Editing Peppered moth evolution (section)

== Kettlewell's experiment ==

{{main|Kettlewell's experiment}}

The first important experiments on the peppered moth were carried out by [[Bernard Kettlewell]] at Oxford University, under the supervision of [[E. B. Ford]], who helped him gain a grant from the [[Nuffield Foundation]] to perform the experiments. In 1953, Kettlewell started a preliminary experiment in which moths were released into a large (18m × 6m) [[aviary]], where they were fed on by [[great tit]]s (''Parus major''). His main experiment, at [[Christopher Cadbury Wetland Reserve]] in [[Birmingham]], [[England]], involved marking, releasing, and recapturing marked moths. He found that in this polluted woodland ''typica'' moths were preferentially preyed upon. He thus showed that the melanic phenotype was important to the survival of peppered moths in such a habitat. Kettlewell repeated the experiment in 1955 in unpolluted woodlands in [[Dorset]], and again in the polluted woods in Birmingham.<ref name=majerus2008/><ref name=swedentalk/> In 1956 he repeated the experiments and found similar results; in Birmingham, birds ate most of the white moths (75%), whereas in Dorset, most of the dark moths (86%) were eaten.<ref name=rudgebio05/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kettlewell |first1=H. B. D. |title=A survey of the frequencies of Biston betularia (L.) (Lep.) and its melanic forms in Great Britain |journal=[[Heredity (journal)|Heredity]] |date=1958 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=51–72 |doi=10.1038/hdy.1958.4 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== Criticisms ===

{{further|Kettlewell's experiment#Criticisms}}

Theodore David Sargent{{efn|Sargent (1936–2018) was a biologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.<ref>{{cite web |title=Obituary: Theodore Sargent, Professor Emeritus of Biology |publisher=University of Massachusetts Amherst |date=4 September 2018 |url=https://www.umass.edu/news/article/obituary-theodore-sargent-professor |access-date=31 May 2022}}</ref>}} performed experiments between 1965 and 1969, from which he concluded that it was not possible to reproduce Kettlewell's results, and said that birds showed no preference for moths on either black or white tree trunks.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sargent |first1=T. D. |title=Cryptic moths: effects on background selections of painting the circumocular scales |journal=Science |year=1968 |volume=159 |issue=3810 |pages=100–101 |bibcode=1968Sci...159..100S |pmid=5634373 |doi=10.1126/science.159.3810.100 |s2cid=32124765}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sargent |first1=T. D. |title=Background Selections of the Pale and Melanic Forms of the Cryptic Moth, Phigalia titea (Cramer) |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |year=1969 |volume=222 |issue=5193 |pages=585–586 |bibcode=1969Natur.222..585S |doi=10.1038/222585b0 |s2cid=4202131}}</ref> He suggested that Kettlewell had trained the birds to pick moths on tree trunks to obtain the desired results.<ref name=rice/><ref name=sargent>{{cite book |last1=Sargent |first1=T. D. |last2=Millar |first2=C.D. |last3=Lambert |first3=D. M. |chapter=Chapter 9: The 'classical' explanation of industrial melanism: Assessing the evidence |editor-first=Max K. |editor-last=Hecht |editor2-first=Bruce |editor2-last=Wallace |title=Evolutionary Biology |publisher=Plenum Press |volume=23 |year=1988 |isbn=0306429772}}</ref>

Two chapters in [[Michael Majerus]]'s 1998 book ''[[Melanism: Evolution in Action]]'' critiqued the research in Kettlewell's ''[[The Evolution of Melanism]]'', discussed studies which raised questions about Kettlewell's original experimental methods, and called for further research.<ref name=swedentalk/> Reviewing the book, [[Jerry Coyne]] noted these points, and concluded that "for the time being we must discard ''Biston'' as a well-understood example of natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution. There are many studies more appropriate for use in the classroom."<ref name="coyne">{{cite journal |last=Coyne |first=Jerry A. |title=Not Black and White. Review of ''Melanism: Evolution in Action'' by Michael E.N. Majerus |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume=396 |issue=6706 |pages=35–36 |year=1998 |doi=10.1038/23856 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

