[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You must be a very selective reader (see faith)"

No, I actually understand what is written. The moths were only pinned down in a few pictures, and only to show the contrast between the two color varieties. That's a fact.

"And once again it looks like you are wrong. Did you actually read the link you posted? It points out problems with Kettlewell's methods."

No it didn't. It said the studies were valid.

"An opinion piece from talkorigns.org. Do you ever venture into the scary world of information beyond the womb of the evolution-faithful?"

Do you always hand-wave away evidence that goes against your insular religious views? The piece was a detailed rebuttal of the charge that the studies were faked. It provided extensive citations to back it up.

[Last Visible Dog]

No it didn't. It said the studies were valid.

CarolinaGuitarman, you are like a caricature.

This is from your link: " The 'design flaws' in some of the experiments, if you want to call them that were primarily a result of practical expediency because Kettlewell wanted to be able to see birds taking moths, and to film them."

design flaws = bad science

practical expediency = faking results

The evo fanboys try to spin it, but it is what it is.

Kettlewell was not all wrong, but it was bad (incomplete/inventing results to fit one's desired outcome)

Open your eyes and then open your mind.