"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."
Then, why did you present it as if evolution was at fault as a result of the fraud?
"See my comment above :-)"
That doesn't change the fact that it vindicated human evolution.
"Yes, don’t stage photos of your proof period."
If the purpose is to illustrate the crypsis of the moths, what is the problem with staging photographs? The entire purpose was to show the camoflauge of the moths against different backgrounds. How that is deceptive eludes, especially considering that most insect photographs are staged anyway.
"The actual research was not as dramatic as the photos, hence it was a lie."
Non-sequitur. That doesn't make sense. How was the research not dramatic? In 1848, the carbonaria form of the Biston betularia was only beginning to appear and by 1895 it consituted approximately 98% of the population in Manchester. Kettlewell sought out to find the selection pressures behind the spread of melanism in the moth populations, and he concluded that it was due to bird predation. Other researchers, such as Majerus, came later and found that bird predation was one predominant factor of the spread of the traits, but not the only factor. The research is abundantly clear.
"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."
I don't understand what you mean by validated. How has evolution not been validated?
>>Then, why did you present it as if evolution was at fault as a result of the fraud?
I did not intend that interpretation, indeed if I gave that impression, please tell me which post so I can improve my communication.
>>>>"Yes, don’t stage photos of your proof period."
>>If the purpose is to illustrate the crypsis of the moths, what is the problem with staging
>>photographs? The entire purpose was to show the camoflauge of the moths against
>>different backgrounds. How that is deceptive eludes, especially considering that most
>>insect photographs are staged anyway.
Fine, state that the photo is for illustration only, don’t present it as a “Nature shot” of actual Peppered moths on a tree trunk (Peppered moths don’t usually rest on tree trunks so how they looked “There” was not a factor in the change in coloration) – More Dog poop.
IMHO, Scientists should always tell it like it is, no marketing, never exaggerate, and never color what they see.
>>Non-sequitur. That doesn't make sense. How was the research not dramatic?
Oh please, not the grammar police bit again?
Fine, the research was “dramatic”, the photo was exaggeration of a dramatic event and therefore since presented as an un-staged photo, was a lie.
>>>>"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."
>>I don't understand what you mean by validated. How has evolution not been validated?
Validated: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=validated
I prefer 3 for this context “To establish the soundness of; corroborate.”
How about Corroborated? I don’t want to jump to a conclusion based on one (or even like minded scientists test. I will accept something once it has proof and cannot be disproved by others who are opponents to that position.
Evolution has not been validated, it has been backed up by new discoveries, and sometimes the theory has changed to accommodate them, but we do not yet “know” it’s true.
I’m kind of partial to that pink unicorn theory of yours, my daughters would like it.