RE: Robert Matthews on the Peppered Moth

Pim van Meurs (
Mon, 15 Mar 1999 10:00:33 -0800

> And as Dave himself quoted later in his post: "Prof Coyne insisted,
> however, that the moths are almost certainly an example of natural
> selection...." In other words, the moths still support evolution in general
> and natural selection in particular; it's just the exact cause that is now
> in question.

What do you mean by saying that the moths "support evolution"? There
are certainly natural variations taking place - but variation is
common to creationary and evolutionary theories. Why should you pick
out "evolution" and not "creation"?

Fine, creationary "theory" also accepts natural selection and variation. But what else does
a creationary "theory" have to offer ?

> As for Dawkins, all attempts to "spin" his comment aside, all he said ("But,
> in any case, nothing momentous hangs on these experiments.") was exactly
> what every evolutionists on this list has said about this issue: So what?

Kettlewell announced his findings to the world with a fanfare: here
is "Darwin's missing evidence". The experiments have remained as
the ONLY good example of known forces of natural selection affecting
the genetic makeup of a breeding population.

I guess this means that you are not aware of "Beak of the Finch" then ? Your statement
should perhaps read "ONLY good example _known to you_" ?

Yes, there are over a hundred other examples of "natural selection" -
but in no case do we have the same clear link between identifiable
selection forces and the genetic make-up of organisms. That is why
Steve Jones described the Peppered Moth story as "Evolution's best

I would not say that this is the case. There are far better examples at present.