Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Famous Peppered Moth Photos Were Staged

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:26:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

Haha. This experiment with the moths has always been criticized from all angles. But one bad hoax for evolution does not mean evolution is false.

I think you should do a post on ALL the hoaxs and lies evolutionist have told to forward evolution. I find it completely dishonest, distasteful and corrupt to see through out recent history all the blatant fakes to prove evolution.

If evolution is a scientific theory and fact. Than the truth will come out. SO why have so many scientist and academic organizations purposefully deceived the public mind?

A Piltdown skull said to be the missing link British Museum. On display and obvious fake. Anthropologist said he could see it was a fake from 5 feet away.

Archeopteryx with feathers in sandstone were chicken feathers imprinted on plaster.

Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis. Makes you wonder if the new bird like dinosaur fossils coming from china are not just better forgeries?

Rodhocetus is drawn with a fluke to be a whale ancestor. No bones for the hind quarters of rodhocetus are ever found. And yet still today the animals of whale evolution are lined up and drawn to look like varying degrees of whales with longer and longer flukes. And no fossil evidence to their body plans to support this.

Haekel"s drawn embryos. Now that High Definition color photos of forming embryo have been taken, clearly debunked.

List really goes on. Science is science and if something is found to be fake discarded immediately. What gets my blood boiling is this moth experiment is still thrown around today like it is proof. The fake Haekel's pictures still printed in new science books. The artistic (read completely made up) renditions of whale evolution printed in new science books.

TEACH science not a bunch of lies. When i see this crap in my kids school books I can tell immediately that education and science are not concerned with truth.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 5:18:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

Haha. This experiment with the moths has always been criticized from all angles. But one bad hoax for evolution does not mean evolution is false.

I think you should do a post on ALL the hoaxs and lies evolutionist have told to forward evolution. I find it completely dishonest, distasteful and corrupt to see through out recent history all the blatant fakes to prove evolution.

If evolution is a scientific theory and fact. Than the truth will come out. SO why have so many scientist and academic organizations purposefully deceived the public mind?

A Piltdown skull said to be the missing link British Museum. On display and obvious fake. Anthropologist said he could see it was a fake from 5 feet away.

Archeopteryx with feathers in sandstone were chicken feathers imprinted on plaster.

Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis. Makes you wonder if the new bird like dinosaur fossils coming from china are not just better forgeries?

Rodhocetus is drawn with a fluke to be a whale ancestor. No bones for the hind quarters of rodhocetus are ever found. And yet still today the animals of whale evolution are lined up and drawn to look like varying degrees of whales with longer and longer flukes. And no fossil evidence to their body plans to support this.

Haekel"s drawn embryos. Now that High Definition color photos of forming embryo have been taken, clearly debunked.

List really goes on. Science is science and if something is found to be fake discarded immediately. What gets my blood boiling is this moth experiment is still thrown around today like it is proof. The fake Haekel's pictures still printed in new science books. The artistic (read completely made up) renditions of whale evolution printed in new science books.

TEACH science not a bunch of lies. When i see this crap in my kids school books I can tell immediately that education and science are not concerned with truth.

Wait... so Archeopteryx is a hoax too?

I've read about Haekel's embryos already. The Peppered Moth case really shocked me though, because I remember learning about this. I'm not sure when, but I think it was in high school. On the bright side, my high school never taught me that humans evolved from anything, but still, I can't believe the photos were faked. Dang.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 5:22:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Archeopteryx with feathers in sandstone were chicken feathers imprinted on plaster.

According to creation.com it's actually not a hoax: http://creation.com...
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 6:27:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

The photographs were used as illustrative support to lend visualization to the study performed not as the basis of the study. So I would respond with a "so what?". So the photographs used to show the reader what a white and black moth looked like side by side on a trunk used dead moths pinned next to each other on the same tree... seems a lot smarter than wasting time trying to get good pictures of live ones next to each other.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 6:50:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 5:22:41 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Archeopteryx with feathers in sandstone were chicken feathers imprinted on plaster.

According to creation.com it's actually not a hoax: http://creation.com...

I think the archeopteryx is real. But there were some fossils of it that were fake.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 6:52:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 6:27:15 PM, Floid wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

The photographs were used as illustrative support to lend visualization to the study performed not as the basis of the study. So I would respond with a "so what?". So the photographs used to show the reader what a white and black moth looked like side by side on a trunk used dead moths pinned next to each other on the same tree... seems a lot smarter than wasting time trying to get good pictures of live ones next to each other.

