Evolutionists: How does your theory explain peppered moths?

Question

Prominent creation scientist Em Adjineri has been studying peppered moths in England and discovered that they conclusively disprove evolution. After spending several months studying the genetics of peppered moths, she found that there was no possible way that they could have evolved.

Peppered moths used to be mostly light-colored before the industrial revolution. After the industrial revolution, most peppered moths were dark colored.

According to Lamarckian evolution, this is because the moths wanted to change color, so they did. But that's absurd! Moths can't just change color whenever they want.

The only alternative is that God decided to make more dark moths because he knew they would be better camouflaged from predators after the industrial revolution. God didn't want the moths to die, so he changed their colors.

This proves that natural selection is false, so evolution is false. The only alternative is to believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

(((Jenae)))

Apparently, lots of people are taking me seriously. The thing is, the argument I gave is so bad that nobody will take them seriously if they try to repeat it. Also, it only deals with Lamarckian evolution.

(((Sherl)))

Answer 1

The fact there were seven members of the three stooges should disprove evolution to any creationist who is unable to follow a logical argument. Why do you need moths.

I do wonder just how long it will be before we start seeing these arguments pasted on creationist web sites.

Answer 2

Does anyone still believe in lamarckian evolution? Has anyone believed in it within the past 150 years about?

Giraffes made offspring with longer necks because they wanted to reach higher? That is just plain silly. Even you recognized its absurdity, and it is clear that you do not understand a lot about the whole concept (evidently you think you know enough to claim evolution as false using a wrong conceptual mechanism for its operation).

Well, from my view, I find it impossible to conceive a god that made people like you in HIS image, or would consider such poor specimens of creation as the epitome of his efforts. He can't be very powerful or omniscient if you and me and the rest of humanity are the best of his productions.

Later : I tried chasing the mythical famous creationist scientist Em iganary or whatever and after a few pages of google hits that made no sense came to the conclusion that this was a put on (not the fastest on the uptake I guess). You got me good. Yes. Publish Em's works.

Answer 3

This does not disprove evolution. The change in color could be due to the fact that many predators were killing the lighter colored moth leaving a larger population of darker moths to mate with. Add that with a bit of selective breeding (darker being more desirable to the females for the survival of the offspring) and viola you've got a newly evolved version of the species. Then again I'm no scientist, speculation is all I can do.

Answer 4

First, the Bible is not a literal truth and it's not the only alternative-there are many different religious and spiritual affiliations that one may choose to align themselves with. The bible consists of morality stories, allegorical parables meant to teach lessons of humility and goodwill toward others. The bible is a lot of things; part history, part journalistic, part myth and part truth and that's the beauty of the literature-it can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The history of Jesus "the man" as both common carpenter and religious messiah is a well documented historical truth. But stories such as "immaculate conceptions" "rising from the dead" or the ability to "part huge seas" are obviously physical and scientific impossibilities and never really happened-they serve to dramatize the moral of the fable.

Remember, the simplest explanation to a phenomena is always the correct explanation. So does it seem more possible that some almighty, unseen, god created everything and then just left us to our own accord without any physical or scientific proof of this god's existence....or does it seem more possible that we, as human beings, created the image of god in our own minds, to help us understand and accept our own human frailties?

Answer 5

Wow that is absurd.

Moths wanted to change color? No, you're taking that litterally.

Let's say that for some reason the human race NEEDED a third arm. Would you want it? Yes. Would wanting it make it true? No. You wanted it, so the ones that somehow got the precesses of a third arm. These survived. The ones without died. You want it as a species, so many of you won't have to die.

Is it also possible that soot has become integrated with the moths skin so that it looks dark, but won't come out?

Answer 6

Alternatively, most of the light coloured ones died thanks to industry as a result of not being able to be comoflaged as well against a smog filled background. Their demise therefore denied the continuation of their genes and result in a noted rise of the more darkly coloured ones which would now be the more successfully camoflaged. Its something called natuaral selection.

Further more it would need more then 'several months' and few moths to prove the validity of creationism when Im assuming that this colour change would be localised to industrial centres. It is hardly likely that they chose to change colour, and it would be illogical to jump to the conclusion that God got a warm spot for moths!

Thanks for your question,

Answer 7

Well no, there probably were some darker ones and over time they were the ones that survived, since they are moths their lifespan must be really short so a strain like that could probably develop really fast. I'm not an evolutionist and I believe in God but if this was the case then it would happen all the time, not just to one specific species of insect.

Answer 8

***BRAVO!!*** Let's everyone give Vishal a hand!!

That's an amazing bit of logical acrobatics there.

Lamarck's theory of use and disuse was one of the theories that got discredited when Darwin published his theory of natural selection. The only people who refer to Lamarck these days is historians or philosophers of science. However it seems that science-illiterate fundies still use it as a straw man evolution theory to beat up.

The mechanism you describe in the fourth paragraph of your post basically summarizes the selective pressure to which the peppered moths were exposed, but attribute it to God. To be perfectly honest, I don't have any beef with you attributing it to God. However, to deny that it's also Darwinian natural selection is intellectually dishonest. The only thing that keeps me from calling you a flat-out liar is that you seem to have gotten evolutionary theory so completely screwed up that it's entirely possible your science education is so bad as to make it an honest mistake.

You have my sincerest condolences. And you really should learn a little biology.

Answer 9

What you are describing, that is the moths changing color to be better camouflaged in their changing environment, is a perfect example of evolution. Maybe God did play a roll, but it is still evolution.

Answer 10

Huh? You have proved evolution by saying that the moths changed to evade predators. You haven't disproven anything. I suggest you look at the line that in fact does generally follow the evolutionary path and look for a flaw there (Equine-Horse). The moth changed to evade preditors simply an evolutionary process has nothing to do with God (if there is one) doing anything. PEACE!