Darwin's 'evolution' moth changes back from black to white!

This might be a very important story, although it is from the Daily Mail.

Its extraordinary transformation is always held up as the perfect demonstration of Darwin's theory of evolution.
The pale, speckled peppered moth turned black in many parts of Britain following the Industrial Revolution over the space of a few decades, enabling it to blend in against soot-covered trees and avoid predators.

It became known as Darwin's moth, a symbol both of our changing landscape and of our understanding of its effect on the natural world.
Enlarge

But now that much of Britain's old heavy industry is just a distant memory, it seems the pendulum has swung the other way for the moths as well.

Scientists suspect the black variety is disappearing again - meaning that in a further vindication for the famous 19th century naturalist 200 years after his birth, the original pale-coloured moths are taking over once more.
Now they want people across the country to report sightings of either type in a bid to see if they are correct.

'We have seen these moths making a big swing back to their original colour,' said Richard Fox, of Dorset-based Butterfly Conservation, who is project manager of Garden Moths Count 2009.

The moth, which scientists believe is one of the best examples of natural selection, has apparently changed back to it's whiter colour. This has occured especially in the areas that were most affected by the pollution spewed out during the industrial revolution.

For those of you unaware of this moth, here is some info from BBC:

Darwin's moth proof of evolution









[edit on 20-6-2009 by kiwifoot]

That's good to hear, maybe if we keep with the proposed projects for managing resources on reducing impact, we'll see more results like this.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Yeah I didn' really think of that, you're right.

I was just thinking that it was quite convincing proof that natural selection and evolution are correct.

It doesn't seem that a moth changing colors is evolution, espeically when it's the same type of moth.

Didnt it change back to white a long time ago?

Is it just that we are noticing it now?

Originally posted by octotom
It doesn't seem that a moth changing colors is evolution, espeically when it's the same type of moth.

It's natural selection, which is basically what evolution is. The white moths became easy to pick off when the trees became darkened by pollution.
As the pollution was reduced, and the trees regained their healthy color, the darker moths were picked off.
Survival of the fittest.

reply to post by octotom


It goes a long way to prove the theory of natural selection. Which is the way in which we evolved.

Put very simply, during the period of the industrial revolution, the white moths were easily spotted and eaten, their genetic traits did not survive s much as those of darker moths of the same species. Over time, through each generation, the darker the moth the more chance it had of surviving, so the entire species got darker and darker in those areas, that is natural selection, or evolution.

Now that there is no need for the black trait as the pollution has gone, the lighter the moth is the more chance it has of blending in with the white lichen on the trees etc where it lives (that used to be blackened), so the whiter the moth is the more chance it has of living and handing it's genetic code to the next generation. Over many generations, the whiter moth traits are carried on, now resulting in a white moth, where before they were black.

Essentially the moth has evolved.

reply to post by kiwifoot


octotom is that sort of creationist who believes evolution occurs when something like a pineapple "evolves" into a hippopotamus within a time frame she can personally observe in a single sitting.

I wouldn't waste your breath. Interesting article though!

Two things from this thread:

1) Well, Creation clearly isn't fact. I already knew that, but this goes a long way into proving it.

2) Pollution is being reduced! White lichens that the moths feed on/depend on for camouflage are, well, WHITE AGAIN!

Big whoop!!!

reply to post by KarlG


Big whoop indeed.
One of the founding principles in evolution is natural selection.
While this natural selection is artificially enforced, the results are pretty much the same.
Environment changes, species changes due to environment. Species changes after environment changes again, in this case returning to what it used to be.

Natural selection in play.

That moth demonstration is utter crap, and one of the most lame exhibits ever presented, appealing only to the lame of mind.

As factories during this industrialization period gradually turned the surrounding environment darker, the lighter colored moths stood out more against a dark background and were more easily picked off.

The darker moths, more concealed, progressed.

The moths didn't change color.

The backgrounds did, and this "highlighting" of the lighter moths contributed to their lesser survival.

Had somehow this been reversed and everything got a white powdered coating, the dark moths would have been reduced in population as they would have stood out to predators.

The only changing of color was of the backgrounds.

It took a desperate dummy to put that display together.

That's the problem with academics. They need to get their asses out in the world and see how it really works.

I've always been of the opinion that while natural selection may occur in some instances, it's by no means the only way that life evolves. Evolution may have many mechanisms that it uses, from natural selection to intelligent design (i.e. a creator [divine or otherwise] selecting the traits which survive).