There are other problems with the study. The photos were staged but are sold off as if they aren't. Hence the deception.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 6:55:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
All it is an example of is adaptation. That a population of moths had both black and white moths. A change in environment made one genotype of the population the majority.

But more than that the actual experiment has many flaws that the scientific peers saw as non sequitur.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 7:06:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

I think this article is trying to make an issue out of something that really isn't an issue. So H.B.D. Kettlewell pinned different dead moths to black tree trunks to make his point. So what? The theory he put forward is irrefutably true, as is evidenced by the fact that the once very rare peppered moth can now be found in abundance through industrialized England and elsewhere.

As one poster already expressed, so what?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 11:51:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 7:06:43 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

I think this article is trying to make an issue out of something that really isn't an issue. So H.B.D. Kettlewell pinned different dead moths to black tree trunks to make his point. So what?

The photos are being printed in modern textbooks as if they were not staged. First, the moths are dead. Second, they are in unnatural positions (moths sit with their wings closed, not open). Third, these moths don't even sit on tree trunks, they hide under leaves.

The theory he put forward is irrefutably true,

His theory, which was that predatory birds seeing the more contrasting moth easier, and for that reason eating a bunch of them and acting as Natural Selection's mechanism for selecting the other phenotype, was never demonstrated to be true. I'm surprised you, as a layman (I assume), are claiming that his theory is "irrefutably" true when Kettlewell's peers didn't even think that, and in fact pointed out that his methodology was severely flawed (putting moths in places where they would not have naturally gone, using cold (stupored) moths, putting them in a cage with laboratory birds instead of observing it in nature, etc.

as is evidenced by the fact that the once very rare peppered moth can now be found in abundance through industrialized England and elsewhere.

As one poster already expressed, so what?

It's deceitful.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 1:14:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 11:51:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/26/2014 7:06:43 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

I think this article is trying to make an issue out of something that really isn't an issue. So H.B.D. Kettlewell pinned different dead moths to black tree trunks to make his point. So what?

The photos are being printed in modern textbooks as if they were not staged. First, the moths are dead. Second, they are in unnatural positions (moths sit with their wings closed, not open). Third, these moths don't even sit on tree trunks, they hide under leaves.

The theory he put forward is irrefutably true,

His theory, which was that predatory birds seeing the more contrasting moth easier, and for that reason eating a bunch of them and acting as Natural Selection's mechanism for selecting the other phenotype, was never demonstrated to be true. I'm surprised you, as a layman (I assume), are claiming that his theory is "irrefutably" true when Kettlewell's peers didn't even think that, and in fact pointed out that his methodology was severely flawed (putting moths in places where they would not have naturally gone, using cold (stupored) moths, putting them in a cage with laboratory birds instead of observing it in nature, etc.

as is evidenced by the fact that the once very rare peppered moth can now be found in abundance through industrialized England and elsewhere.

As one poster already expressed, so what?

It's deceitful.

or not.

http://link.springer.com...

As even a cursory research in literature will show, the case of the peppered moth is a great example of the differences in methodology between science and faith.
A book written by an entomologist reviewing Kettlewell's experiments leads to very different reactions: scientists devise new experiments to test possible sources of bias (and confirm Kettlewell's experiments) while creationists rant and rave against "fraud" and "deceit", even after a 7-years-long predation experiment conduced by Majerus (the same entomologist that started it all) confirms the classical findings.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 2:32:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 1:14:24 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/26/2014 11:51:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/26/2014 7:06:43 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
As one poster already expressed, so what?

It's deceitful.

or not.

http://link.springer.com...

As even a cursory research in literature will show, the case of the peppered moth is a great example of the differences in methodology between science and faith.

So... the Piltdown Hoax, the Archeoraptor Hoax, and the Embryo Drawings Hoax are just great examples of the differences in methodology between honest and dishonest science?

Modern science textbooks still pass off the staged photos as real. That's deceitful. Arguing otherwise is also deceitful.

A book written by an entomologist reviewing Kettlewell's experiments leads to very different reactions: scientists devise new experiments to test possible sources of bias (and confirm Kettlewell's experiments) while creationists rant and rave against "fraud" and "deceit", even after a 7-years-long predation experiment conduced by Majerus (the same entomologist that started it all) confirms the classical findings.

