Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Peppered Moth - A hoax

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 3:30:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

Ironically, in asking us to be critical of the peppered moth experiments; you have accidently decided to peddle a conspiracy theory that has largely been debunked.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

I know you want the peppered moth story to be False; unfortunately, you seem to have forgotten to hold arguments that agree with your preferred narrative to the same level of scrutiny.

This, as in many, many, many other examples in the ID and creationism world, flawed and incorrect claims have been taken up, repeated and left uncorrected and unchallenged despite being wrong.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,968
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 3:40:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
In what way is it a fabrication? The photo shows actual dark and light coloured moths against a tree to illustrate the camouflaging effect of the different colourations. Whether the moths are alive or dead and if it represents a common or realistic setting is not relevant - the point was to let the reader know what the difference between dark and light moths was.

If the moths had been dyed or bleached that would be a different matter! There are no proper grounds to suppose the findings - that an environmental change produced an evolutionary change - were faked, although some creationists have tried to discredit them. The OP seems to imply professional skulguggery - that really doesn't hold up.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 3:49:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 3:40:42 PM, keithprosser wrote:
In what way is it a fabrication? The photo shows actual dark and light coloured moths against a tree to illustrate the camouflaging effect of the different colourations. Whether the moths are alive or dead and if it represents a common or realistic setting is not relevant - the point was to let the reader know what the difference between dark and light moths was.


The moths were put there by the photographer, it's a staged photograph, what's realistic about that? It strives to imply something that may not be true, why did the original author not state this?

If the moths had been dyed or bleached that would be a different matter! There are no proper grounds to suppose the findings - that an environmental change produced an evolutionary change - were faked, although some creationists have tried to discredit them. The OP seems to imply professional skulguggery - that really doesn't hold up.

This is the real clincher - it doesn't indicate evolutionary change. It indicates only selection - the black moths which became more prevalent with darker trees - already existed in the population but their numbers were low. The rise and fall in relative numbers is not evidence of evolution (that complex life arises over time from simpler life).
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 4:03:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

The photos were staged and the stories were oversimplified but this seems to be picking at irrelevant details. This is only a textbook and the picture is only a simple illustration of a much more complex topic and these books only describe the moths in a few paragraphs because this is only an example.

The point of the pictures was not to prove anything but simply to illustrate. If you want to see unstaged photos look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action which use only unstaged photos which are actually very similar to the staged ones.

Your article says that birds were not the main predator but this doesn't really matter as the whole point is that they evolved colors to hide from predators.

Your article is wrong as there is a lot of evidence they do rest on tree trunks. In studies they rest on trunks about 33% of the time, and branches 42% of the time.

Also studies have shown that when you release light and dark peppered moths into polluted and unpolluted areas the dark ones have better survival in polluted areas, and the light ones do better in unpolluted ones.

So while the textbooks have flaws the science itself is totally solid.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 4:07:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 3:49:28 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:40:42 PM, keithprosser wrote:
In what way is it a fabrication? The photo shows actual dark and light coloured moths against a tree to illustrate the camouflaging effect of the different colourations. Whether the moths are alive or dead and if it represents a common or realistic setting is not relevant - the point was to let the reader know what the difference between dark and light moths was.


The moths were put there by the photographer, it's a staged photograph, what's realistic about that? It strives to imply something that may not be true, why did the original author not state this?

Are not laboratories a "staged" version of nature when scientists conduct experiments?

If the moths had been dyed or bleached that would be a different matter! There are no proper grounds to suppose the findings - that an environmental change produced an evolutionary change - were faked, although some creationists have tried to discredit them. The OP seems to imply professional skulguggery - that really doesn't hold up.

This is the real clincher - it doesn't indicate evolutionary change. It indicates only selection - the black moths which became more prevalent with darker trees - already existed in the population but their numbers were low. The rise and fall in relative numbers is not evidence of evolution (that complex life arises over time from simpler life).

So, you therefore agree that natural selection can be verified?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
keithprosser
Posts: 1,968
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 4:28:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Are we going to get bogged down in defining 'evolutionary change'? However, one thing DH said is true enough - the moth example shows the effect of natural selection. It is a very 'micro' form of evolution, essentially just a change in the balance between the numbers of different phenotypes in a population.

It certainly does not prove speciation, and doesn't even involve new mutation. But it does show that environmental factors can affect the viability of different phenotypes - ie that natural selection is real and can be observed to occur.

