Yecch

[gluadys]

The article you sited indicates the colour variation was not scientifically verified to be a mutation.

We don't know when the colour variation first occurred, but whenever it occurred it was the consequence of a mutation. That is the only known means (other than a miracle) through which a variation can get started in a population.

At best you can say that the scientist witnessed variations in gene frequencies in a population.

By the time the study was done, both variations had existed in the population for many generations. There was no new mutation at the time of the study. There was a change in the frequency of the genes. However, if there had not been a mutation in the first place, there would not have been two forms of the gene such that the frequency of them could change.

I think we agreee that to claim the experiment proves what Darwin theorised about common ancestory would be an overstatement.

Right. But that was not what the study was about in the first place. It was about Darwin's other main thesis: natural selection.

Here is a statement by the scientist in question:

When you consider that he is talking about the confirmation of natural selection, he is likely very right about what Darwin's reaction might have been.

 

[notto]

The article you sited indicates the colour variation was not scientifically verified to be a mutation. At best you can say that the scientist witnessed variations in gene frequencies in a population. Creationists have no problem accepting this happens. I think we agreee that to claim the experiment proves what Darwin theorised about common ancestory would be an overstatement.

It confirmed that there is a mechanism within nature that causes variation within a population and that can lead to speciation. This is what origins was all about. Darwin concluded the fixity of species was a myth. He was right.

Have you read Origins?

From its conclusions:
If then we have under nature variability and a powerful agent always ready to act and select, why should we doubt that variations in any way useful to beings, under their excessively complex relations of life, would be preserved, accumulated, and inherited? Why, if man can by patience select variations most useful to himself, should nature fail in selecting variations useful, under changing conditions of life, to her living products? What limit can be put to this power, acting during long ages and rigidly scrutinising the whole constitution, structure, and habits of each creature, — favouring the good and rejecting the bad? I can see no limit to this power, in slowly and beautifully adapting each form to the most complex relations of life. The theory of natural selection, even if we looked no further than this, seems to me to be in itself probable. I have already recapitulated, as fairly as I could, the opposed difficulties and objections: now let us turn to the special facts and arguments in favour of the theory.

It's hard to understand the statement you reference without seeing it in context. The work of Kettlewell falsified the other options for how variation and natural selection affect population (or the claim that they don't which still prevailed at the time). This was a major part of Darwins work and these experiments confirmed that he was right - the mechanism exists.

Darwins work was mainly about speciation - something that even creationists can't deny happens. As you've been told, the moth experiments confirmed Darwins conclusion about the mechanism that can cause this - the mechanism exists.

I don't see any problem with the statement when taken into context.

Regardless, the current theory of common ancestry does not rest on the Peppered moth research.

[size=-1] Now if we look again at your original claim:
[/size] How many times have we shown that the peppered moths story is not evidence for evolution and demonstrated that the claims made about the moths have been thoroughtly discredited, and yet it persists to be used by TE's

Can you show us how the claims made about the moths have been discredited or will you withdraw your claim?

 

[Micaiah]

We don't know when the colour variation first occurred, but whenever it occurred it was the consequence of a mutation. That is the only known means (other than a miracle) through which a variation can get started in a population.

Dogs come in a variety of colours. So do cats and birds. Changing colours in these animals is not the result of a miracle.

Animals can change the colour and other characteristics of their external coverings with changes in environmental and age. That is not the result of a miracle either.

You need to do some more study on the nature of genetic change.

When you consider that he is talking about the confirmation of natural selection, he is likely very right about what Darwin's reaction might have been.

If you consider proving natural selection to be the confirmation and consumation of the life's work of Darwin's what can I say, except that I do not agree.

 

[Micaiah]

A further quote from the above link.

Even L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, said therein that the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not ‘evolution in action.’

 

[Micaiah]

I like this one.

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.
He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.5

J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36.

 

[Micaiah]

To address your other points in detail:

1. The peppered moth exists in two forms, one light and one dark.

2. Prior to the industrial revolution, the dark form was a prized collector's item due to its rarity--less than 5% of the total pepper moth population.

If we assume this is correct, it simply adds weight to the argument that existing populations light and dark coloured moths changed over time.

3. During the industrial revolution the dark variety became much more common in regions of heavy industrialization, reaching at peak 95% of the affected population.

I accept this may be correct.

4. Since pollution controls have been established, the occurence of the dark form has been decreasing.

I accept this may be correct.