Majerus showed that birds are more likely to see, and eat, moths on contrasting backgrounds. This is plain common sense, and Majerus wasted 7 years of his/her life doing this silly experiment that didn't demonstrate anything a retard doesn't already know.

Majerus did not confirm the "classical findings", unless she used a time-travel machine to go back to the Industrial Revolution and show that predation by birds was, in fact, the reason for the selection of the darker moths in that era.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 4:24:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 2:32:02 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/27/2014 1:14:24 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/26/2014 11:51:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/26/2014 7:06:43 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
As one poster already expressed, so what?

It's deceitful.

or not.

http://link.springer.com...

As even a cursory research in literature will show, the case of the peppered moth is a great example of the differences in methodology between science and faith.

So... the Piltdown Hoax, the Archeoraptor Hoax, and the Embryo Drawings Hoax are just great examples of the differences in methodology between honest and dishonest science?

Modern science textbooks still pass off the staged photos as real. That's deceitful. Arguing otherwise is also deceitful.

A book written by an entomologist reviewing Kettlewell's experiments leads to very different reactions: scientists devise new experiments to test possible sources of bias (and confirm Kettlewell's experiments) while creationists rant and rave against "fraud" and "deceit", even after a 7-years-long predation experiment conduced by Majerus (the same entomologist that started it all) confirms the classical findings.

Majerus showed that birds are more likely to see, and eat, moths on contrasting backgrounds. This is plain common sense, and Majerus wasted 7 years of his/her life doing this silly experiment that didn't demonstrate anything a retard doesn't already know.

Majerus did not confirm the "classical findings", unless she used a time-travel machine to go back to the Industrial Revolution and show that predation by birds was, in fact, the reason for the selection of the darker moths in that era.

The simple fact that the cases you mention are widely known as hoaxes shows that science works: who do you think determined their falseness? divine revelation or other scientists?

As for Majerus, he demonstrated that predation by birds is sufficient to explain the different frequencies of morphs during the years, and did so avoiding all that was contested to Kettlewell. Incidentally he also demonstrated that a significant proportion of peppered moths is found in nature on the trunks of trees (in the paper I linked you can see a photograph). You say that's obvious and silly, I bow to your superior knowledge of entomology.

Kettlewell's experiments were performed during the '50s by the way, not during the industrial revolution, and the fact that results from Majerus coincide with his is what is called confirmation.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:52:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

This is a lie and easily refuted. Glad you brought this up, as I am currently doing research on moths. I dont the time to talk about it now, as I am working. I will post later today.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 1:18:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

have you no shame?

1. The difference between the light and dark pepper moth has been traced to a single mutation that was not long ago.
http://www.sciencemag.org...

2. Nobody claimed that Pepper moths only hang out on tree trunks. Even if they only did it 25% of the time that is less odds of getting eaten if better hidden.

3. Since the study there has been a significant decline in the darker moths. Why you supposed that is?

While not the cleanest study as far as releasing a bunch of moths in the wild, the premise remains intact.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 9:50:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 6:50:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/26/2014 5:22:41 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Archeopteryx with feathers in sandstone were chicken feathers imprinted on plaster.

According to creation.com it's actually not a hoax: http://creation.com...

I think the archeopteryx is real. But there were some fossils of it that were fake.

If you remember me, I think I've judged you too harshly. I apologise.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 9:51:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

It was deceptive, but...other than it being a tid-bit, what's your point?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 1:16:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 7:06:43 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

I think this article is trying to make an issue out of something that really isn't an issue. So H.B.D. Kettlewell pinned different dead moths to black tree trunks to make his point. So what? The theory he put forward is irrefutably true, as is evidenced by the fact that the once very rare peppered moth can now be found in abundance through industrialized England and elsewhere.

As one poster already expressed, so what?

