The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Light moths increased before trees got lighter (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Response Article
This article (Light moths increased before trees got lighter (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CB601.2.5:

The increase in the proportions of light moths in many locations preceded significant changes in the colour of tree trunks. This raises questions about the accuracy of the classical theory that changes to the population of the peppered moth were brought about by natural selection resulting from bird predation.

Source: Discovery Institute, 2003. A preliminary analysis of the treatment of evolution in biology textbooks currently being considered for adoption by the Texas State Board of Education., p. 11

CreationWiki response:

It needs to be noted that the traditional peppered moth story is no way a threat to creation science. Not only do the peppered moths remain peppered moths but it does not even represent a change in the peppered moth gene pool but only a temporary shift in populations. The fact that Evolutionists even consider this evidence for evolution is a sign of desperation.

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. I have been unable to find a shred of evidence in the primary scientific literature to support this claim. It is a stronger version of claim that light peppered moths increased before lichens (CB601.2.4), for which the balance of evidence already seems unpersuasive.

While the source lists 12 references, it gives no indication which, if any, of them has provided evidence for the claim. Certainly none is given in any of the first three of these references (Coyne 1998; Sargent et al. 1998; Wells 1999), which merely assert the weaker claim CB601.2.4.

Talk Origins is correct on this point; this does seem to be a misquoted version of claim CB601.2.4.