5. Dark colour provides better camouflage on soot-blackened trees, while light colour provides better camouflage on non-blackened trees.

I agree. Going well here.

6. A major predator of the moths in daylight hours are birds.

Wrong. That was an assumption made by H.B. Kettlewell's, but as the following shows, he did not have the scientific evidence to support the notion that birds eating moths off tree trunks were responsible for the colour variations witnessed.

The bubble started to burst as people finally faced the awkward fact that Peppered Moths do not rest on tree trunks in the daytime. Instead, they hide under leaves in treetops.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/moth.asp

Since 1980, however, evidence has accumulated showing that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. Using caged moths, Mikkola observed that “the normal resting place of the Peppered Moth is beneath small, more or less horizontal branches (but not on narrow twigs), probably high up in the canopies, and the species probably only exceptionally rests on tree trunks.” He noted that “night-active moths, released in an illumination bright enough for the human eye, may well choose their resting sites as soon as possible and most probably atypically.” Thus “the results of Kettlewell (1955, 1956) fail to demonstrate the qualitative predation of the morphs of the Peppered Moth by birds or other predators in natural conditions” (Mikkola 1984, pp. 416-418).


Mikkola used caged moths, but data on wild moths support his conclusion. In twenty-five years of field work, Clarke and his colleagues found only one peppered moth on a tree trunk, and admitted that they knew primarily “where the moths do not spend the day” (Clarke et al. 1985, p. 197; emphasis in original). When Howlett and Majerus studied the natural resting sites of peppered moths in various parts of England, they found that Mikkola’s observations on caged moths were valid for wild moths, as well. They concluded: “...it seems certain that most B. betularia rest where they are hidden.... [and] that exposed areas of tree trunks are not an important resting site for any form of B. betularia” (Howlett and Majerus 1987, p. 40). In a separate study, Liebert and Brakefield confirmed Mikkola’s observations that “the species rests predominantly on branches.... Many moths will rest underneath, or on the side of, narrow branches in the canopy” (Liebert and Brakefield 1987, p. 129). In a recent book on melanism, Majerus criticizes the “artificiality” of much previous work in this area, noting that “in most predation experiments peppered moths have been positioned on vertical tree trunks, despite the fact that they rarely chose such surfaces to rest upon in the wild” (Majerus 1998, p. 116). If peppered moths normally rest under horizontal branches in the upper canopy, then observations of differential bird predation on moths which are placed on tree trunks probably have little relevance to their survival in the wild. It appears that the classical example of natural selection is actually be an example of unnatural selection!

http://trueorigin.org/pepmoth1.asp

The implications of this are noted in the next point.

7. Birds are more likely to find and eat moths without camouflage rather than those which are well camouflaged.

Agreed, but that is irrelevant given the moths normal habitat during the day.

H.B. Kettlewell's rationale was along the lines:

- During the IR, the colour of tree trunks got darker.

- Lighter colour moths would stand out during the day against the dark trunks, and would get eaten by birds.

- The population of darker moths would therefore increase.

The argument falls flat if the moths don't rest on the trunks during the day in the first place.

8. Selective bird predation on non-camouflaged moths tends to make the non-camouflaged form rarer in each generation.

Irrelevant given the moths normal habitat during the day.

On the matter of birds eating moths from the trunks of trees AIG reports as follows:

- The famous photos of light and dark moths resting on a lichen-covered tree trunk were faked by pinning and/or gluing dead moths onto logs or trunks.

- The filmed ‘experiments’ involved either dead moths, or laboratory moths (so stuporous they had to be warmed up first), placed on tree trunks in the daytime.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/moth.asp

So, in summary, according to the above references, the explanation provided by H.B. Kettlewell on why the numbers of the dark and light moths varied does not fit the facts.

The other point as stated above is that independent of the reason given for the shifting changes in frequencies of dark and light moths, this is simply not evidence for 'goo to you' evolution. There is not even evidence here for speciation as suggested by Notto. That is acknowledged clearly by other scientists.

The whole case does provide clear evidence of the desperate attempts that are made by 'scientists' to demonstrate that evolution is fact.