Well, I think the problem is that there aren't ANY experiments supporting evolution. You can't even illustrate the theory without an intelligent hand, is kind of the ironic point of the moths, to me. If unguided mutation and selection could produce things, it would be easy to demonstrate. But they can't and so there are no demonstrations of evolution, and so the junk is all there is.
This space for rent.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:03:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The second poster is clearly a virtuous and pure man to whom a thought of personal gain through deceit has beer crossed the mind of.
0x5f3759df
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 12:43:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 1:16:53 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/26/2014 7:06:43 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

I think this article is trying to make an issue out of something that really isn't an issue. So H.B.D. Kettlewell pinned different dead moths to black tree trunks to make his point. So what? The theory he put forward is irrefutably true, as is evidenced by the fact that the once very rare peppered moth can now be found in abundance through industrialized England and elsewhere.

As one poster already expressed, so what?

Well, I think the problem is that there aren't ANY experiments supporting evolution. You can't even illustrate the theory without an intelligent hand, is kind of the ironic point of the moths, to me. If unguided mutation and selection could produce things, it would be easy to demonstrate. But they can't and so there are no demonstrations of evolution, and so the junk is all there is.

Experimental evolution: the "intelligent hand" you talk about demonstrates the malleability of the genome by replacing natural selective pressure with artificial. There is no genetic manipulation, or intelligently changing the genome of the organism. They all demonstrate the innate ability of organisms to evolve. Your choice of wording is simply moving the goalposts so you can reject out of hand a significant branch of experimental science whilst trying to make it sound that you are not being dishonest.

Moreover innumerable studies, including molecular genetics, and sequencing of animals in nature, as well as experimental observation using relatively controlled field studies have been made on topics such as fresh water fish, cave fish, ring species, and many others that should you choose to actually research rather than sheild yourself from reality, you would appreciate.

Evolution is and remains one of the most well tested and well verified theories, and has been observered innumerable times in the laboratory and in the field.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 11:00:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 1:16:53 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/26/2014 7:06:43 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

I think this article is trying to make an issue out of something that really isn't an issue. So H.B.D. Kettlewell pinned different dead moths to black tree trunks to make his point. So what? The theory he put forward is irrefutably true, as is evidenced by the fact that the once very rare peppered moth can now be found in abundance through industrialized England and elsewhere.

As one poster already expressed, so what?

Well, I think the problem is that there aren't ANY experiments supporting evolution. You can't even illustrate the theory without an intelligent hand, is kind of the ironic point of the moths, to me. If unguided mutation and selection could produce things, it would be easy to demonstrate. But they can't and so there are no demonstrations of evolution, and so the junk is all there is.

"...it would be easy to demonstrate."

I would counter, if there was a mechanism which disallowed long term genetic changes from changing an organism into something else, it would be easier to demonstrate why something can not evolve.

You've got nothing, but ambiguous arguments.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 6:07:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 10:52:24 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
This is a lie and easily refuted. Glad you brought this up, as I am currently doing research on moths.

That's interesting because I am too!
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 6:08:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 6:07:23 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/27/2014 10:52:24 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
This is a lie and easily refuted. Glad you brought this up, as I am currently doing research on moths.

That's interesting because I am too!

Forgot about this thread.

Really? what are you researching?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 6:20:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 6:08:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 6/2/2014 6:07:23 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/27/2014 10:52:24 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
This is a lie and easily refuted. Glad you brought this up, as I am currently doing research on moths.

That's interesting because I am too!

Forgot about this thread.

Really? what are you researching?

Whether or not my buck moth caterpillars are not moving because they're dead, or because they are getting ready to pupate. This is day #2 of my experiment.

)
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 6:55:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 6:20:36 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 6/2/2014 6:08:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 6/2/2014 6:07:23 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/27/2014 10:52:24 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
This is a lie and easily refuted. Glad you brought this up, as I am currently doing research on moths.

That's interesting because I am too!

Forgot about this thread.

Really? what are you researching?

Whether or not my buck moth caterpillars are not moving because they're dead, or because they are getting ready to pupate. This is day #2 of my experiment.

)

LOLZ
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 7:14:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 6:55:44 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 6/2/2014 6:20:36 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 6/2/2014 6:08:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 6/2/2014 6:07:23 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/27/2014 10:52:24 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
This is a lie and easily refuted. Glad you brought this up, as I am currently doing research on moths.

That's interesting because I am too!

Forgot about this thread.

Really? what are you researching?

Whether or not my buck moth caterpillars are not moving because they're dead, or because they are getting ready to pupate. This is day #2 of my experiment.

