Mark Walker MWalker at
Tue Nov 23 16:26:40 EST 1999

I am also not privy to the original question/criticism, and, being a rather
dogmatic creationist, I do not intend to enter into another debate on this
issue.  My problem, scientifically, with the Peppered Moth experiments is
that (as Bruce Walsh eluded to) they do not provide evidence of modified
behavior/genetic structure.  Whether or not a bird might prefer to eat black
or white moths doesn't seem to me to be the issue.

There is no doubt in my mind that environmental conditions can generate a
natural selection of organisms which possess a genetically-based
environmental advantage.  I don't even have a problem with the notion that
through variance and environmental pressure, genetic frequencies can shift
to extremes that were previously unrecorded.  What I have a problem with is
the notion that new genetic information can be generated randomly,
especially when it is suggested that through such a process higher order can
evolve from nothing.

Most everyone on this list would argue vehemently, but do we all really
accept without doubt or uncertainty that complex structures can evolve from
simple structures without a guided hand?  Where is there evidence that this
has taken place?

Mark Walker.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn A. Gorelick [mailto:GGorelick at]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 12:32 PM
> To: LEPS-L at
> While artificial,  Kettlewell's experiments involved
> 1) the marking of the undersides of the primaries (using a 
> fine brush) of
> all subject moths with a spot of colored dye for later analysis  and
> 2) the placing of both dark and light forms on polluted and 
> non-polluted
> tree trunks. The robins selected those specimens that were 
> visible to them.
>      This moth is found in such hardwood forests and exhibits 
> the behavior
> duplicated during the experiments.  The genus Biston occurs 
> in eastern North
> America as well, but not being much of a mother at this stage, (that's
> moth-er, folks..)I know neither the species nor the ranges 
> and hosts.  
>      I apparently missed the original question here dealing with
> creationists' interpretation/disagreement regarding the 
> reliability of these
> data...  
>      Perhaps some observant creationist will choose to enlighten us by
> providing some EVIDENCE that disproves the significance of H.B.D.
> Kettlewell's works. There are abundant forests for careful 
> observations,
> perhaps free of pollution (and evolutionists as well).  The trunks may
> easily be darkened or polluted for study purposes,if 
> necessary, as may be
> their findings and conclusions.
> Glenn A. Gorelick 
> Dept. of Biological Sciences
> Citrus College
> Glendora, CA  91741

More information about the Leps-l mailing list