Natural selection is of course a central plank in the the theory of evolution (indeed it is Darwins contribution - he knew nothing about genes or mutation). As one of the first definitely observed and most easiy understood examples of natural selection the peppered moth case study is hugely significant historically, but it is not itself a keystone of evolutionary theory.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 5:34:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 4:03:00 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

The photos were staged and the stories were oversimplified but this seems to be picking at irrelevant details. This is only a textbook and the picture is only a simple illustration of a much more complex topic and these books only describe the moths in a few paragraphs because this is only an example.

The point of the pictures was not to prove anything but simply to illustrate. If you want to see unstaged photos look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action which use only unstaged photos which are actually very similar to the staged ones.

Your article says that birds were not the main predator but this doesn't really matter as the whole point is that they evolved colors to hide from predators.

Your article is wrong as there is a lot of evidence they do rest on tree trunks. In studies they rest on trunks about 33% of the time, and branches 42% of the time.

Also studies have shown that when you release light and dark peppered moths into polluted and unpolluted areas the dark ones have better survival in polluted areas, and the light ones do better in unpolluted ones.

That may be true but it does not any any way demonstrate evolution - the gradual development over time of more complex life. The black moths were already present as a minority and then that minority became the majority.

They're still moths.

So while the textbooks have flaws the science itself is totally solid.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 5:38:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 5:34:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:03:00 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

The photos were staged and the stories were oversimplified but this seems to be picking at irrelevant details. This is only a textbook and the picture is only a simple illustration of a much more complex topic and these books only describe the moths in a few paragraphs because this is only an example.

The point of the pictures was not to prove anything but simply to illustrate. If you want to see unstaged photos look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action which use only unstaged photos which are actually very similar to the staged ones.

Your article says that birds were not the main predator but this doesn't really matter as the whole point is that they evolved colors to hide from predators.

Your article is wrong as there is a lot of evidence they do rest on tree trunks. In studies they rest on trunks about 33% of the time, and branches 42% of the time.

Also studies have shown that when you release light and dark peppered moths into polluted and unpolluted areas the dark ones have better survival in polluted areas, and the light ones do better in unpolluted ones.

That may be true but it does not any any way demonstrate evolution - the gradual development over time of more complex life. The black moths were already present as a minority and then that minority became the majority.

They're still moths.

So while the textbooks have flaws the science itself is totally solid.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

The Moth experiment doesn't demonstrate the full entirety of evolution.

But then again, it was never intended to.

Saying that the Moth Experiment doesn't validate evolution is like saying that the Michelson Morely experiment doesn't validate the big bang.

Of course it doesn't; it validates one individual part of the science that underpins the big bang; Evolution, as with the big bang is demonstrated by the entirety of experiment and measurement that all point inescapably to a single conclusion.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 5:38:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 4:07:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:49:28 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:40:42 PM, keithprosser wrote:
In what way is it a fabrication? The photo shows actual dark and light coloured moths against a tree to illustrate the camouflaging effect of the different colourations. Whether the moths are alive or dead and if it represents a common or realistic setting is not relevant - the point was to let the reader know what the difference between dark and light moths was.


The moths were put there by the photographer, it's a staged photograph, what's realistic about that? It strives to imply something that may not be true, why did the original author not state this?

Are not laboratories a "staged" version of nature when scientists conduct experiments?

No, laboratories give control and repeatability. Pinning two dead moths to a tree and saying "See, this proves evolution" is not part of an experiment - unless the experiment was to see how many gullible laymen swallow the claim.

If the moths had been dyed or bleached that would be a different matter! There are no proper grounds to suppose the findings - that an environmental change produced an evolutionary change - were faked, although some creationists have tried to discredit them. The OP seems to imply professional skulguggery - that really doesn't hold up.

This is the real clincher - it doesn't indicate evolutionary change. It indicates only selection - the black moths which became more prevalent with darker trees - already existed in the population but their numbers were low. The rise and fall in relative numbers is not evidence of evolution (that complex life arises over time from simpler life).

So, you therefore agree that natural selection can be verified?

I've never disputed facts DJR, natural selection by definition means the act of nature selecting members from an existing set of members - it doesn't lead to, imply, or prove that new members can be added to the set.

The set of moths is the same set as before, just the numbers change.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 5:42:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 5:38:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:34:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:03:00 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

The photos were staged and the stories were oversimplified but this seems to be picking at irrelevant details. This is only a textbook and the picture is only a simple illustration of a much more complex topic and these books only describe the moths in a few paragraphs because this is only an example.

The point of the pictures was not to prove anything but simply to illustrate. If you want to see unstaged photos look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action which use only unstaged photos which are actually very similar to the staged ones.

Your article says that birds were not the main predator but this doesn't really matter as the whole point is that they evolved colors to hide from predators.