 

[notto]

Its' interesting that Wells and AIG use Majerus as a source for criticism of what the Peppered Moth tells us considering that in the book the cite from, he says this:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence on the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth. [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1](P. 116, Melanism - Evolution in Action, M. E. N. Majerus, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998).[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Seems like a bit of quote mining to me.Lets take a further look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanism:_Evolution_in_Action
[/font][E]very scientist I know who has worked on melanism in the Peppered moth in the field still regards differential predation of the morphs in different habitats as of prime importance in the case. The critics of work on this case and those who cast doubt on its validity are, without exception, persons who have, as far as I know, never bred the moth and never conducted an experiment on it. In most cases they have probably never seen a live Peppered moth in the wild. Perhaps those who have the most intimate knowledge of this moth are the scientists who have bred it, watched it and studied it, in both the laboratory and the wild. These include, among others, the late Sir Cyril Clarke, Professors Paul Brakefield, Laurence Cook, Bruce Grant, K. Mikkola, Drs Rory Howlett, Carys Jones, David Lees, John Muggleton and myself. I believe that, without exception, it is our view that the case of melanism in the Peppered moth still stands as one of the best examples of evolution, by natural selection, in action. (Majerus 2002, p. 252)

The peppered moth phenomena shows natural selection in action. The experts agree that this is the case. It confirmed Darwins mechanism and still is a valid example of this mechanism today.

Just ask Majerus.

 

[notto]

The whole case does provide clear evidence of the desperate attempts that are made by 'scientists' to demonstrate that evolution is fact.

No, it shows that one of the mechanisms for evolution is valid. It still shows that.

Do you agree that natural selection can affect the genetic makeup of a population? That is what the experiment showed. Are you suggesting that it was intented to show more? You have already been told and shown that it was not.

 

[notto]

I like this one.

Too bad Jerry only said this in a book review and isn't actually someone who researched the moths. The quote from AIG is also a bit out of context.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/icon.cr.html
Letters to the Pratt (KS) Tribune, from Dr. Jerry Coyne and Dr. Bruce Grant [More available in the Pratt archives]:

Letter from Jerry Coyne: December 06, 2000 Criticism of moth study no challenge to evolution, according to evolutionary biologist:

I have learned that the Pratt school board, apparently responding to creationist pressure, has recently revised its tenth-grade biology curriculum to include material that encourages students to question the theory of evolution. In reading the standards, I see that one of my articles - an article constantly misrepresented by creationists - is included as a supplementary reading used to cast doubt on evolution.

Except for a few creationist dissenters, the community of professional biologists has long accepted evolution as an essential theory supported by innumerable pieces of evidence. To make students think otherwise is as harmful as urging them to question the value of antibiotics because there are a few people who believe in spiritual healing.

My article appended to the Pratt standards is a re-evaluation of a classic evolutionary story in which rapid changes in the proportions of color forms of peppered moths occurred in only about 100 years. This evolutionary change is thought to be a response to air pollution, changes in the colors of trees, and increased bird predation. My only problem with the peppered-moth story is that I am not certain whether scientists have identified the precise agent causing the natural selection and evolutionary change. It may well be bird predators, but the experiments leave room for doubt.

Creationists such as Jonathan Wells claim that my criticism of these experiments casts strong doubt on Darwinism. But this characterization is false. All of us in the peppered moth debate agree that the moth story is a sound example of evolution produced by natural selection. My call for additional research on the moths has been wrongly characterized by creationists as revealing some fatal flaw in the theory of evolution.

In reality, the debate over what causes natural selection on moths is absolutely normal in our field. It is not uncommon for scientists to reexamine previous work and find it incomplete, or even wrong. This is the normal self-correcting mechanism of science. Textbook examples may be altered as additional data are found. Creationists, on the other hand, neither air their disagreements in public or admit that they were wrong. This is because their goal is not to achieve scientific truth, but to expel evolution from the public schools.

It is a classic creationist tactic (as exemplified in Wells' book, "Icons of Evolution") to assert that healthy scientific debate is really a sign that evolutionists are either committing fraud or buttressing a crumbling theory. In reality, evolution and natural selection are alive and well, with new supporting evidence arriving daily.

I strongly object to the use of my article by the Pratt school board to cast doubt on Darwinism. And I feel sorry for the students who are being misled by creationists into doubting one of the most vigorous and well-supported theories in biology.

Jerry A. Coyne
Professor of Ecology & Evolution
The University of Chicago

 

[gluadys]

To address your other points in detail:

If we assume this is correct, it simply adds weight to the argument that existing populations light and dark coloured moths changed over time.

Which is all that was claimed.

Wrong. That was an assumption made by H.B. Kettlewell's, but as the following shows, he did not have the scientific evidence to support the notion that birds eating moths off tree trunks were responsible for the colour variations witnessed.

