Peppered Moths: Is That the Best Evolution’s Got?

The battle-weary hero fighting his way back up after being knocked down by a powerful nemesis is a staple in many action-adventure stories that’s sure to get audiences rallying to see the hero overcome.

And while some ideas are so iconic they never seem to get old, others can bore you if you’ve seen them rehashed too many times. In the origins debate, my subject here today is likely to elicit that same reaction in many—namely, the tale of the peppered moth.

Marketing Moths as Proof of Evolution Again

Seriously? Peppered moths? Do we really need to talk about them again? Christians who’ve been around the creation/evolution debate may have already yawned, rolled their eyes, and considered moving on to better things. I mean, the idea of those moths being supposed evidence for evolution has been put to bed long ago, hasn’t it? What’s more to be said?

Even the infamous anti-creationist and (US) evolutionist Professor Jerry Coyne once stated the idea of using the peppered moth as proof of evolution “to be in bad shape” in his review of a book written by a fellow evolutionist titled Melanism: Evolution in Action. His review exposed several scientific flaws found throughout the entire history of the use of the peppered moth, and he admitted his reaction to reading the first two chapters was similar to “the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.”1

If you’re wondering why I’m bothering to mention these moths again, here’s why.

The dozens of studies that have been done on the genetics and ecology of the peppered moth give us one of the most detailed understandings of evolution by natural selection in any species. The peppered moth story also shows how evolutionary biology, like physics and chemistry, is a rigorous science which scientists propose and test hypotheses.

While the peppered moth is the most famous example of evolution by natural selection that has been directly observed, hundreds of other cases have also been studied.2

You might be surprised to learn that this quote is actually from one of today’s premier university textbooks used internationally, published and printed just three years ago, in 2023.

This quote comes from a section in it subtitled “We Can Watch Natural Selection and Evolution Happening in Real Time,” with the learning objectives being to “describe an example of natural selection and evolution that was directly observed” and “explain a hypothesis about evolution that was tested by an experiment and the conclusion that was drawn.”3 And their first example presented is that of the multi-colored moths so commonly seen in older textbooks.

In other words, modern evolutionists have essentially resurrected the tale of the peppered moth and declared them yet again as “the most famous example of evolution by natural selection that has been directly observed.” That is, they’re a premier illustration used to supposedly demonstrate evolution in action to the general public!

Promoting Peppered Moths Past and Present

In case you think that statement is a bit hyperbolic, let’s look at some of the comments made by leading evolutionists in major publications over the years (including many recent quotes), beginning with 1959 in Scientific American by Mr. H.B.D. Kettlewell, the man whose research gave these moths their iconic status originally. The blurb at the top of the article says,

In his [Charles Darwin’s] time certain species of moths were light in color. Today in many areas these species are largely dark. If he had noticed the change occurring, he would have observed evolution in action.4

This claim was reiterated by Time magazine just over 10 years after Kettlewell’s original claim in 1970. As this moth “evolution example” grew in popularity among lay persons and scientists alike, the well-read magazine declared these changes in moth coloration were “living proof of Darwin’s still controversial theory of evolution.”5

By 1975, Scientific American was calling it “a complex process of evolution.”6

Ten years later, the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society produced an article featuring them titled “Evolution in Reverse: Clean Air and the Peppered Moth.”7 Thirteen years after that (1998), the Oxford University Press declared it was “one of the first, and still most cited examples of evolution in action,”8 and the Journal of Heredity called it “the classic example of observable evolution by natural selection.”9

By the early 2000s, the peppered moth story had already lost some of its evolutionary luster (for reasons we’ll discuss later), so evolutionists were trying to salvage its legitimacy. A good example of this comes from this 2012 Science News article where they said, “A recently criticized textbook example of evolutionary forces in action . . . may be on its way back,” and then the article quoted evolutionary biologist Scott Freeman (University of Washington) saying, “The moth story not only makes ‘a compelling example of evolution in action,’ but it’s ‘a terrific case history of how science works.’”10

Beating the Dead Horse

I think you’re getting the point by now. The peppered moth has been cited as one of, if not the greatest proofs of scientists observing evolution in action hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of times over the years. That’s why it’s referred to as a “textbook example of evolution.” Still not convinced? Here are some more modern examples. The following has been said of peppered moths:

• “This important example of rapid evolution”11
• “A classic example of studying evolution in natural populations”12
• “One of the most famous examples of evolution by natural selection”13
• “The classroom example of a visible evolutionary response is”14
• “This iconic textbook example of evolution by natural selection”15
• “A classic example of evolution in action”16
• “One of the best examples of evolution in action”17
• “Literally a textbook example of urban evolution”18
• “Arguably, the most important example of evolution in action”19
• “Long provided one of the best examples of evolution in action”20

Proving a Point

Now you’re probably saying, “Okay, okay, we get it,” but I am doing this to make a very specific point, not only to fellow believers who are struggling with the concept of evolution but also to Bible skeptics who believe evolution dismantles the biblical narrative of creation.