Your article is wrong as there is a lot of evidence they do rest on tree trunks. In studies they rest on trunks about 33% of the time, and branches 42% of the time.

Also studies have shown that when you release light and dark peppered moths into polluted and unpolluted areas the dark ones have better survival in polluted areas, and the light ones do better in unpolluted ones.

That may be true but it does not any any way demonstrate evolution - the gradual development over time of more complex life. The black moths were already present as a minority and then that minority became the majority.

They're still moths.

So while the textbooks have flaws the science itself is totally solid.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

The Moth experiment doesn't demonstrate the full entirety of evolution.

But then again, it was never intended to.

In which case the peppered moth experiment should not refer to or use the term "evolution" but refer only to selection.

It is extrapolation to take the moth case and deduce from that that evolution (speciation etc) is therefore also proven or implied, it isn't.

Saying that the Moth Experiment doesn't validate evolution is like saying that the Michelson Morely experiment doesn't validate the big bang.


The MM experiment says nothing about the Big Bang. All that experiment did was undermine the hypothesis of an aether.

Of course it doesn't; it validates one individual part of the science that underpins the big bang; Evolution, as with the big bang is demonstrated by the entirety of experiment and measurement that all point inescapably to a single conclusion.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 5:51:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 5:42:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:38:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:34:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:03:00 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

The photos were staged and the stories were oversimplified but this seems to be picking at irrelevant details. This is only a textbook and the picture is only a simple illustration of a much more complex topic and these books only describe the moths in a few paragraphs because this is only an example.

The point of the pictures was not to prove anything but simply to illustrate. If you want to see unstaged photos look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action which use only unstaged photos which are actually very similar to the staged ones.

Your article says that birds were not the main predator but this doesn't really matter as the whole point is that they evolved colors to hide from predators.

Your article is wrong as there is a lot of evidence they do rest on tree trunks. In studies they rest on trunks about 33% of the time, and branches 42% of the time.

Also studies have shown that when you release light and dark peppered moths into polluted and unpolluted areas the dark ones have better survival in polluted areas, and the light ones do better in unpolluted ones.

That may be true but it does not any any way demonstrate evolution - the gradual development over time of more complex life. The black moths were already present as a minority and then that minority became the majority.

They're still moths.

So while the textbooks have flaws the science itself is totally solid.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

The Moth experiment doesn't demonstrate the full entirety of evolution.

But then again, it was never intended to.

In which case the peppered moth experiment should not refer to or use the term "evolution" but refer only to selection.

It is extrapolation to take the moth case and deduce from that that evolution (speciation etc) is therefore also proven or implied, it isn't.

That's probably true; however presenting that to school children, or even people who don't have a firm grounding of understanding of evolution already is misleading, as it gives the impression that it's meaningless, and unrelated to evolution.

Indeed, it's more accurate to say it validates evolution as a summary than what you said to people who are being taught about it.

Saying that the Moth Experiment doesn't validate evolution is like saying that the Michelson Morely experiment doesn't validate the big bang.


The MM experiment says nothing about the Big Bang. All that experiment did was undermine the hypothesis of an aether.

The MM experiment demonstrates the constancy of the speed of light, which underpins BBT, without the constancy of the speed of light, Einstein and the BBT would be conjecture.

In the same way the moth experiment validates a core portion of evolution.

Sure, the two are different in some ways, but what I was trying to convey is pretty accurate: it's an experiment that underpins part of the theory, and it is everything together that proves it.

Of course it doesn't; it validates one individual part of the science that underpins the big bang; Evolution, as with the big bang is demonstrated by the entirety of experiment and measurement that all point inescapably to a single conclusion.
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 5:58:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 5:34:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:03:00 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

The photos were staged and the stories were oversimplified but this seems to be picking at irrelevant details. This is only a textbook and the picture is only a simple illustration of a much more complex topic and these books only describe the moths in a few paragraphs because this is only an example.

The point of the pictures was not to prove anything but simply to illustrate. If you want to see unstaged photos look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action which use only unstaged photos which are actually very similar to the staged ones.

Your article says that birds were not the main predator but this doesn't really matter as the whole point is that they evolved colors to hide from predators.

Your article is wrong as there is a lot of evidence they do rest on tree trunks. In studies they rest on trunks about 33% of the time, and branches 42% of the time.

Also studies have shown that when you release light and dark peppered moths into polluted and unpolluted areas the dark ones have better survival in polluted areas, and the light ones do better in unpolluted ones.

That may be true but it does not any any way demonstrate evolution - the gradual development over time of more complex life. The black moths were already present as a minority and then that minority became the majority.

They're still moths.