But no claim was made about birds eating moths off tree trunks. The claim was simply that birds eat moths. Whether they are on trunks, on branches, in branch nodes, on or under leaves or anywhere else is irrelevant.

Hence the rest of your argument, which centres on tree trunks, is also irrelevant.

H.B. Kettlewell's rationale was along the lines:

- During the IR, the colour of tree trunks got darker.

- Lighter colour moths would stand out during the day against the dark trunks, and would get eaten by birds.

You mistake Kettlewell's rationale. He was well aware that soot did not confine itself to tree trunks but blackened the whole tree. Wherever moths rested on trees the darker ones would be better camouflaged. Wherever birds might find them on trees (and birds do not confine their search to tree trunks either) the lighter moths would be easier to find.

The argument falls flat if the moths don't rest on the trunks during the day in the first place.

But that moths rest on tree trunks was never part of the argument in the first place. It would certainly have made things easier for Kettlewell and his team if they did. They did not expect to find so few resting on tree trunks. But the place the moths normally rested (branch nodes IIRC) has nothing to do with the results of the study.

8. Selective bird predation on non-camouflaged moths tends to make the non-camouflaged form rarer in each generation.

Irrelevant given the moths normal habitat during the day.

The habitat of the moths is irrelevant to what was being researched. What was being studied was the effect of camouflage on predation, not the habitat of the moths.

So, in summary, according to the above references, the explanation provided by H.B. Kettlewell on why the numbers of the dark and light moths varied does not fit the facts.

From answers in genesis:

Three statements sum up the biological reality about this issue.

Before the industrial revolution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.

During the worst days of pollution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.

Today, there is genetic information for dark and light moths.

In other words, the only thing that’s happened is that the relative numbers of each have gone up and down.

The consensus appears to be, however, that the proportion of dark to light moths did indeed rise and fall in concert with the rise of (and subsequent decline in) industrial pollution. The main argument concerns whether this was due to differential predation by birds.​

Emphasis added.

The only relevant point they are not confirming is the role of bird predation and they are not denying the possibility of that. Everything else in the article is hot air.

Your next reference does confirm bird predation

Kettlewell (1955) thus established that birds do, in fact, prey on resting peppered moths.

snip 2 paragraphs with many figures in them

Other biologists conducted experiments with peppered moths on tree trunks to test Kettlewell’s theory that industrial melanism was due to cryptic coloration and selective predation (e.g., Clarke and Sheppard 1966, Bishop 1972, Lees and Creed 1975, Bishop and Cook 1975, Steward 1977b, Murray et al. 1980). Their conclusions generally agreed with Kettlewell’s.​

A scientist named Majerus has done a thorough analysis of the research of both Kettlewell and his successors as well as doing field research himself. Your second source quotes Majerus extensively, as does Jonathan Wells, another critic of the pepper moth story.

So you might be interested in reading this critique of Wells' Icons of Evolution which has commentary by Majerus and also by an American researcher Bruce Grant.

In regard to the question of moth habitat, Grant notes that:

Kettlewell's complementary experiments in polluted and unpolluted woods compared the relative success of different colored moths on the same parts of trees in different areas, not different parts of trees in the same area.​

And Majerus is quite explicit and forceful with his conclusions:

Bernard [Kettlewell] was a first rate entomologist and scientist. His experiments were meticulous and generally well designed. In my opinion, many of his experiments were among the best that have been conducted on melanism and bird predation. [...]

The suggestion that Kettlewell ever 'faked' a result is offensive to his memory. He was an honourable, good scientist who reported his findings with honesty and integrity. [...]

The case of melanism in the peppered moth IS ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES OF EVOLUTION IN ACTION BY DARWIN'S PROCESS OF NATURAL SELECTION that we have. In general it is based on good science and it is sound.

(Majerus email to Don Frack, posted March 30, 1999. Capitalization original. Available at: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0312.html)​

And in another letter:

Of all the people I know, including both amateur and professional entomologists who have experience of this moth, I know of none who doubts that differential bird predation is of primary importance in the spread and decline of melanism in the peppered moth.

(Majerus email, posted to Calvin listserv by Don Frack, April 5, 1999. Available at: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199904/0103.html)​

This is from the person who probably has more expertise on the pepper moth today than anyone else alive.

