The Peppered Moth: Good or Junk Science?
Published by Creation Science Alive   May 2005   Co-Founders: Nick Lally & RoseAnn Salanitri

Evolutionists have been using the Peppered Moth experiment conducted by Bernard
Kettlewell to support their theories since the 1950's.  Textbooks in public schools still cite
this experiment as an example of evolution in progress - but is it good or junk science?

We find this very disturbing, since the experiment was flawed and not reproducible.  Anyone
worth their salt in science knows that good experiments are reproducible and are based on
solid assumptions.  Furthermore - even if this experiment were scientifically acceptable - it
would not be an example of evolution or survival of the fittest because it simply
demonstrated a population shift among grayish- peppered moths, darker moths, and lighter
moths that existed in England during the 1800's.  Because the three colors of moths existed
prior to the population shift, the declining population of the lighter moths actually
demonstrates a loss of information within the kind rather than an increase of information.  
Evolution requires that natural selection be demonstrated, a beneficial mutation occur, or
someway, somehow information be added to a species in order for the species to morph (or
change).  In other words, there must be a transitional period whereby one species begins to
change into another.  Much to the contrary, the Peppered Moth is an example of
degeneration, or devolution, which is in direct opposition to evolution since information is
being lost.

Nearly all the peppered moths were lightly speckled gray before 1848.  There were only a
few that were almost black.  The black form began to increase until 1895.  Kettlewell
claimed that very few factories existed in England prior to the 1848, and therefore light-
colored lichens covered the trees.  As air-polluting factories were built in England during
the industrial revolution, smoke covered the trees and the light-colored lichen died.  
Kettlewell concluded that the darker tree trunks were harder for the birds to see on the
darker tree trunks, and therefore they were better suited to survive this environmental
change.  Kettlewell goes on to conclude that this is an example of evolution in the making.  
Besides the illogical jump he makes concluding that a population shift is an example of
evolution, the experiment itself has proven to be unscientific and to some extent fraudulent
for the following reasons:

  •      Moths rarely rest on tree trunks.  After intensive research had been
conducted to verify Kettlewell's experiment, only two moths have been
observed on tree trunks in more than 40 years.  The resting spots for
moths remain a mystery until today.

  •      Kettlewell places his moths directly on the tree trunks, which made them
unnaturally vulnerable to birds.

  •      He released his moths during the day, while moths choose resting places
at night.

  •      The moth population resurged well before the light-colored  lichens
recolonized the polluted trees.

  •      A parallel increase and decrease of the melanic form also occurred
in industrial areas of the United States where there was no change
of lichens growing on trees.

  •      Kettlewell's experiments were never replicated in later studies.

Evolutionists and creationists alike have recognized the above problems with Kettlewell's
experiment and his conclusions; however, the public school textbooks still tout this as a
prime example of evolution at work.  We should be asking ourselves, if science is supposed
to be impartial, why is this distortion of facts still taught in schools across America today?

Permission to copy in entirety with proper acknowledgments is granted.          

For a free creation science presentation, contact Creation Science Alive
                           at: creationfacts@aol.com