So while the textbooks have flaws the science itself is totally solid.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

There are lots of definitions of evolution. I will point out which definitions it validates.
A theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time. (no)
The process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time. (yes)
A process of slow change and development. (yes)
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. (no)
The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. (no)
Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. (yes)
Common ancestry of all life. (no)

Peppered moths only demonstrate micro-evolution not macro-evolution. It is only a demonstration of natural selection within a species allowing it to evolve new traits to allow it to survive. No evolutionist claims it shows macro-evolution or the evolution of advanced structures.

Basically you have presented a straw-man argument.

This argument has also been refuted on talkorigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:06:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 5:58:42 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:34:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:03:00 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

The photos were staged and the stories were oversimplified but this seems to be picking at irrelevant details. This is only a textbook and the picture is only a simple illustration of a much more complex topic and these books only describe the moths in a few paragraphs because this is only an example.

The point of the pictures was not to prove anything but simply to illustrate. If you want to see unstaged photos look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action which use only unstaged photos which are actually very similar to the staged ones.

Your article says that birds were not the main predator but this doesn't really matter as the whole point is that they evolved colors to hide from predators.

Your article is wrong as there is a lot of evidence they do rest on tree trunks. In studies they rest on trunks about 33% of the time, and branches 42% of the time.

Also studies have shown that when you release light and dark peppered moths into polluted and unpolluted areas the dark ones have better survival in polluted areas, and the light ones do better in unpolluted ones.

That may be true but it does not any any way demonstrate evolution - the gradual development over time of more complex life. The black moths were already present as a minority and then that minority became the majority.

They're still moths.

So while the textbooks have flaws the science itself is totally solid.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

There are lots of definitions of evolution. I will point out which definitions it validates.
A theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time. (no)
The process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time. (yes)
No, all that was shown is that the relative numbers of already existing variants change as the environment changes.
A process of slow change and development. (yes)
No, no changes in "development" (whatever that is) only changes in relative population sizes.
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. (no)
The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. (no)
Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. (yes)
No, all that happened was a change in relative population sizes of existing genetic variants.
Common ancestry of all life. (no)

Peppered moths only demonstrate micro-evolution not macro-evolution. It is only a demonstration of natural selection within a species allowing it to evolve new traits to allow it to survive. No evolutionist claims it shows macro-evolution or the evolution of advanced structures.

But no new traits arose.

Basically you have presented a straw-man argument.

This argument has also been refuted on talkorigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:15:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 5:51:00 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:42:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:38:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:34:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:03:00 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

The photos were staged and the stories were oversimplified but this seems to be picking at irrelevant details. This is only a textbook and the picture is only a simple illustration of a much more complex topic and these books only describe the moths in a few paragraphs because this is only an example.

The point of the pictures was not to prove anything but simply to illustrate. If you want to see unstaged photos look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action which use only unstaged photos which are actually very similar to the staged ones.

Your article says that birds were not the main predator but this doesn't really matter as the whole point is that they evolved colors to hide from predators.

Your article is wrong as there is a lot of evidence they do rest on tree trunks. In studies they rest on trunks about 33% of the time, and branches 42% of the time.

Also studies have shown that when you release light and dark peppered moths into polluted and unpolluted areas the dark ones have better survival in polluted areas, and the light ones do better in unpolluted ones.

That may be true but it does not any any way demonstrate evolution - the gradual development over time of more complex life. The black moths were already present as a minority and then that minority became the majority.

They're still moths.

So while the textbooks have flaws the science itself is totally solid.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

The Moth experiment doesn't demonstrate the full entirety of evolution.

But then again, it was never intended to.

In which case the peppered moth experiment should not refer to or use the term "evolution" but refer only to selection.

It is extrapolation to take the moth case and deduce from that that evolution (speciation etc) is therefore also proven or implied, it isn't.

That's probably true; however presenting that to school children, or even people who don't have a firm grounding of understanding of evolution already is misleading, as it gives the impression that it's meaningless, and unrelated to evolution.

Indeed, it's more accurate to say it validates evolution as a summary than what you said to people who are being taught about it.

Saying that the Moth Experiment doesn't validate evolution is like saying that the Michelson Morely experiment doesn't validate the big bang.


The MM experiment says nothing about the Big Bang. All that experiment did was undermine the hypothesis of an aether.

The MM experiment demonstrates the constancy of the speed of light, which underpins BBT, without the constancy of the speed of light, Einstein and the BBT would be conjecture.

This isn't true. Einstein postulated a static universe shortly after publishing the general theory and there was no mathematical contradiction. Mathematically a static or even contracting universe are all compatible with the laws of relativity.