The other point as stated above is that independent of the reason given for the shifting changes in frequencies of dark and light moths, this is simply not evidence for 'goo to you' evolution.

It is evidence for a mechanism of evolution: namely, natural selection. Since natural selection is the primary driver of evolution, I don't see any problem with calling evidence for natural selection evidence for evolution. But if you want to be precise, it is evidence for natural selection.

There is not even evidence here for speciation as suggested by Notto. That is acknowledged clearly by other scientists.

Everyone, even Notto, agrees that in this case there was no speciation. I think Notto's point is that what we see in the pepper moth case is the process which does lead to speciation in other cases. But it did not happen with the pepper moth case, and none of my 8 points suggests that it did, or that it is evidence of speciation.

Now you have agreed that 6 of the 8 points have not been discredited. In regard to points 6 & 8 your objection is based on the question of habitat, which is irrelevant to the issue of bird predation. No one has ever claimed that bird predation is limited to tree trunks.

It is also untrue that moths never rest on tree trunks. When you read the link I gave you, you will find two analyses of moth resting places. One shows 25% of moths resting on trunks; the other 34% of moths resting on trunks. So the question of habitat is truly irrelevant. Are you ready to face up to the fact that none of these claims has been discredited?

 

[Micaiah]

H.B. Kettlewell's rationale was along the lines:

- During the Industrial Revolution, tree trunks got darker.

- Lighter colour moths would stand out during the day against the dark trunks, and would get eaten by birds.

- The population of darker moths would therefore increase.


The above references I posted indicate clearly that this was not the case. The photos of moths on tree trunks were fabricated. Kettlewell made up a story about how and why the moth populations varied. Apparenty moths don't sit on tree trunks during the day, so the basis of his theory is demolished. That being the case it is deceiptful to claim his research supported the claims he made about moths.

As stated before, even if you could provide research evidence that proved birds were responsible for the shifting frequencies of moth colours, that demonstrates natural selection. Some of the leading biologists agree it does not show 'evolution in action'.

Sorry Notto, I do not consider you to be a leading biologist. Your comments though that Kettlewell's research is proof of evolution and even speciation is typical of the propoganda promoted by evolutionists on this forum. As I said before, we have gone through most of this previously, and you and others still stubbornly cling to your claims, and I am sure will continue to do so.

Fortunately, groups like AIG that challenge these popular misconceptions are helping the public to see the deception and tenuous nature of so called evidence behind the arguments being promoted. It is not surprising that they become the target of ridicule by those whose pet theories are being challenged.

YEC's on this forum are well aware of that ridicule even on a website that claims to be Christian. This whole thread stated with a link that demeaned and ridiculed Christians who support groups with the courage and discernment to challenge the deceiptful claims made about evolution.

 

[Micaiah]

Which is all that was claimed.

You previously claimed that the change in colour of moths was the result of genetic mutation. That was suggested but not supported by the link that was posted by yourself as I recall. Make up your mind about what you are trying to say, or admit you don't really know.

But no claim was made about birds eating moths off tree trunks. The claim was simply that birds eat moths. Whether they are on trunks, on branches, in branch nodes, on or under leaves or anywhere else is irrelevant.

That was not the claim and impression given by Kettlewell, whose rationale I've explained and questioned.

You mistake Kettlewell's rationale. He was well aware that soot did not confine itself to tree trunks but blackened the whole tree. Wherever moths rested on trees the darker ones would be better camouflaged. Wherever birds might find them on trees (and birds do not confine their search to tree trunks either) the lighter moths would be easier to find.

No mistake about his rationale, I am simply saying it had some gaping holes in it, which you and others who continue to use this example would do well to understand and acknowledge.

But that moths rest on tree trunks was never part of the argument in the first place. It would certainly have made things easier for Kettlewell and his team if they did. They did not expect to find so few resting on tree trunks. But the place the moths normally rested (branch nodes IIRC) has nothing to do with the results of the study.

The habitat of the moths is irrelevant to what was being researched. What was being studied was the effect of camouflage on predation, not the habitat of the moths.

Have another read of the following. You obviously do not understand the issues being discussed.