This moth example was—and is now once again—being used as the go-to proof to indoctrinate young minds into the concept of naturalism in our state-run schools in the West. Just look at this mocking quote from Judith Hooper from her book Of Moths and Men, where she describes the peppered moth example as,

the slam dunk of natural selection, the paradigmatic story that converts high school and college students to Darwin, the thundering left hook to the jaw of creationism.21

Indeed, I want to overwhelmingly document here that these experiments with moths have been characterized by evolutionists as “the poster child of Darwinian evolution,”22 and they are doing so once again. So, if they are going to hold this up as one of the most powerful examples of evolution recorded, it had better be indisputable!

For those who still might not be familiar with the details of this supposed evolutionary argument, let’s establish what this narrative was originally based upon and also look at some later research.

The Original Research

In his 1955 paper, Kettlewell identified something that was well known for over 100 years before he published his findings, namely that peppered moths (Biston betularia) in England occurred in both light and dark forms (and a gradient of shades between the two).23 He argued that a shift in the population toward a larger number of the darker variety prior to 1950 was the result of the Industrial Revolution, when pollution from manufacturing plants killed the lighter-colored lichen on trees and darkened the tree trunks with soot.

He then maintained that the light-colored moths (which were formerly better camouflaged on the tree’s lighter backgrounds) now stood out more, making them more visible to local birds. This new vulnerability resulted in the light moths being eaten more often and a higher proportion of the dark variety surviving until the pollution was dramatically reduced, after which the lighter moths became more prominent once again.

He documented this shift experimentally, using traps to capture both kinds of moths. And through release-and-recapture experiments, he determined that a higher percentage of darker moths survived during periods of higher pollution. This study is what prompted him to declare that if Charles Darwin had seen his experiments, “He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work,” i.e., evolution in action!24

Mutation to the Rescue?

Now, just to be fair, some evolutionists may want to insert the “mutation factor” into the story here (even though it wasn’t mentioned in Kettlewell’s original work) in an attempt to beef up the evolutionary hypothesis. They may point to later research that postulates that the darker form of the peppered moth was brought about by a genetic mutation, even though they admit both dark- and light-colored variations existed prior to the industrial pollution.

However, they might still argue that without the genetic mutation that supposedly changed the moths prior to natural selection favoring the dark-colored variants, their greater dominance wouldn’t have occurred, all in an attempt to make the story sound more favorable to evolution having occurred through natural selection.

You see, scientists have suggested that the darker form of the peppered moth was produced by a genetic mutation that occurred around 1819, although this was never directly observed.25 And again, they acknowledge that peppered moths already possessed the ability to produce varying amounts and patterns of dark pigmentation, including intermediate forms prior to this.26

Researchers identified the mutation as an insertion of a transposable element (a piece of pre-existing mobile DNA) into a gene associated with wing coloration, which increased the activity of an existing gene transcript during wing development27 and resulted in the darker form of the moth. This moth was better disguised in polluted environments, thus better able to survive and reproduce.28

However, we should clarify something here about so-called mutations. Scientists have discovered that transposable elements capable of moving or copying to different locations within living things aren’t always “random mutations” in the way many people think of them. They can be controlled by existing cellular machinery, and some play important roles in regulating how genes function. Many appear to be designed for specific purposes.

So—even as the modified story normally taught to students goes—the classic peppered moth example would involve a mutation affecting the production of melanin within a pre-existing pigmentation system, not the creation of a previously nonexistent color or pigmentation system (i.e., no evolution of anything new).29

As a matter of fact, researchers have now confirmed the existence of a museum specimen of a black peppered moth dating seven years earlier than their proposed date of the mutation supposedly happening in 1819 and existing before 1811.30 So, without any evolutionary influence suggested, there’s no reason not to believe these varieties are just part of the naturally occurring, built-in variations of color we see in almost every creature.

