Piltdown man was indeed fake. However, I again I am confused why do you present it as if it refutes evolutionary theory. While Piltdown was not discovered to be fake, it entirely threw off human evolution and cast serious doubts over the entire area. When it was revealed as a fraud, it vindicated evolution.
As for the moth experiments, they were not fakes. Are you referring to the photographs? The photographs were done for the purposes of illustration, not actual research. It was done to illustrate the relative camoflauge the different moths, light and dark colored, on different backgrounds. That some of the photographs were staged has no bearing on the actual research Kettlewell conducted. Most pictures of insects are staged anyway.
Again, as with Haeckel, he was discredited, but interestingly, recapitulation is well-observed in the development of organisms and it remains factual that vertebrate embryos are similar.
The definition of “Well-Backed” will also doubtless be debated (Grin).
>>Piltdown man was indeed fake. However, I again I am confused why do you present it as if it refutes evolutionary theory.
Not disproving Evolution, it means when you see something that seems to end the debate, be suspicious. For or against Evolution, don’t end the debate prematurely. I am sure you could find some hoaxes attempting to disprove evolution, the ones hoodwinking “Scientists” just made more of a splash that’s all.
>>When it was revealed as a fraud, it vindicated evolution.
See my comment above :-)
>>Are you referring to the photographs?
Yes, don’t stage photos of your proof period. The actual research was not as dramatic as the photos, hence it was a lie. (it’s that little bit of Dog poop in the Brownies that I was talking about earlier).
>>Again, as with Haeckel
Yes, but my point with bringing him up was I intend to be skeptical until things are validated, preferably by someone who is trying to prove it wrong.