The normal resting places of peppered moths. In most of Kettlewell’s experiments, moths were released in the morning and observed during the day. Recaptures were made at night. In only one experiment (June 18, 1955) did Kettlewell release moths before sunrise; he abandoned this approach because of practical difficulties such as having to warm the cold moths beforehand on the engine of his car (Kettlewell 1973). But peppered moths are night-fliers, and normally find resting places on trees before dawn. Artificial daytime releases might have disoriented the moths, causing them to fly immediately to exposed tree trunks where they became unnaturally easy targets for predatory birds. Regarding his release methods, Kettlewell wrote: “To the obvious criticism that the releases were not free to take up their own choice of resting site for the first day, I must answer that there were no other alternative backgrounds available for an insect that has to spend its days on trunks and boughs in this wood. I admit that, under their own choice, many would have taken up position higher in the trees, and... in so doing they would have avoided concentrations such as I produced.... [O]thers have shown the importance to cryptic insects of avoiding too high a density level, but this is no argument against the findings for the relative advantages” of the light and dark forms. Kettlewell granted, however, “that, under natural conditions, predation, though selective, might take place at a lower tempo ” (Kettlewell 1955, p. 340; emphasis in original). In other words, Kettlewell assumed (1) that the main defect of his release method was an unnaturally high density of moths, affecting merely the tempo of predation; and (2) that he could disregard the observation that many moths would have preferred to take up positions higher in the trees.

Taken from the following site:

http://trueorigin.org/pepmoth1.asp

From answers in genesis:

Three statements sum up the biological reality about this issue.


Before the industrial revolution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.

During the worst days of pollution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.

Today, there is genetic information for dark and light moths.

In other words, the only thing that’s happened is that the relative numbers of each have gone up and down.

The consensus appears to be, however, that the proportion of dark to light moths did indeed rise and fall in concert with the rise of (and subsequent decline in) industrial pollution. The main argument concerns whether this was due to differential predation by birds.

​

Emphasis added.


The only relevant point they are not confirming is the role of bird predation and they are not denying the possibility of that. Everything else in the article is hot air.

It is no way conflicts with the points I am making, which came from AIG in the first place.

Your next reference does confirm bird predation

Kettlewell (1955) thus established that birds do, in fact, prey on resting peppered moths.



snip 2 paragraphs with many figures in them

Other biologists conducted experiments with peppered moths on tree trunks to test Kettlewell’s theory that industrial melanism was due to cryptic coloration and selective predation (e.g., Clarke and Sheppard 1966, Bishop 1972, Lees and Creed 1975, Bishop and Cook 1975, Steward 1977b, Murray et al. 1980). Their conclusions generally agreed with Kettlewell’s.

​

A scientist named Majerus has done a thorough analysis of the research of both Kettlewell and his successors as well as doing field research himself. Your second source quotes Majerus extensively, as does Jonathan Wells, another critic of the pepper moth story.

So you might be interested in reading this critique of Wells' Icons of Evolution which has commentary by Majerus and also by an American researcher Bruce Grant.

No one is disputing that birds will eat the moths in question. Have another look at my summary of Kettlewell's rationale.

In regard to the question of moth habitat, Grant notes that:

Kettlewell's complementary experiments in polluted and unpolluted woods compared the relative success of different colored moths on the same parts of trees in different areas, not different parts of trees in the same area.​

No argument here. I understand this is what the guy was trying to achieve.

And Majerus is quite explicit and forceful with his conclusions:

Bernard [Kettlewell] was a first rate entomologist and scientist. His experiments were meticulous and generally well designed. In my opinion, many of his experiments were among the best that have been conducted on melanism and bird predation. [...]

The suggestion that Kettlewell ever 'faked' a result is offensive to his memory. He was an honourable, good scientist who reported his findings with honesty and integrity. [...]

​

Note the words used 'In my opinion...'. He is entitled to those. The facts however indicate that Kettlewell's research did not support his rationale. The post above showed the problems that even he recognised in his experiments.

The case of melanism in the peppered moth IS ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES OF EVOLUTION IN ACTION BY DARWIN'S PROCESS OF NATURAL SELECTION that we have. In general it is based on good science and it is sound.

(Majerus email to Don Frack, posted March 30, 1999. Capitalization original. Available at: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0312.html)

Obviously there are leading biologists who do not agree this is an example of evolution in action as shown in my quotes above. Given the uncertainty about the claims even between apparently leading figures in the field, it is appropriate for people to question such claims. Thankfully organisations like AIG are prepared to point this out.


​

And in another letter:​

Of all the people I know, including both amateur and professional entomologists who have experience of this moth, I know of none who doubts that differential bird predation is of primary importance in the spread and decline of melanism in the peppered moth.