It's surprising and mildly disappointing that natural selection still needs to justify itself to certain people. It was recognised before Darwin and has since been demonstrated and accepted by science. I understand there's an ongoing debate in the States, but the rest of the Western world (if they have an opinion on it-most folk don't care) just accepts it. Naturally, the only person I know that disagrees with natural selection is a professed mormon, but they're still waiting for proof that Jesus invented concrete in America

nature is beauty and ever changing , we all adapt to changing circumstances.

Creationist agree that changes within a kind occur. Evolutionist make the jump in faith that this means that species turn into other species. For example a wolf, and a poodle are both different KIND of dogs, but they will never become a another KIND of animal.

reply to post by ZombieOctopus

octotom is that sort of creationist who believes evolution occurs when something like a pineapple "evolves" into a hippopotamus within a time frame she can personally observe in a single sitting

First, I'm a guy. Second, many creationists agree with the concept of micro-evolution [which I feel is a poor name], which is what this is an example of--variance within a kind. [[When this moth started to change color back in the day, it probably had black a a recessive trait. There probably were some of these moths that were born black as well. [Just as there are people, like myself, who are born with blonde hair though everyone in their family has black or dark brown.] The black moths started to become more prominent as the white ones were eaten due to the pollution, making the white coloring the recessive trait. Now that the pollution is clearing up, the black moths are being eaten making headway for the white moths to come to prominence once again.]]

Creationists have a problem with marco-evolution, which there is no evidence to backup. Macro-evolution is the belief that species become other species, which are increasingly more and more complex [which flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but that's for another day.]. This is the most popular evolutionary belief held today and it does essentially teach that, life came from non-life and eventually "a pineapple became a hippopotamus".

reply to post by RuneSpider


"basically what evolution is". Right. And a tire is basically what a car is. These moths are still "after it's kind".
which is basically what creationism is.

I think this example is evidence of a system that is in place for better survival, Call it what you will, but i don't think it indicates either way the source of the system.
two cents.

reply to post by Kandinsky


The problem is that people like to include certain aspects of evolution, like natural selection, only when they fit, and when they don't, people say, "well that's not evolution it's ______".
Imo, evolution, asa unified theory, is laughable, but natural selection exists and doesn't contradict either evolution or creationism.

CREATIONISM, not RELIGION.

reply to post by octotom
Agreed, we're all somebody's friend, wife, husband, son, daughter etc. We're more than a label like 'Creationist' 'Believer' 'Christian' or 'atheist.'

I'm never able to understand why a belief in the Old Testament God, precludes an acceptance of natural selection and the engine that drives evolution. Why can't you or others believe in both? There's a great loophole in Genesis whereby you can speculate exactly what a 'day' represented. Maybe a 'day' in the experience of God constitutes a billion years? Belief in God is based on Faith so evolution should have no impact on the devout.

You're wise to leave thermodynamics out of this.

This is the most popular evolutionary belief held today and it does essentially teach that, life came from non-life and eventually "a pineapple became a hippopotamus".

Creationism also espouses life from non-life. You do yourself an injustice with the pineapple=hippo gag. You're either arguing from an uninformed position or using ridicule in place of a reasonable argument

Originally posted by dooper
That moth demonstration is utter crap, and one of the most lame exhibits ever presented, appealing only to the lame of mind.

...

The moths didn't change color.

...

The only changing of color was of the backgrounds.

Did you actually think people are saying the moths changed color during their lifetimes? That by some miraculous event, as the pollution began to build up all of the white moths suddenly started to turn back? The moths very much DID change color, just over the course of generations.

What you are describing (the moths giving birth to more black moths as the backgrounds changed color) is the essential basis of natural selection, and on a grander scale evolution. When one species (moths for example) starts to adapt to their environment, they take on new traits (such as changing color). Eventually the moths take on so many new traits (due to changes in environment, sexual selection, or natural advantage) that they become an entirely new species, and are no longer reproductively viable with other species of moths, due to the growing differences in their DNA. The process is extremely slow and takes place over thousands or millions of generations, which explains why life-on-earth has been evolving for billions of years to reach the state it's in now.

There is not some 'grand mystery' to evolution, you described the process in your own post right after you called it "utter crap", which is pretty silly.

It seems to me that evolution-deniers either

a.) don't understand evolution and thus purport that it is impossible

b.) refuse to understand evolution due to religious belief and thus purport that it is impossible

or,

c.) perfectly understand evolution (as you demonstrated in your post), yet still purport that it is impossible.


Do you honestly believe all of the species that exist on earth today magically appeared as they are now, and that the entire fossil record and all of the transition species and common ancestors that we have discovered are complete fabrications?