Everyone knows about Peppered moth evolution. Wikipedia says:
The evolution of the peppered moth is an evolutionary instance of colour variation in the moth population as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution. The concept refers to an increase in the number of dark-coloured moths due to industrial pollution, and a reciprocal decrease in the population in a clean environment. … It is the first recorded and experimented case of Charles Darwin’s natural selection in action, and remains as a classic example in the teaching of evolution.
As you might have guessed, creationists don’t like it. A good example is found at the blog of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed not only for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG), but also for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum, and for building an exact replica of Noah’s Ark.
Hambo’s post is The Peppered Moth: Popular “Proof” That Doesn’t Prove Evolution. Silly title — nothing “proves” evolution, but peppered moths are evidence that supports it — and as we often point out, there is no evidence that disproves the theory. Anyway, here are some excerpts from Hambo’s latest, with bold font added by us for emphasis and scripture references omitted:
[T]hose who understand the principles of biology, regularly read my blog and AiG articles, or who have visited the Creation Museum should immediately note that “rapid adaptability” is not evolution. In fact, it’s really the opposite of a molecules-to-man type of supposed process.
Hambo has made that same argument before — see Ken Ham: Natural Selection Is Not Evolution, in which he argued:
It’s really just an outworking of the phenomenal amount of genetic variability God built into each kind of organism. … Evolution requires an addition of brand-new information so that novel traits (never seen before) can arise. … And mutations don’t add new information either.
Does Hambo have anything new to say on the subject? He’s ranting about an article, 8 Animals That Are Evolving Quickly, that includes the peppered moth, and he says:
None of the animals created new genetic information to form a brand-new feature.
[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh — information! [*End Drool Mode*] See Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. Moving along:
Environmental pressure simply resulted in the expression of a new variation of already existing genes or the increased survival of a certain variety of that created kind. Though these animals can’t be used as examples of evolution, they do highlight how quickly animals can adapt and change to new environments, using the information God placed in their DNA. This showcases the creativity, benevolence, and wisdom of our all-powerful and all-wise Creator.
Aha — everything is evidence for creationism. Let’s read on:
I thought I would note one of the article’s examples that has been used to “prove” evolution for decades — the peppered moth. This supposed proof of evolution had been shown to be a flawed experiment to begin with, but has been resuscitated and continues to be used as a proof of evolution.
Yeah — a “flawed experiment.” That creationist clunker is debunked at the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims, right here. Hambo continues, with an additional argument against the peppered moths:
Well, both varieties [light and dark] already existed before environmental changes caused one version to become dominant over the other one. The darker moths were able to survive and reproduce better than the lighter version, and consequently there were more of the darker-colored moths! This is clearly not an example of molecules-to-man evolution; it simply shows how natural selection works in a population.
Oh — all it does is show how natural selection works. Okay. Here’s more:
Sadly, the idea that evolution and natural selection are one and the same is a very popular idea. But they aren’t the same thing. In fact, they are complete opposites.
Wowie — complete opposites! Moving along:
Natural selection leads to the reshuffling or loss of genetic information. But evolution requires the addition of brand-new information, a process that has never been observed.
For two rebuttal examples we’ve written about before, see How One Gene Becomes Two Different Genes, and also Creationism and Nylon-Eating Bacteria.
The end of the article follows the predictable Hambo formula:
The observational evidence confirms God’s Word: kinds always reproduce according to their kinds [scripture reference].
Now that we know how furious Hambo gets when he thinks of peppered moths, we’ll be sure to mention them from time to time.
• • • • • • • • • • •
. . Permalink for this article