Other factors influence whether the universe is static, expanding then contracting expanding forever or contracting all of these are possible under the laws of relativity.


In the same way the moth experiment validates a core portion of evolution.
It validates what it validates - please be scientific, it shows only that relative population sizes fluctuate when the environment fluctuates. It does not show new species, new features or anything the black moths were already present in the gene pool but in small numbers - until the environment changed.

Nothing else can be legitimately deduced.


Sure, the two are different in some ways, but what I was trying to convey is pretty accurate: it's an experiment that underpins part of the theory, and it is everything together that proves it.

Of course it doesn't; it validates one individual part of the science that underpins the big bang; Evolution, as with the big bang is demonstrated by the entirety of experiment and measurement that all point inescapably to a single conclusion.
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:16:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 6:06:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:58:42 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:34:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:03:00 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

The photos were staged and the stories were oversimplified but this seems to be picking at irrelevant details. This is only a textbook and the picture is only a simple illustration of a much more complex topic and these books only describe the moths in a few paragraphs because this is only an example.

The point of the pictures was not to prove anything but simply to illustrate. If you want to see unstaged photos look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action which use only unstaged photos which are actually very similar to the staged ones.

Your article says that birds were not the main predator but this doesn't really matter as the whole point is that they evolved colors to hide from predators.

Your article is wrong as there is a lot of evidence they do rest on tree trunks. In studies they rest on trunks about 33% of the time, and branches 42% of the time.

Also studies have shown that when you release light and dark peppered moths into polluted and unpolluted areas the dark ones have better survival in polluted areas, and the light ones do better in unpolluted ones.

That may be true but it does not any any way demonstrate evolution - the gradual development over time of more complex life. The black moths were already present as a minority and then that minority became the majority.

They're still moths.

So while the textbooks have flaws the science itself is totally solid.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

There are lots of definitions of evolution. I will point out which definitions it validates.
A theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time. (no)
The process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time. (yes)
No, all that was shown is that the relative numbers of already existing variants change as the environment changes.
A process of slow change and development. (yes)
No, no changes in "development" (whatever that is) only changes in relative population sizes.
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. (no)
The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. (no)
Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. (yes)
No, all that happened was a change in relative population sizes of existing genetic variants.
Common ancestry of all life. (no)

Peppered moths only demonstrate micro-evolution not macro-evolution. It is only a demonstration of natural selection within a species allowing it to evolve new traits to allow it to survive. No evolutionist claims it shows macro-evolution or the evolution of advanced structures.

But no new traits arose.

Basically you have presented a straw-man argument.

This argument has also been refuted on talkorigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

No new traits did appear that is correct but there was a change in the population because the population got taken over by a subset with a certain trait. Changes in the distributions of different genes in the population is a certain type of evolution. If you are looking for the evolution of a completely new trait then you probably won't find it here.

On a side not, I hear a lot of creationists like you argue that Noah only took one of every genus (kind) of animal not every species in order to avoid the problem of fitting millions of species on one ark. If only one generic moth not even of this species was on the ark, and then all the modern moth species evolved from it then a lot of new traits did evolve because there is so much diversity including the white and black color on this specific species.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:25:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 6:16:50 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 6:06:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:58:42 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:34:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:03:00 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

The photos were staged and the stories were oversimplified but this seems to be picking at irrelevant details. This is only a textbook and the picture is only a simple illustration of a much more complex topic and these books only describe the moths in a few paragraphs because this is only an example.

The point of the pictures was not to prove anything but simply to illustrate. If you want to see unstaged photos look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action which use only unstaged photos which are actually very similar to the staged ones.

Your article says that birds were not the main predator but this doesn't really matter as the whole point is that they evolved colors to hide from predators.

Your article is wrong as there is a lot of evidence they do rest on tree trunks. In studies they rest on trunks about 33% of the time, and branches 42% of the time.

Also studies have shown that when you release light and dark peppered moths into polluted and unpolluted areas the dark ones have better survival in polluted areas, and the light ones do better in unpolluted ones.

That may be true but it does not any any way demonstrate evolution - the gradual development over time of more complex life. The black moths were already present as a minority and then that minority became the majority.

They're still moths.

So while the textbooks have flaws the science itself is totally solid.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

There are lots of definitions of evolution. I will point out which definitions it validates.
A theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time. (no)
The process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time. (yes)
No, all that was shown is that the relative numbers of already existing variants change as the environment changes.
A process of slow change and development. (yes)
No, no changes in "development" (whatever that is) only changes in relative population sizes.
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. (no)
The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. (no)
Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. (yes)
No, all that happened was a change in relative population sizes of existing genetic variants.
Common ancestry of all life. (no)

Peppered moths only demonstrate micro-evolution not macro-evolution. It is only a demonstration of natural selection within a species allowing it to evolve new traits to allow it to survive. No evolutionist claims it shows macro-evolution or the evolution of advanced structures.