)

LOLZ

;)
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 8:28:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 11:00:57 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 1:16:53 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/26/2014 7:06:43 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

I think this article is trying to make an issue out of something that really isn't an issue. So H.B.D. Kettlewell pinned different dead moths to black tree trunks to make his point. So what? The theory he put forward is irrefutably true, as is evidenced by the fact that the once very rare peppered moth can now be found in abundance through industrialized England and elsewhere.

As one poster already expressed, so what?

Well, I think the problem is that there aren't ANY experiments supporting evolution. You can't even illustrate the theory without an intelligent hand, is kind of the ironic point of the moths, to me. If unguided mutation and selection could produce things, it would be easy to demonstrate. But they can't and so there are no demonstrations of evolution, and so the junk is all there is.

"...it would be easy to demonstrate."

I would counter, if there was a mechanism which disallowed long term genetic changes from changing an organism into something else, it would be easier to demonstrate why something can not evolve.

You've got nothing, but ambiguous arguments.

There is such a mechanism that disallows long term genetic change - extinction. Extinction HAS been observed, evolution has not. We've also observed how mutations can accumulate to a species' detriment, as in 'inbreeding', but have not observed mutations accumulating to a new benefit.

And, btw, in the individual specimen, the mechanism preventing too much genetic change is your immune system. And if a mutation gets past your immune system and becomes cancer, death will clean up.

So yes, the limits to genetic variation are easy to observe, the instances of true evolution non-existent.
This space for rent.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 9:48:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 8:28:34 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:00:57 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 1:16:53 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/26/2014 7:06:43 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

I think this article is trying to make an issue out of something that really isn't an issue. So H.B.D. Kettlewell pinned different dead moths to black tree trunks to make his point. So what? The theory he put forward is irrefutably true, as is evidenced by the fact that the once very rare peppered moth can now be found in abundance through industrialized England and elsewhere.

As one poster already expressed, so what?

Well, I think the problem is that there aren't ANY experiments supporting evolution. You can't even illustrate the theory without an intelligent hand, is kind of the ironic point of the moths, to me. If unguided mutation and selection could produce things, it would be easy to demonstrate. But they can't and so there are no demonstrations of evolution, and so the junk is all there is.

"...it would be easy to demonstrate."

I would counter, if there was a mechanism which disallowed long term genetic changes from changing an organism into something else, it would be easier to demonstrate why something can not evolve.

You've got nothing, but ambiguous arguments.

There is such a mechanism that disallows long term genetic change - extinction. Extinction HAS been observed, evolution has not.

Please use some common sense. It it is much easier to empirically find a fossil of something that does not live today, than it is to find a fossil and extrapolate how it may have evolved. You are looking at two different level of burden of proof and just because humanity has not observed an actual full evolutionary event in its young 200 years it has been investigating means nothing.

We've also observed how mutations can accumulate to a species' detriment, as in 'inbreeding', but have not observed mutations accumulating to a new benefit.


That is a lie, I showed you before a mutation that gives a benefit of malaria protection and another one that gives notovirus protection.

And, btw, in the individual specimen, the mechanism preventing too much genetic change is your immune system. And if a mutation gets past your immune system and becomes cancer, death will clean up.

All mutations do not cause cancer. There is plenty of mutations that don't, such as the one that causes blonde hair that I posted in another post.

So yes, the limits to genetic variation are easy to observe, the instances of true evolution non-existent.

You have not proven that 100% of genetic variations result in death and there is overwhelming evidence that suggests otherwise. Again you are holding on to your God beliefs so tight you can't even accept truths when it bits you on the butt.

It is fine you don't believe in the overall concept of evolution, but stop lying to people on things such as there is no such thing as a positive mutation.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 11:23:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 8:28:34 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:00:57 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 1:16:53 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/26/2014 7:06:43 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:43:18 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You've probably read about Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment, where he supposedly determined that predation by birds caused the white phenotype to decline in relation to the dark phenotype in heavily polluted areas?

Well, all those photos were staged, using dead moths in unnatural locations and positions.

Wow.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

I think this article is trying to make an issue out of something that really isn't an issue. So H.B.D. Kettlewell pinned different dead moths to black tree trunks to make his point. So what? The theory he put forward is irrefutably true, as is evidenced by the fact that the once very rare peppered moth can now be found in abundance through industrialized England and elsewhere.

As one poster already expressed, so what?