Questionable Methods

Now, before we discuss this supposed “thundering left hook to the jaw of creationism” more fully, let’s understand the reasons for the kerfuffle within the evolutionary community regarding the peppered moth story. It had evolutionists like Coyne comparing his disappointment with the peppered moth experiments to finding out Santa isn’t real. Largely, the evolutionary community positioned the issue as a matter of the methodology surrounding the way the experiments were conducted.

Fellow evolutionists questioned whether the textbook photographs that contrasted moths on the different colored tree trunks had been faked by gluing the moths there, and whether live moths had been released or even placed onto exposed tree trunks during daylight, even though they normally select their resting places at night—all of which students were never told while looking at pictures in their textbooks.31

Other problems had to do with the explanation itself, such as the fact that light-colored moth populations had already increased before the tree lichens recolonized, and American moth populations experienced similar changes without fluctuations in the amount of supposedly preferred lichen. And some later studies failed to reproduce Kettlewell’s findings that moths prefer backgrounds that most closely match their color.32

To patch up the situation, evolutionists have focused on attempts to debunk these criticisms so they can reinstate their “greatest proof of observed evolution” and carry on swinging those big punches at those silly creationists. A perfect example of this comes from an article from Springer Nature titled “Industrial Melanism in the Peppered Moth, Biston betularia: An Excellent Teaching Example of Darwinian Evolution in Action.”

Over the last decade, this case has come under attack from those who oppose Darwinian evolution. . . . Criticisms of experimental work in the 1950s that centered on lack of knowledge of the behavior and ecology of the moth, poor experimental procedure, or artificiality in experiments have been addressed in subsequent work. . . . The conclusion from this analysis . . . is that industrial melanism in the peppered moth is still one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action and that it should be taught as such in biology classes.33

Is This the Best They’ve Got?

Now, I could go into a detailed analysis of why I think the criticisms leveled against the experiments were valid (even valid enough for the likes of Coyne’s Santa remark), but—for the sake of argument—let’s lay all that to the side, accept the entire premise of the experiment as originally presented as being absolutely true, and lay out our case from there.

As one creationist who was “knocked out” by that supposed punch, let me pick myself up, dust myself off, stare down the evolutionary community, and ask, “Is that really the best you’ve got?” Here’s how we could summarize the key points that the evolution-believing community says are so convincing about their story.

1. Scientists have determined that peppered moths come in both light and dark forms.
   Creationists would say, “Yes, that’s been observed—we agree.”
2. If moths land on trees where they are less camouflaged, birds would be able to see them more easily and eat more of them (i.e., natural selection occurs).
   Creationists would say, “Yes, that’s perfectly logical.”
3. This means the ones that don’t get eaten can have more offspring and pass on their genes more frequently, which will likely result in more moths of that similar color in that environment (i.e., a change in gene frequency occurs).
   Creationists would say, “Of course. Who would argue with that?”

Is that it? Have these moths turned into anything other than peppered moths? Do they have any brand-new abilities they never had before, new organs, new appendages, or new capabilities? No? Yet this is one of the greatest proofs of evolution in action the world has ever seen? Hands down, argument over, mic drop, all dissenters bow down now, it’s all over for the creationists?

To truly understand the level of gaslighting here, do you remember what the scientists I quoted earlier said? This is “living proof of Darwin’s . . . theory of evolution,” and “one of the first, and still most cited examples of evolution in action.”

Except, it isn’t.

Natural Selection Isn’t Evolution

We started with light- and dark-colored moths and ended with light- and dark-colored moths—which means there was no evolution of anything in the Darwinian sense. Don’t believe me? Maybe you think my statement is too simplistic, that I just don’t understand evolution, or that I’m misrepresenting what was said.

Well, forget about me—listen to the distinguished evolutionary biologist L. Harrison Matthews, who was so prominent in the evolution-believing community that he wrote the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Perhaps he can say it a little more eloquently than I can.

The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content or light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.34

I can already hear many evolutionists howling when reading this, saying, “Natural selection is evolution!” Except it’s not, just like the evolution-believing Mathews (a Fellow of the prestigious Royal Society and the Scientific Director of the Zoological Society of London) very clearly said. Natural selection (like any selective process) only selects from what’s already there; it doesn’t make new stuff.