(Majerus email, posted to Calvin listserv by Don Frack, April 5, 1999. Available at: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199904/0103.html

This is from the person who probably has more expertise on the pepper moth today than anyone else alive.

​

Further muddying of the water. Obfuscation seems to be your primary weapon.


​

It is evidence for a mechanism of evolution: namely, natural selection. Since natural selection is the primary driver of evolution, I don't see any problem with calling evidence for natural selection evidence for evolution. But if you want to be precise, it is evidence for natural selection.

Leading scientists in the field have stated it is not evidence of evolution in action.

Everyone, even Notto, agrees that in this case there was no speciation. I think Notto's point is that what we see in the pepper moth case is the process which does lead to speciation in other cases. But it did not happen with the pepper moth case, and none of my 8 points suggests that it did, or that it is evidence of speciation.

It seems Kettlewell believed this and more, but his research did not back up his exaggerated claims. Since the time of Darwin, people have been looking for the evidence that supports 'goo to you evolution'. Kettlewell was just another deluded scientist who spent a life time trying to prove something that God has plainly told us did not occur.

Now you have agreed that 6 of the 8 points have not been discredited. In regard to points 6 & 8 your objection is based on the question of habitat, which is irrelevant to the issue of bird predation. No one has ever claimed that bird predation is limited to tree trunks.

Really. Here was the statement I origianlly made.

How many times have we shown that the peppered moths story is not evidence for evolution and demonstrated that the claims made about the moths have been thoroughtly discredited, and yet it persists to be used by TE's.

Subsequent posts clearly defined the claims that are made. As stated above, read my posts. You will note that agreeing with some of your claims in no way affects or undermines my claims.

It is also untrue that moths never rest on tree trunks. When you read the link I gave you, you will find two analyses of moth resting places. One shows 25% of moths resting on trunks; the other 34% of moths resting on trunks. So the question of habitat is truly irrelevant. Are you ready to face up to the fact that none of these claims has been discredited?

Another strawman. Your thinking is clearly befuddled.

 

[Micaiah]

Its' interesting that Wells and AIG use Majerus as a source for criticism of what the Peppered Moth tells us considering that in the book the cite from, he says this:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence on the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth. [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1](P. 116, Melanism - Evolution in Action, M. E. N. Majerus, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998).[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Seems like a bit of quote mining to me.Lets take a further look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanism:_Evolution_in_Action
[/font][E]very scientist I know who has worked on melanism in the Peppered moth in the field still regards differential predation of the morphs in different habitats as of prime importance in the case. The critics of work on this case and those who cast doubt on its validity are, without exception, persons who have, as far as I know, never bred the moth and never conducted an experiment on it. In most cases they have probably never seen a live Peppered moth in the wild. Perhaps those who have the most intimate knowledge of this moth are the scientists who have bred it, watched it and studied it, in both the laboratory and the wild. These include, among others, the late Sir Cyril Clarke, Professors Paul Brakefield, Laurence Cook, Bruce Grant, K. Mikkola, Drs Rory Howlett, Carys Jones, David Lees, John Muggleton and myself. I believe that, without exception, it is our view that the case of melanism in the Peppered moth still stands as one of the best examples of evolution, by natural selection, in action. (Majerus 2002, p. 252)

The peppered moth phenomena shows natural selection in action. The experts agree that this is the case. It confirmed Darwins mechanism and still is a valid example of this mechanism today.

Just ask Majerus.

It may be that birds are responsible for the variations in populations of light and dark moths. Kettlewell obviously believed this to be the case.

Have a look at the arguments I've stated above. You have failed to correctly interpret them and refute them.

 

[Micaiah]

Notto,

You said:

Too bad Jerry only said this in a book review and isn't actually someone who researched the moths. The quote from AIG is also a bit out of context.

and gave a link to a site that apparently proved your point.

This was the quote by the said person.

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.
He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.5

J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36.

I was unable to find the article that gives this statement in context. Please provide a direct link or post that supports your argument.

I want you to substantiate the claim "The quote from AIG is also a bit out of context".

 

[notto]

I was unable to find the article that gives this statement in context. Please provide a direct link or post that supports your argument.

I want you to substantiate the claim "The quote from AIG is also a bit out of context".

You mean you didn't find the article and actually read it in context yet that was one of your favorites?

I would think that a claim by the original author that it is misrepresented would show that the context of the article is not what creationists claim, wouldn't you?

