Moths:
>>The photo simply showed the raw materials of the study
No, the photo showed a carefully arranged visual for the study performed with dead moths glued to the tree (he admitted it later, look it up)
Embryos:
His drawings were knowingly faked, and he guessed right on some of the stuff. Hardly my idea of “Good science” (Hey, I guessed right, so what’s the problem?)
IF that’s good enough for you, well I’m happy for you.
>>Of course it's fake. But it wasn't used to "prove evolution correct"
Um Yeah, right.
>>The claim was that the moths that contrasted the most with the background were eaten more often, and that this made the protective coloration more common in subsequent generations.
Yes, that was the claim. The proof (photo) was just faked. So have you looked at “Picture kill” the photographer who “Enhanced” his photos of damage in Lebanon? Is that fake to you?
>>Nowadays, it's a moot point.
Obviously Scientists being willing to fake proof of something is moot to you; to me it raises the bar on future “Evidence”. But hey you probably bought “Fake but accurate”. As for me I would Rather not be fooled.
>>On-and-a-half cases in 150 years hardly supports this claim.
Just curious, you have 2.3 children huh? / Humor
to me, half a truth is a lie, if told purposefully. Did you read my Brownies and dog poop example? To me either some thing is “True” or it is not. I do not deal in half of this .432578 truth of that. Maybe that’s why you are a proponent of evolution, and I am a skeptic.
Oh well, Rest well in your certainty, and have a good day.
P.S. My point in posting to this thread has already been achieved, so I may not post back if what you say is not interesting.
The proof was by counting moths; the photo was irrelevent to the actual study.