Even the famous evolutionist Ronald Fisher flat-out admitted that, despite people confusing the two concepts, “Natural Selection is not Evolution.”35

Evolutionary biologist T. Ryan Gregory wrote this in his 2009 article, “Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions,” (which, ironically, was published in the same respected peer-reviewed scientific journal in the same year that the article declaring “the peppered moth is still one of the clearest . . . examples of Darwinian evolution in action” and “should be taught as such in biology classes” was as well).

Natural selection itself does not create new traits; it only changes the proportion of variation that is already present in the population. 36

Yes, if birds munch up more of one colored moth than the other, the proportion of the ones that get eaten decreases; that’s called math. Yet hundreds of textbooks, scientific journals, and popular articles describe this as supposedly one of the best proofs that scientists have of evolution in action?

Melanism Isn’t a Mechanism to Explain Evolution

Remember, the grand story of evolution is supposed to explain how all of the new amazing forms, functions, and features of every living thing on the planet were generated without a mind (God/intelligent design, etc.). So, with that in mind, how many of these moths would need to be eaten by birds before they somehow started acquiring brand-new traits?

How much soot would you need to put on or take off of trees before these moths somehow developed unique, never-before-seen genetic programming that would allow them to generate new abilities and cause them to morph into a new creature? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

That’s because it doesn’t matter how much mythical time you throw at this process; there’s no mechanism that can morph moths into moles, meerkats, monkeys, or men.

Check out this summary quote from the very defender of the peppered moth story I quoted earlier, Michael Majerus.

“My view of the rise and fall of the melanic peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarily responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors.” That is still my view.37

Wow, mind blown. What are his big takeaways? Birds ate moths more easily seen because of pollution, and some of them migrated. Voila! This is what they say is scientific proof that microbes evolved into mankind over millions of years.

Good Science?

This is the same man who said,

Teachers in schools and colleges, who have been worried that they may have been teaching an example based on flawed science, can now return to teaching the story of industrial melanism in the peppered moth with confidence. . . . The peppered moth case can not only be used as a superb example of Darwinian evolution in action but also to illustrate how good science is done.38

Now, I’ll let you judge for yourself whether you believe someone observing “differential bird predation” can be equated to the category of “good science” when it’s being presented as a superb example of evolution in action. But let’s just be honest. If this is supposedly one of the best examples of evolution they’ve got, then I believe the evidence for evolution is truly pathetic. It might be an example of natural selection, but natural selection admittedly isn’t evolution. So that statement is unequivocally false.

And if the peppered moths are the most famous example of evolution that has ever been observed—and yet it doesn’t demonstrate evolution—then you can kick that whole evolutionary trash pile out to the evidential curb for disposal.

Ignoring the Evidence

I’ve been doing this for over 30 years now, so I know that many reading this will disregard it and carry on believing that the story of evolution is well-founded. Some might believe this is just an aberration in textbooks that somehow slipped through the cracks, or that I misquoted (without checking the many references I provided) the articles because “surely all those scientists are really smart and must know what they’re talking about, so maybe this guy is just a religious zealot blinded by his faith!”

“He’s not a scientist, and he doesn’t have a PhD, and he’s a Christian, and a creationist at that, so we already know he’s crazy because he believes in some supernatural magic man in the sky, so he must be wrong!”

I’ve heard it all before, and see it practically every time I post an article or video discussing such things, because when many people are challenged on one of their fundamental beliefs, whipping out a bunch of ad hominem attacks against your opponent and dismissing their arguments outright is just a whole lot easier than taking the time to analyze the subject on its own merit.

Let Us Reason Together

Did the peppered moth experiments ever come close to demonstrating evolution in action? Obviously not. If not, why have evolutionists past and present claimed it did? Should impressionable students be taught this as an example of “good science” in schools? And if it didn’t demonstrate evolution in action and yet is touted as the best example of it that scientists have, what does that say about the rest of the evidence they champion so readily?

If this is supposed to be one of the strongest arguments for evolution out there, don’t you (especially Christians) think it’s time you took another look at the entire evolutionary story so boldly stated as “fact” and “science” everywhere? God’s Word is true as plainly written from beginning to end. And for those of you who haven’t taken the time to examine the evidence for creation, remember what Proverbs 18:17 says,

The first to plead his case seems right,
Until another comes and examines him.

Indeed, as skeptics attempt to beat down the faith, Christian soldiers should stand tall and always be ready to give a defense and discuss things of the Lord whenever possible. Because ultimately, this is a gospel issue, and eternal lives are at stake.

“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says Yahweh,
“Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool.” (Isaiah 1:18)