for that happening or it happening the other way around. Its just a guess.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Underdog77 said:
No. The evolutionist would say that because the trees turned colors the white moths evolved to survive and that gave us black moths as well as white ones.


Incorrect. It is documented that the black moths did NOT first appear during industrialization. They are referred to in zoologists' records and in the records of butterfly and moth collectors hundreds of years before they became common. They are referred to in pre-industrial writings as being extremely rare, not non-existant.

What happened in the soot-blackened areas of England in the 19th century was that this rare form of pepper moth became common.

The TOE explains why.

The better camouflaged moth was less likely to be picked off by predatory birds, leaving the less well camouflaged moth with fewer numbers to reproduce. Kettlewell's studies confirmed this.

That is natural selection. That is the mechanism of evolution which Darwin introduced in Origin of Species.

That's why pepper moths appear in text-books on evolution; it's a clear, easy-to-understand example of natural selection.

If creationists agree with this scenario, they are simply agreeing that Darwin was right and natural selection does lead to changes in the characteristics of a species, based on fitness.

But how would creationists explain it without using the theory of evolution?
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Underdog77 said:
Evolution=change correct?
If so then there no genetical change going on here at all. All that is happening is one kind is surviving better than the other. Nothing new is being produced, just more of one moth than the other.

Exactly. That is why this is a model of natural selection---which is a mechanism of evolution---not evolution itself.

The pepper moth is not an example of new traits emerging; both forms already existed.

It is not an example of speciation; both are varieties of the same species and are interfertile.

That is why we can focus in on the natural selection---because it is not necessary to look at other factors here.



Natural selection does not benefit evolution.

Natural selection is one of the most important driving forces of evolution. Natural selection is what preserves favorable variations (as shown in the pepper moth scenario.) When new favorable variations are added to favorable variations already acquired earlier, the accumulation of these variations over time changes the population to the point that it becomes a new species.

That is evolution.

In the pepper moth case, we are looking at only one variation (and a temporary one at that)--so we did not get a new species. But adding variation to variation to variation to variation over time will eventually get you to a new species.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Underdog77 said:
1) I have heard some say that the moths evolved. If that's not your view then pardon me.

The moths did evolve. But remember, evolution is what happens to species. It does not happen to individuals.

So nothing happened to the white moths to make them turn black (nor did anything happen to the black moths to make them turn white after pollution controls stopped the soot from blackening the landscape).

What happened was that in the species as a whole, black moths became more common than before.

That is what is meant by the species evolving.

Why did they become more common?

Natural selection.

How so?

Well, natural selection operates by means of "differential reproductive success".

During industrialization, more black moths were born than white moths. Why? Because there were more black mummies and daddies.
Why? Because birds were eating lots of white moths and not so many black moths.
Why? The black moths had better camouflage and could hide better from the birds.

Prior to industrialization and after pollution controls, the scenario works in reverse.

This is exactly what Darwin predicted.

We have seen the same thing again in the recent study of the Galapagos finches that showed beaks changing year to year depending on the climate and the available food.

2) Nothing new was produced therefore evolution has not occured.

Depends on what you mean by "new" doesn't it? A new population of mostly black moths replaced a population of mostly white moths due to natural selection.

That is precisely how evolution works.

If you think this is not evolution, then you have some incorrect ideas about what evolution is, and you should change those ideas.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Underdog77 said:
Excellant. You are explaining what I'm saying. The two questions are whether a trait can become more or less common over time (natural selection) and where do the traits come from (evolution/creationism).


Now I see where you are going off base with your definitions.

Evolution is not a matter of where the traits come from. Evolution is about the impact of the new traits on reproductive success. The new traits are often produced by genetic mutation. But genetic mutation is not evolution. You can have lots and lots of genetic mutation without having evolution at all.

Scenario 1. The mutation occurs in a non-coding part of the genome and does not produce a new trait at all. No evolution

Scenario 2. The mutation produces a new trait that is harmful to the organism. Natural selection will repress the new trait and maintain the species at its status quo. No evolution.

Scenario 3. The mutation produces a new trait that is neither helpful nor harmful. The new trait will spread through the species until a Mendelian balance is reached. There will be more diversity in the species. This is a small-scale type of evolution.

Scenario 4. The mutation produces a new trait which is beneficial. The organisms which possess this trait will generally have more reproductive success (because proportionally more live to maturity, attract a mate, produce more children, have more children survive to maturity). Before too long nearly every organism exhibits the new trait. This is evolution.

When Scenario 4 is repeated many times, the species may differ so much from its ancestor that it is, to all intents and purposes, a new species.



You are assuming the blacks produced the whites when there is no evidence for that happening or it happening the other way around. Its just a guess.

At some point in their history, the moths developed two forms. We don't know which came first, but either a black moth became white or a white moth became black. Otherwise, the two different forms would not both exist in the species.

(Unless you want to propose that God created each variant separately. That was the belief of 19th century creationists.)
 
Upvote 0

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,619
935
60
✟43,600.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Underdog77 said:
1) I have heard some say that the moths evolved. If that's not your view then pardon me.

2) Yippy. Natural selection is true. So what? That doesn't help or hinder the evolution belief. Nothing new was produced therefore evolution has not occured.
I thought you knew what the theory of evolution was about--You said in the other thread, "I'm warning you all now--I know my stuff." Pardon me for assuming too much. If you can't see the connection between natural selection and evolution, nothing else to discuss
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.