The Peppered Moth, Biston betularia

The work on the Peppered Moth was done by Kettlewell in 1959.  He noticed that there were many dark (melanic) examples of this moth, and assumed that there had been some evolution going on, where the light form had evolved to the dark form.  It is thought that pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light--coloured covering lichen (and adding soot).  This, argued Kettlewell, made the light form of this moth more visible to birds, and so they were eaten and the dark form became predominant.  Later, as pollution was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again.

The shift in moth numbers was carefully documented through catching them in traps.  Release-recapture experiments confirmed that in polluted forests more of the dark form survived for recapture, and vice versa.  In addition, birds were filmed preferentially eating the less camouflaged moths off tree trunks.

The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm.  H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, 'He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life's work.' (Kettlewell 1959)

(i) Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection (which, for the record, is not evolution), within one created kind.  It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for amoeba-to-man evolution.  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'.

Melanic forms of this moth are known elsewhere than in Britain, and there is no reason to suppose that they were not present here originally.  This is no more a proof of evolution than what might be inferred by someone in the mid 1800's in America seeing ever larger numbers of negroes present.  Technically it is known as a gene-pool shift, and has happened in many places for all sorts of different reasons - none having anything remotely to do with evolution, macro or micro.

(ii)  However, it also turns out that this classic story itself has some problems.  There is some doubt as to whether Peppered moths do actually rest on tree trunks in full view during the day.  The implications of this doubt are considerable.  It unortunately implies that Kettlewell, or whoever did the photos, faked them.

British scientist Cyril Clarke investigated the peppered moth for 25 years, and saw only two in their natural habitat by day.  Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light at night, or by releasing female pheromones.  In each case, they only flew in at night, and the simple fact is that we do not know where they spend the day.  They tend to be nocturnal insects. (Clarke 1985)

(iii)  The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood). (Calgary Herald 1999)  And what of all those still photos of moths on tree trunks?  One paper described how it was done - dead moths were glued to the tree. (Lees & Creed 1975)  University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary.  He says textbooks and films have featured 'a lot of fraudulent photographs'. (Coyne The Washington Times 1999)

Since then other studies have actually confirmed that birds do take the uncamouflaged moths (light variants on dark bark and vice versa), but I have to say that this is still a long way from proof that this is the mechanism for the change.

(iv)  Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations.  There is actually a much better relationship between the moth population and the H₂S content of the air, and this, so far as is known, has nothing to do with the habits of birds.  Again, when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected.  But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones - the exact opposite of textbook predictions - because in an unpoluuted forest there should, of course, have been many more of the non-melanic moths! (Lees & Creed 1975)

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. (Coyne)  Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a 'proof' of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.

Unfettered by evolutionary 'just so' stories, researchers can now look for the real causes of these population shifts.  Might the dark form actually have a function, like absorbing more warmth?  Could it reflect conditions in the caterpillar stage?  In a different nocturnal moth species, Sargent has found that the plants eaten by the larvae may induce or repress the expression of such 'melanism' in adult moths. (Sargent 1998)

At the moment it is clear that the Peppered Moths do not support Evolution in any shape or form.

References:
(Press your 'Back' button to return to the text from any of these references.)

1. Kettlewell, H., (1959), 'Darwin's missing evidence' in "Evolution and the fossil record", readings from Scientific American, W.H.Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1978, p. 23.

2. Clarke, C.A., 'Evolution in reverse: clean air and the peppered moth', Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26:189-199, 1985.

3. Calgary Herald, March 21, 1999, p. D3.

4. Lees, D.R. & Creed, E.R., 'Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation', Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67-83, 1975.

5. Coyne, J.A., Nature 396(6706):35-36.

6. The Washington Times, January 17, 1999, p. D8.

7. Lees, D.R. & Creed, E.R.ref. 4

8. Sargent, T.R. et al, in M.K.Hecht et al, Evolutionary Biology 30:299-322, Plenum Press, New York, 1998