Replies

There are actually hundreds of theories out there. Darwain, had his beliefs, but some of his evidence was faked (The moth or butterfly, I forget which), and some of his ideas have been impossible to be proven. I think he may have possibly been on the right track, but the wrong train. No one has ever been able to factually prove any of his theories, nor have all (some have) his ideas stood the test of time, and there are numerious holes written in his book. By the way, I know its irrelevant, but the full name of his book was actually "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Just because one says this is wrong, does not by itself mean, that the other choice is right.

Darwain, had his beliefs, but some of his evidence was faked (The moth or butterfly, I forget which), and some of his ideas have been impossible to be proven. I think he may have possibly been on the right track, but the wrong train. No one has ever been able to factually prove any of his theories, nor have all (some have) his ideas stood the test of time, and there are numerious holes written in his book.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Utterly, hopelessly wrong.

but some of his evidence was faked (The moth or butterfly, I forget which)

Are you referring to the pepper moth example? An illustration of natural selection was shown regarding a population of pepper moths in London (I think that it was London). During the industrial revolution, the trees became covered in soot, which made the typically white pepper moths easier to spot by predator birds. The population of white moths dwindled but a previously smaller population of black moths (until then a genetic anomoly) thrived because they suddenly were able to blend in against the sooty trees. Once the air was cleaned up, the trees returned to their original colour and the populations reversed (I think that is the gist of the story, someone correct me if I am wrong).

A few creationists, either incredibly dishonest or very stupid, used the fact that dead moths were glued to bark samples as "proof" that the research was faked. Nevermind of course that the images of two moths, one black and one white, against two different bark samples was merely illustrative and never presented as a 'live' snapshot, since it would have been incredibly difficult to obtain the needed shots in the wild (because animals typically won't pose upon request).