>>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.
"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." It was never intended to be. It was never portrayed as a nature shot. Interestingly, when Majerus improved upon Kettlewell's research, he viewed typica and carbonaria Biston betularia naturally staying in differing backgrounds, and compared them to the staged photographs Kettlewell used, and concluded that there was little or no difference.
"Peppered moths don’t usually rest on tree trunks so how they looked 'There' was not a factor in the change in coloration"
Peppered moths rest on tree trunks about 25% of the time. Also, whole trees are covered in pollution, which includes branches, the trunk, even the ground. The coloration of anywhere on the tree represents the crypsis of the moths.
"Scientists should always tell it like it is, no marketing, never exaggerate, and never color what they see."
They didn't. The photos nor the experiments were exaggerated.
"the photo was exaggeration of a dramatic event"
No, it wasn't. Please see above.
"therefore since presented as an un-staged photo"
Kettlewell's photos were not presented as un-staged. However, Majerus, who took unstaged photographs, noted that the difference between the photographs were minimal.
"was a lie."
Not really.
"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."
Of course, scientists do not 'know' if a theory is true. This is impossible because it would contradict tentativity. Entities in science are by definition tentative and subject to correction and change. Nothing in science is truly 'known' without a doubt to be true. Of course, overwhelming evidence may exist.
I still don't understand how evolution has not been validated. Comparative genomics agrees, and there have been numerous successful predictions made by evolutionary theory.
Here's a recent one: "The study, published in June in The Journal of Heredity, analyzed and compared DNA sequences from 233 species and used the results to create a new family tree for spiny-rayed fishes. That group includes many types of toadfish, scorpionfish (lionfish are a type of scorpionfish), surgeonfish, rabbitfish, jacks, stargazers and saber-toothed blennies.
The family tree shows how the species are related, and which evolved from the same ancestor. Based on the tree, the researchers predicted which species should be venomous. Then, to test their predictions, Dr. Smith dissected 102 specimens, looking for venom glands and delivery systems like spikes, fangs or sharp fins.
Of the 102 species he examined, previous research had suggested that 26 were venomous. But the new analysis predicted that 61 would be venomous — and the dissections bore that out. "
News Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/science/22fish.html?ex=1313899200&en=16ed0b6f64a3212f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Journal Article: http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/3/206