With the increased scrutiny, evolutionists have found many other problems with "the most celebrated experiment ever in evolutionary biology." Here are a few: 1) For his famous experiment, Kettlewell brought in dark and light moths and early in the mornings put them on tree trunks where they do not normally rest to see whether the birds would eat more dark or light moths. Since moths normally move around at night, if released then, they would have moved to their normal positions in the branches where neither Kettlewell nor the birds would be apt to find them. During the day, moths will stay where they are put. {Hooper, p.110, 114, 260} 2) The experiment was based on the assumption, that natural selection favored dark moths due to birds seeing lighter colored moths on the tree trunks and eating them. This assumption was not accurate, both because moths don"t normally rest on tree trunks and because birds seem not to eat many of them . {Hooper, p. 218, 265.} 3) The findings were artificial. Setting out large numbers of moths on a few tree trunks taught birds to come there to find food. Because of the unusual concentrations of moths put in unnatural and particularly obvious places, one critic called the experiment a study of "unnatural selection." {Hooper, 267} Some of the birds Kettlewell listed as eating his moths seem not to eat them at all under natural circumstances. {Hooper, p. 243, 258.} 4) Even in unpolluted woods there are dark places where moths can sit, so some should always exist. They should not have had their origin with the smoke of the industrial revolution {Hooper, p. 249, 262.} When Kettlewell did not get the results he wanted, he would change the design of his experiments until he did. {Hooper, p.256-257, 292.} 5) In another type of experiment, the number of moths recaptured after being marked and released were an insignificant 3 out of every 60 released until after Kettlewell received a letter from his boss. The average number recaptured daily for the 11 days after he received the letter was 13. {Hooper, p. 115.} 6) Both diet and temperature have also been found to cause dark forms of the moths to be produced. Perhaps the gene for dark moths is always present, but is sometimes turned off. {Hooper, p. 280-282, 287.} "Kettlewell's studies have not been replicated by a great number of scientists. "It doesn"t happen. David West tried it. Cyril Clark tried it. I tried it. Everybody tried it. No one gets it." {Hooper, p. 296, see also p. 272 quoting Professor Bruce Grant of the College of William and Mary in Virginia.} Once people understand that this famous experiment does not show what it is claimed to show, they generally take one of two attitudes toward it. Michael Majerus who wrote the book that first brought the problems to the attention of the public revealed the problems and the false science, but feels that it teaches kids to believe in natural selection which is true, so we should still use it. Jerry Coyne who wrote the review of Majerus's book represents the other attitude. He was horrified to find that he had been conned into teaching something that was not true. Because he desires honesty in science and in science books, he refused to use the contrived evidence any more from the moment he learned about it. The main justification for continuing to use this argument is that the number of dark moths really did increase after the advent of industrial pollution and decrease again when it was cleaned up. On the other hand, the claim that birds picking moths off tree trunks where they don"t really rest left the dark moths to replace light moths is just not true. We expect better science from our science text books. An even greater problem is the fact that this argument for evolution which has been so convincing does not show up hill evolution. The peppered moths did not become anything different than peppered moths. Creationists as well as evolutionists believe that every species is built with some ability to adapt to changing environments. If one defines evolution as any kind of change, the peppered moth story could be called evolution. However, if the theory of evolution has anything to do with simple animals having given rise to complex animals and people, peppered moths do not show that kind of evolution. Whether or not textbook authors of the future decide to modify this argument to make it more honest, or to eliminate it all together, when you went to school it was evolution's most effective propaganda, the "story that converts high school and college students to Darwinism, the thundering left hook to the jaw of creationism." {Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men: an Evolutionary Tail, 2002, p. XVii} To impress on us the tremendous influence the moth story has had, Hooper has named her last chapter, "A Damn Good Story." http://www.creationism.org/heinze/examined.htm#HeinzeExamCh05