But no new traits arose.

Basically you have presented a straw-man argument.

This argument has also been refuted on talkorigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

No new traits did appear that is correct but there was a change in the population because the population got taken over by a subset with a certain trait. Changes in the distributions of different genes in the population is a certain type of evolution. If you are looking for the evolution of a completely new trait then you probably won't find it here.

Sure but evolution is universally taken to mean the gradual emergence of new body plans, species etc over time. The moth experiment provides no basis whatsoever for this claim and supports it not one iota, so at best its highly misleading to associate the term evolution with it.

On a side not, I hear a lot of creationists like you argue that Noah only took one of every genus (kind) of animal not every species in order to avoid the problem of fitting millions of species on one ark. If only one generic moth not even of this species was on the ark, and then all the modern moth species evolved from it then a lot of new traits did evolve because there is so much diversity including the white and black color on this specific species.

You have every right to be skeptical of that.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:29:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 5:38:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:07:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:49:28 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:40:42 PM, keithprosser wrote:
In what way is it a fabrication? The photo shows actual dark and light coloured moths against a tree to illustrate the camouflaging effect of the different colourations. Whether the moths are alive or dead and if it represents a common or realistic setting is not relevant - the point was to let the reader know what the difference between dark and light moths was.


The moths were put there by the photographer, it's a staged photograph, what's realistic about that? It strives to imply something that may not be true, why did the original author not state this?

Are not laboratories a "staged" version of nature when scientists conduct experiments?

No, laboratories give control and repeatability. Pinning two dead moths to a tree and saying "See, this proves evolution" is not part of an experiment - unless the experiment was to see how many gullible laymen swallow the claim.

Yet, a lab will show many dead moths pinned down to show their diversity, especially if we are to observe changes over generations. Do fossils need to be alive in order for us to study them?

If the moths had been dyed or bleached that would be a different matter! There are no proper grounds to suppose the findings - that an environmental change produced an evolutionary change - were faked, although some creationists have tried to discredit them. The OP seems to imply professional skulguggery - that really doesn't hold up.

This is the real clincher - it doesn't indicate evolutionary change. It indicates only selection - the black moths which became more prevalent with darker trees - already existed in the population but their numbers were low. The rise and fall in relative numbers is not evidence of evolution (that complex life arises over time from simpler life).

So, you therefore agree that natural selection can be verified?

I've never disputed facts DJR, natural selection by definition means the act of nature selecting members from an existing set of members - it doesn't lead to, imply, or prove that new members can be added to the set.

Natural Selection: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

The set of moths is the same set as before, just the numbers change.

And, why did the numbers change? See the definition of natural selection, Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:44:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 6:29:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:38:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:07:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:49:28 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:40:42 PM, keithprosser wrote:
In what way is it a fabrication? The photo shows actual dark and light coloured moths against a tree to illustrate the camouflaging effect of the different colourations. Whether the moths are alive or dead and if it represents a common or realistic setting is not relevant - the point was to let the reader know what the difference between dark and light moths was.


The moths were put there by the photographer, it's a staged photograph, what's realistic about that? It strives to imply something that may not be true, why did the original author not state this?

Are not laboratories a "staged" version of nature when scientists conduct experiments?

No, laboratories give control and repeatability. Pinning two dead moths to a tree and saying "See, this proves evolution" is not part of an experiment - unless the experiment was to see how many gullible laymen swallow the claim.

Yet, a lab will show many dead moths pinned down to show their diversity, especially if we are to observe changes over generations. Do fossils need to be alive in order for us to study them?

If the moths had been dyed or bleached that would be a different matter! There are no proper grounds to suppose the findings - that an environmental change produced an evolutionary change - were faked, although some creationists have tried to discredit them. The OP seems to imply professional skulguggery - that really doesn't hold up.

This is the real clincher - it doesn't indicate evolutionary change. It indicates only selection - the black moths which became more prevalent with darker trees - already existed in the population but their numbers were low. The rise and fall in relative numbers is not evidence of evolution (that complex life arises over time from simpler life).

So, you therefore agree that natural selection can be verified?

I've never disputed facts DJR, natural selection by definition means the act of nature selecting members from an existing set of members - it doesn't lead to, imply, or prove that new members can be added to the set.

Natural Selection: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

The set of moths is the same set as before, just the numbers change.

And, why did the numbers change? See the definition of natural selection, Harry.