[[Judith Hooper]]'s book ''[[Of Moths and Men]]'' (2002) severely criticised Kettlewell's experiment.<ref>{{cite news |last=Kenney |first=Michael |title=Of Dark Moths, Men and Evolution |work=[[Chicago Tribune]] |date=22 October 2002 |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/2002/10/22/of-dark-moths-men-and-evolution/ |access-date=10 December 2014}}</ref> Hooper argued that Kettlewell's field notes could not be found and suggested that his experiment was fraudulent, on the basis of Sargent's criticisms alleging that the photographs of the moths were taken of dead moths placed on a log. She said that E. B. Ford was a "Darwinian zealot",<ref>{{cite web |title=Of Moths and Men |publisher=W. W. Norton & Company |url=http://books.wwnorton.com/books/Of-Moths-and-Men/ |access-date=10 December 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20141210045231/http://books.wwnorton.com/books/Of-Moths-and-Men/ |archive-date=10 December 2014}}</ref> and claimed that he exploited the scientifically naive Kettlewell to obtain the desired experimental results.<ref>{{cite news |last=Smith |first=Peter D. |title=Of Moths and Men: Intrigue, Tragedy & the Peppered Moth |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=11 May 2002 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/11/scienceandnature.highereducation |access-date=10 December 2014}}</ref> The book's reception led to demands that the peppered moth evolution story be deleted from textbooks.<ref>{{cite news |title=Of moths and men |work=[[The Independent]] |date=4 September 2003 |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/of-moths-and-men-85452.html |url-access=subscription |access-date=10 December 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220525/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/of-moths-and-men-85452.html |archive-date=25 May 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dover |first1=Gabby |title=Mothbusters |journal=EMBO Reports |year=2003 |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=235 |doi=10.1038/sj.embor.embor778 |pmc=1315906}}</ref> Scientists have examined the allegations made by Hooper, and found them to be without merit.<ref name=cook2003/><ref>{{citation |author=Grant, B. S. |year=2002 |title=Sour grapes of wrath |journal=Science |volume=297 |issue=5583 |pages=940–941 |doi=10.1126/science.1073593 |s2cid=161367302}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Majerus |first1=Michael E. N. |author-link=Michael Majerus |editor1-last=Fellowes |editor1-first=Mark |editor2-last=Holloway |editor2-first=Graham |editor3-last=Rolf |editor3-first=Jens |title=Insect Evolutionary Ecology |year=2005 |publisher=CABI Publishing |location=Wallingford, Oxon |isbn=978-1-84593-140-7 |pages=375–377 |chapter=The peppered moth: decline of a Darwinian disciple |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hS9V81dl1FEC}}</ref>

[[File:Ahlenmoor 3(loz).jpg|thumb|[[Creationism|Creationists]] have disputed the occurrence or significance of the melanic ''carbonaria'' morph's increase in [[allele frequency|frequency]].]]

[[Phillip E. Johnson]], a co-founder of the creationist [[intelligent design]] movement, said that the moths "do not sit on tree trunks", that "moths had to be glued to the trunks" for pictures, and that the experiments were "fraudulent" and a "scam."<ref>{{cite web |title=Evolution – April 1999: Peppered Moths and Creationists |last=Frack |first=Donald |date=16 April 1999 |url=http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199904/0201.html |access-date=2007-08-26 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070826180937/http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199904/0201.html |archive-date=26 August 2007}}</ref> The intelligent design advocate [[Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)|Jonathan Wells]] wrote an essay on the subject, a shortened version of which appeared in the 24 May 1999 issue of ''[[The Scientist (magazine)|The Scientist]]'', claiming that "The fact that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks invalidates Kettlewell's experiments".<ref name="wells1999">{{cite journal |last=Wells |first=J. |title=Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths; This classical story of evolution by natural selection needs revising |journal=The Scientist |volume=13 |issue=11 |page=13 |date=24 May 1999 |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmothshort.htm}}</ref> Wells further wrote in his 2000 book ''[[Icons of Evolution]]'' that "What the textbooks don't explain, however, is that biologists have known since the 1980s that the classical story has some serious flaws. The most serious is that peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged."<ref name=wells2000>Wells J. (2000). ''[[Icons of Evolution]]: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong''. [[Regnery Press]], Washington, D.C., p. 138 (book available from [https://iconsofevolution.com/ Iconsofevolution.com])</ref> However, peppered moths do rest on tree trunks on occasion, and [[Nick Matzke]] states that there is little difference between the 'staged' photos and 'unstaged' ones.<ref>{{cite web |last=Matzke |first=Nicholas |author-link=Nick Matzke |title=Icon of Obfuscation: Chapter 7: Peppered Moths |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths}}</ref>