Of Moths and Revolutions

One of the most famous evidences for evolution used is the purported change in moths, supposedly, caused by the industrial revolution in England. As you may know, (some) scientists claim the number of dark colored moths increased as compared to light colored moths due to pollution on tree trunks.

There appears to be evidence now that the famous picture was staged. ("Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells) Because in fact, the moths seldom, if ever, land directly on tree trunks. That anyone would stage pictures to "support" there theory, doesn't seem very scientific to me .

BUT to be honest, the information that the picture was staged is NOT what makes me reject this so called “evidence” for evolution.

Actually I rejected these famous moths when I was in university from 1981-1985. At the time I was neither a follower of Christ (I am now) nor a creationist, BUT I immediately rejected this as example of evolution. And here is why...

While this example does show a shift in the population ratio, it is ONLY a shift in the population ratio.　There were light colored moths BEFORE the industrial revolution (IF, in fact, there was a ratio change). What the “scientists” did is “infer” that this "micro evolution", was evidence for "macro evolution".

Or in other words, they decided that this change in a predominance of light colored moths to a predominance of darker moths proves that amoebas gradually changed into human beings.

However, every class that I had that discussed genetics (several plant and animal science classes as part of my agriculture degree), we always were shown the “bell curve of genetic distribution”. This is a diagram that shows any population of farm animals or plants has a genetic potential of “variation” nearly equal either way from a central point. Anyone or group of characteristics has a certain amount of genetic variability, BUT then you hit an impenetrable barrier. The curve hits a “zero” point on both sides.

There is a limited amount of variation for every trait.

In other words, although there are larger and smaller breeds of cattle, you never get cattle as big as an elephant. Or to put it another way, you can try to increase the harvest by selective breeding, but there is ALWAYS a limit to the yield you will get.

HOW can daily, practical examples of limited genetic potential be correct when you are farming, one of the most down-to-earth occupations...pun intended, but incorrect when you are talking about the entire web of life on this planet?

The bell curve, that demonstrates the limitation to genetic change, is the reason that little white and black moths, glued to trees or not, never really gave any indication that we all came from singled celled bacteria. It just isn't in the genes.

The Rest of The Story

Let's finish the quote I started before from Stephen Jay Gould's "The Panda's Thumb".

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils....Darwin...wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

'The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory.'

Darwin's arguement still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassent of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly....I wish in no way to impugn...gradualism...I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks."（"The Panada's Thumb", Penguin Books, 1987 pg. 151; emphasis added）

This is almost unbelievable. Even though one of the biggest evidences we hear to support the theory of evolution is "the fossil record", BOTH Stephen Jay Gould AND Charles Darwin are saying evolution is NOT seen in the rocks. That should come as a surprise to quite a few people.

I suggest you get a copy of "The Panada's Thumb" and read it for yourself.