I don't think I need to do that DJR. Natural selection is NOT evolution. It is claimed that natural selection COMBINED with occasional random mutations IS evolution.

However proving natural selection does not in any way prove evolution or give it any credence.

No, the peppered moth demonstrates natural selection and ONLY natural selection. It does not prove or imply evolution, it does not make evolution inevitable, it does not lead to evolution - none of this can be deduced from the moth experiments.

You'd need to look at fruit flies or perhaps bacteria experiments for this and sadly I think you'll be rather disappointed here too.
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:37:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 6:25:33 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 6:16:50 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 6:06:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:58:42 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:34:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:03:00 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

The photos were staged and the stories were oversimplified but this seems to be picking at irrelevant details. This is only a textbook and the picture is only a simple illustration of a much more complex topic and these books only describe the moths in a few paragraphs because this is only an example.

The point of the pictures was not to prove anything but simply to illustrate. If you want to see unstaged photos look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action which use only unstaged photos which are actually very similar to the staged ones.

Your article says that birds were not the main predator but this doesn't really matter as the whole point is that they evolved colors to hide from predators.

Your article is wrong as there is a lot of evidence they do rest on tree trunks. In studies they rest on trunks about 33% of the time, and branches 42% of the time.

Also studies have shown that when you release light and dark peppered moths into polluted and unpolluted areas the dark ones have better survival in polluted areas, and the light ones do better in unpolluted ones.

That may be true but it does not any any way demonstrate evolution - the gradual development over time of more complex life. The black moths were already present as a minority and then that minority became the majority.

They're still moths.

So while the textbooks have flaws the science itself is totally solid.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

There are lots of definitions of evolution. I will point out which definitions it validates.
A theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time. (no)
The process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time. (yes)
No, all that was shown is that the relative numbers of already existing variants change as the environment changes.
A process of slow change and development. (yes)
No, no changes in "development" (whatever that is) only changes in relative population sizes.
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. (no)
The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. (no)
Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. (yes)
No, all that happened was a change in relative population sizes of existing genetic variants.
Common ancestry of all life. (no)

Peppered moths only demonstrate micro-evolution not macro-evolution. It is only a demonstration of natural selection within a species allowing it to evolve new traits to allow it to survive. No evolutionist claims it shows macro-evolution or the evolution of advanced structures.

But no new traits arose.

Basically you have presented a straw-man argument.

This argument has also been refuted on talkorigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

No new traits did appear that is correct but there was a change in the population because the population got taken over by a subset with a certain trait. Changes in the distributions of different genes in the population is a certain type of evolution. If you are looking for the evolution of a completely new trait then you probably won't find it here.

Sure but evolution is universally taken to mean the gradual emergence of new body plans, species etc over time. The moth experiment provides no basis whatsoever for this claim and supports it not one iota, so at best its highly misleading to associate the term evolution with it.

Yes but that is more of the layman understanding. There are a lot of definitions of evolution because there are a lot of things that can evolve like gene distribution, new traits, new complex traits, species, genuses, families, or all of life from a common ancestor.

Probably the best definition of evolution is the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor including all complex traits found in life mainly by natural selection and mutations.

Individual pieces of evidence only demonstrate parts of this theory. The moth experiment only shows the ability of natural selection to select for different traits. You need natural selection for evolution. This was more relevant early on because creationists used to believe that species were static and didn't even believe in micro-evolution.

If you are looking for evidence for more advanced evolution then transitional fossils, DNA evidence between species, or vestigial organs, and examples of speciation and the evolution of complex features is better.

Here is a good source for this kind of evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

On a side not, I hear a lot of creationists like you argue that Noah only took one of every genus (kind) of animal not every species in order to avoid the problem of fitting millions of species on one ark. If only one generic moth not even of this species was on the ark, and then all the modern moth species evolved from it then a lot of new traits did evolve because there is so much diversity including the white and black color on this specific species.

You have every right to be skeptical of that.
toocoolblue
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:31:04 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
First off, anything presented as evidence from talkorigins is a joke.
Even their own website warns us -
Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts...
Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact. As a general rule, you should never rely too heavily on anything you read on the Internet.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Please in the future, use Wiki if you want unreliable information.

Secondly, birds have been discovered to see in the infrared spectrum. It makes absolutely no difference what color the moths are - the birds can see them.
toocoolblue
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:05:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:31:04 AM, toocoolblue wrote:
First off, anything presented as evidence from talkorigins is a joke.
Even their own website warns us -
Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts...
Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact. As a general rule, you should never rely too heavily on anything you read on the Internet.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Please in the future, use Wiki if you want unreliable information.

