[Full Court]

Sweetie, you think gluing moths on trees and changing their colors to try and prove evolution isn't a fraud?

[Dimensio]

Sweetie, you think gluing moths on trees and changing their colors to try and prove evolution isn't a fraud?

Who was changing the colours of moths? Oh, wait, no one was. You're just lying.

The moths were glued as a means of comparing two different coloured moths. No one ever claimed that the photos of the glued moths were taken in the wild. You are a liar to call it a fraud.

[Stultis]

Sweetie, you think gluing moths on trees and changing their colors to try and prove evolution isn't a fraud?

??????? Where are you getting the "changing their colors" bit?

No. Staging textbook photos, the only point of which is to illustrate relative degrees of crypsis (camouflage effect) is in no way, shape or form "a fraud". (Unless, of course, the photos were represented as being natural, which they weren't.)

The vast majority of textbook photos of insects are almost certainly staged. This doesn't matter unless you're trying to illustrate some natural behavior. The peppered moth photos didn't have anything to do with that. They were merely illustrating the morphological feature of coloring.

I genuinely don't understand the point of this outrage about the photos. It's really silly.

[b_sharp]

"Sweetie, you think gluing moths on trees and changing their colors to try and prove evolution isn't a fraud?

They were pinned to the tree because live unpinned moths don't tend to stay in one place long enough to visually document. The change in colour has been well documented and was not faked for the photographs. In fact the colour change has been observed more recently in peppered moths elsewhere.

On top of that, the photos were not used in the research nor were conclusions based on them. They are a very good example of selection.