 

[notto]

Micah,

You seem to be missing the point of what the moth experiments did show. They did show that natural selection was responsible for the changes in frequency of inherited traits. It wasn't because white moths were changing to black moths. It wasn't that white moths all the sudden laid eggs of all black moths. It wasn't that black moths were suddenly specially created or that they willed themselves to be black.

The experiment correctly identified the mechanism for the changes in frequency of a trait in a population and that mechanims was natural selection due to prededation on a variation within the population.

Evolution in action.
Confirmation of Darwins predictions.

Suggesting that biologists try to use this as an example of speciation or as an example of crud to creationist evolution is to suggest something that does not happen. The experiment is understood for exactly what it did (and didn't do). The whole of the theory of evolution does not rest on it nor did it ever.

 

[notto]

As stated before, even if you could provide research evidence that proved birds were responsible for the shifting frequencies of moth colours, that demonstrates natural selection. Some of the leading biologists agree it does not show 'evolution in action'.

But they agree that it shows the mechanism of natural selection is what i responsible for the shifting frequencies of moth colors. Nobody has claimed that the moths speciated. Nobody has claimed that the experiment showed anything other than the mechanism and phenomena of natural selection on variation within a population.

"The [peppered moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia." —*L Harrison Matthews, "Introduction, " to Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi.

 

[Micaiah]

You mean you didn't find the article and actually read it in context yet that was one of your favorites?

Can you provide the context?

I would think that a claim by the original author that it is misrepresented would show that the context of the article is not what creationists claim, wouldn't you?

It may be that once Coyle felt the ire of his colleagues, he back peddled on his original statements.

I want you to substantiate the claim "The quote from AIG is also a bit out of context".

 

[notto]

Can you provide the context?



It may be that once Coyle felt the ire of his colleagues, he back peddled on his original statements.

I want you to substantiate the claim "The quote from AIG is also a bit out of context".

So, you trust the quote from AIG but then claim that perhaps he backed off on his original statements when you haven't even read his original statements in the first place?

I wanted you to provide the quote in context. Otherwise it is nothing but a quote mine.

Here's another quote from Coyle. I provided the context earlier for this. Now, do you think that AIG accurately represented this mans point of view by using his quote in the way they did? Why didn't the provide the entire quote in context instead of picking a few words out of his article?

All of us in the peppered moth debate agree that the moth story is a sound example of evolution produced by natural selection. My call for additional research on the moths has been wrongly characterized by creationists as revealing some fatal flaw in the theory of evolution.

Here is your original quote in context.
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199811/0217.html

Majerus concludes, reasonably, that all we can deduce from this story is
that it is a case of rapid evolution, probably involving pollution and bird predation. I would, however, replace "probably" with "perhaps". B.betularia shows the footprint of natural selection, but we have not yet seen the feet. Majerus finds some solace in his analysis, claiming that the
true story is likely to be more complex and therefore more interesting, but one senses that he is making a virtue of necessity. My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.

First, for the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution.

Now, lets review the AIG quotemine: University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out. He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.5

Seems like Coyne had a lot more to say on the subject that AIG let on. He certainly wouldn't agree that the entire study needs to be 'thrown out', just that it isn't as clear as it could have been - but, as he notes, it is clearly a case of evolution.

Of course Coynes words were only part of a book review and by his own words, have been misrepresented by creationists such as AIG.

 

[gluadys]

Dogs come in a variety of colours. So do cats and birds. Changing colours in these animals is not the result of a miracle.

Animals can change the colour and other characteristics of their external coverings with changes in environmental and age. That is not the result of a miracle either.

I never suggested it was. What I said was that if you have a homogeneous population of white moths, the only way you can get a black moth, barring a miracle, is by mutation.

After the intial mutation, what determines whether a moth is black or white is standard Mendelian genetics.

It is not changing the distribution of colours in the population that must be explained by mutation or miracle. But the origin of a new colour allele where it did not exist before requires a mutation or a miracle.

I didn't mention mutation among the 8 points since it is not relevant to the study of natural selection. I said only that the moth existed in two forms, and that is correct. But as creationists never cease to remind us, natural selection must have something to select. It is the role of mutations to provide something to select.

If you consider proving natural selection to be the confirmation and consumation of the life's work of Darwin's what can I say, except that I do not agree.

Why not? The single biggest contribution Darwin made to the theory of evolution was the theory of natural selection. So why would he not likely consider the confirmation that natural selection actually works a confirmation and consummation of his life's work?