Well, I think the problem is that there aren't ANY experiments supporting evolution. You can't even illustrate the theory without an intelligent hand, is kind of the ironic point of the moths, to me. If unguided mutation and selection could produce things, it would be easy to demonstrate. But they can't and so there are no demonstrations of evolution, and so the junk is all there is.

"...it would be easy to demonstrate."

I would counter, if there was a mechanism which disallowed long term genetic changes from changing an organism into something else, it would be easier to demonstrate why something can not evolve.

You've got nothing, but ambiguous arguments.

There is such a mechanism that disallows long term genetic change - extinction. Extinction HAS been observed, evolution has not. We've also observed how mutations can accumulate to a species' detriment, as in 'inbreeding', but have not observed mutations accumulating to a new benefit.

And, btw, in the individual specimen, the mechanism preventing too much genetic change is your immune system. And if a mutation gets past your immune system and becomes cancer, death will clean up.

So yes, the limits to genetic variation are easy to observe, the instances of true evolution non-existent.

You do realize that 140 mutations occur between each generation of humans, right? As in, your genome is different from your mother and father in 140 different ways?

Evolution doesn't even require a majority of mutations with a net effect to have a positive one. All it requires is for the mutation rate to be low enough to where there isn't a new negative trait in every single new organism. That way, the bad ones can be filtered out easily without harming long-term survivability. I would suggest doing some research on animals around the Chernobyl site, and seeing how increased mutation rates affect things. The things that happen there don't happen normally. However, even through all of the radiation, some birds have naturally adapted to lower their mutation rate.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
v3nesl
Posts: 4,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 11:33:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 9:48:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
....

Please use some common sense. It it is much easier to empirically find a fossil of something that does not live today, than it is to find a fossil and extrapolate how it may have evolved.

I'm not talking about finding a fossil of something not extant and deducing adaptation failure. That would indeed be the same sort of speculation as evolution itself. No, I'm talking about species that have been observed in human times but are now no more. In such case we can reasonably assume it's a failure to evolve. And understand, I'm simply saying we do have abundant evidence that there are limits to evolution. You sometimes want to pretend it's inevitable given enough time, I'm merely pointing out that obviously it's not. You keep jumping off higher ledges you get to be a better jumper to some degree, but at some point you break your neck and die. Real world change is bounded. We live in a natural world of finite and fixed laws.

...and just because humanity has not observed an actual full evolutionary event in its young 200 years it has been investigating means nothing.


I think this is a cop-out, plain and simple. We figured out how to get to the moon, but nobody can figure out how to demonstrate the mechanisms said to be responsible for all the features of life? I don't think so, Tim.

We've also observed how mutations can accumulate to a species' detriment, as in 'inbreeding', but have not observed mutations accumulating to a new benefit.


That is a lie, I showed you before a mutation that gives a benefit of malaria protection and another one that gives notovirus protection.


Yes, 'a' mutation, 'one'. I readily agree that one or even several mutations might confer some anomalous advantage when selecting from the vast toolkit in a complex organism's DNA. A screwdriver may make a dynamite crowbar sometimes. Genetics is not the debate here. Selecting from existing information is not the debate. The spontaneous emergence of complex organisms composed of complex features when no such information already existed - that's what I dispute.


All mutations do not cause cancer. There is plenty of mutations that don't, such as the one that causes blonde hair that I posted in another post.


To use this as an example of the above - I have no problem with mutations causing blonde hair. I think it's fairy tale material to think mutations could have created hair.


You have not proven that 100% of genetic variations result in death and there is overwhelming evidence that suggests otherwise.

You keep saying "overwhelming evidence" while telling me it's ridiculous to expect evidence in just 200 years. You're not even getting you're story straight. But again - everything dies eventually. I'm merely pointing out that there are limits, just trying to find some way to reconnect you with observable reality.


It is fine you don't believe in the overall concept of evolution, but stop lying to people on things such as there is no such thing as a positive mutation.

Which I didn't say. I just stated the OBVIOUS - errors in transcription do not accumulate to produce brandy new and super duper features. That's just fantasy, of the most unscientific sort. Accumulated errors in transcription do just what rational people would expect - they do bad stuff - misshapen limbs, diabetes, cancer, death. Too many mutations and you or a species are toast, that's what happens in the real world.
This space for rent.