Nothing very original here, just letting out some suppressed truth about the fake evidence used to brainwash schoolchildren. Starting with peppered moths.
The peppered moth is one of the icons of evolution, as everyone who wants to pass a biology exam must know, and believe without question. Profesor Steve Jones, BBC atheist and mate of Dawkins, said this was the best evidence for evolution. What is the worst, I wonder? The fact that 'all the scientists accept it' (except the ones who were made an example of for questioning it and the others who therefore learned not to ask the wrong questions)?
Basically, the peppered moth-biston betularia- has 2 forms, light and dark. Always has, always will. Lots of animals are the same, for example melanistic adders (vipera berus). This is an incredibly banal biological fact. Darker and lighter moths can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, so according to the simplest and most realistic definition, are one species. Got that? one species. Same as humans who also have various skin colours but are one species.
The peppered moth is, apparently, predated on by birds as it rests on tree trunks. The darker form is easier seen when resting on light coloured tree trunks, while the lighter form is better camouflaged. The reverse is true when the tree trunks are darker. So far, so logical. and, yes, this is an example of natural selection or differential survival. No problem with that. The elimination of less fit forms leaving more space for fitter forms to survive and breed (which is all natural selection is) is entirely consistent with young earth creationism.I will set aside the issues about how the original experiments on peppered moths were, shall we say, 'helped along' to make sure they showed the desired result. That story is important, and can be Googled, but is superfluous when it comes to exposing the peppered moth story as rubbish evidence for evolution.
As tree bark colour changed due to differential lichen growth in different conditions of air quality due to industrial pollution, so apparently the relative proportions of darker to lighter moths altered. This apparently proved evolution. Except that no evolution has taken place. Unless you define evolution in such a way that this evidence supports evolution as defined in your definition, which definition is supported by this evidence. In other words, unless you employ the kind of self referential and circular argument which was perfected (apart fom his appalling English) by Charles Darwin.
Anyone awake out there? You have been had.
Altering the gene frequency (for example, for colour, as here) in a population is not a process by which you could ever turn one animal or plant into an entirely different one. To quote the late Don van Vliet 'the dust blows forward and the dust blows back'. Cyclical variation is not the same as progress. No new genes are being produced. Time doesn't help, as it is quality, not quantity, that matters here.