Secondly, birds have been discovered to see in the infrared spectrum. It makes absolutely no difference what color the moths are - the birds can see them.

Sorry I meant Ultraviolet. I haven't looked into this hoax for years.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:28:48 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As an avid critic of atheism and it's frequent attempts to legitimize itself through references to science, I thought it would be interesting to see the truth about the famous Peppered Moth story.

As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

What does this have to do with athiesm and why do you feel the need to tell us your name is harry at the bottom of this post when your name is already at the top of it?
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Annnaxim
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 8:01:44 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:18:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
As the article below explains, this is used as an example of evolution and has been used for decades, yet it is a fabrication.

http://hoaxes.org...

I wonder how many less cautious minds have been influenced by this and other weak claims?

Harry.

Hi Harry,
Unfortunately, you are asking the wrong question.
Fact is, peppered moths have changed their colour in the past 200 years or so.

So waht does that prove? If faked photographs were indeed the only evidence for evolution, the claim would indeed be weak. Bu there are of course many more examples that show beyond reasonable doubt, that evolution is true.

For example...
- Human teeth have become 10% smaller over the past 10'000 years or so -- that's what cooking does to you. *lol*
- The (now famous) lactic acid tolerance, that mankind has also developed over the past 10'000 years or so.
- The cyclids of Lake Tanganyka? What theory, other than evolution can explain the proliferation of these fish in only 15'000 years?

I suggest you get yourself a copy of Jerry Coyne's excellent book "Why Evolution is True". It is full of many more examples.
Annnaxim
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 8:03:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:28:48 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
why do you feel the need to tell us your name is harry at the bottom of this post when your name is already at the top of it?

He's just making sure you don't forget what his name was half way through.
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 12:49:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:31:04 AM, toocoolblue wrote:
First off, anything presented as evidence from talkorigins is a joke.
Even their own website warns us -
Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts...
Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact. As a general rule, you should never rely too heavily on anything you read on the Internet.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Please in the future, use Wiki if you want unreliable information.

Secondly, birds have been discovered to see in the infrared spectrum. It makes absolutely no difference what color the moths are - the birds can see them.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Whatever criticism you have of talkorigins can easily apply to creationist sites as well and even to your own posts. The difference is that talkorigins has a reputation for citing their sources.

Also, just because an animal can see some infrared colors doesn't mean that they have magic heat detecting vision giving them the ability to see any living thing. It just means the spectrum of colors they see is shifted compared to ours. They can see most normal colors too.

White moths look slightly different to them than to us because of their shifted spectrum, but white moths are similar to white trees because they are similar colors no matter what spectrum they are using.

Also it has been shown by research that white moths released in unpolluted areas have better survival, and black moths released in polluted areas have better survival. Your point is refuted.

Here is talkorigins for a description of the study. For a website you mock it sure is good at refuting your points. If you don't like it then look up the study it sites.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 12:53:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:31:04 AM, toocoolblue wrote:
First off, anything presented as evidence from talkorigins is a joke.
Even their own website warns us -
Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts...
Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact. As a general rule, you should never rely too heavily on anything you read on the Internet.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Please in the future, use Wiki if you want unreliable information.

Secondly, birds have been discovered to see in the infrared spectrum. It makes absolutely no difference what color the moths are - the birds can see them.

Oh, and by the way they see in ultraviolet not infrared.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,968
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 1:37:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
So are we agreed that this is not a hoax? As far as I can tell the limit of the 'hoax' is that the moths in the photos were 'posed' rather than being a chance observation of the two kinds of moth next to each other.

Somehow I don't see that as scandal.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 2:21:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 1:37:07 PM, keithprosser wrote:
So are we agreed that this is not a hoax? As far as I can tell the limit of the 'hoax' is that the moths in the photos were 'posed' rather than being a chance observation of the two kinds of moth next to each other.

Somehow I don't see that as scandal.

Wrong. Satan-worshiping illuminati are out to brainwash our children to make them worship Richard Dawkins, thereby luring them away from Jesus and fufilling their masters wishes. This is the only possible explanation. Buy a tin foil hat before it's too late.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Annnaxim
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:57:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 2:21:19 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:

Wrong. Satan-worshiping illuminati are out to brainwash our children to make them worship Richard Dawkins, thereby luring them away from Jesus and fufilling their masters wishes.

Who are the Illminati? Who is Satan?

Note:
We are all born atheists. Then the indoctrination starts. Children must be taught to worship a God.
The Domican friars have a saying:
Give me the child at the age of 6, and I will give you the man.

BTW... "Domican" comes from dominus canem (the hounds of the Lord)
Just think about that for a while...