>>Could you please show where Kettlewell et al referred to the photos as some kind of "proof of a theory" or "evidence"?
Nope, not gonna do your research for ya. He used them as part of the presentation, whether or not he said “These are accurate” is irrelevant.
Wow, if I fought this hard against evolution, you’d a call me a fanatic. Oh wait…
Can you show where Dan Rather said these documents are 100% accurate in his first airing of them? No, well, he didn’t lie then.
Can you show where Bill Clinton said “I never got a BJ form Monica Lewinski”? No? Well he didn’t lie then.
Give it up already, your obsession with the “No one who is for evolution would ever lie” line shows you for what you are, a believer, not a scientist. (Not that being a believer is bad, if you are willing to admit it.)
Proving a negative is really hard for example; prove that god does not exist:
1. God might be anywhere in the universe and he might be moving around, so you would have to be every where at once to prove he was not there. (That’s omnipresent)
2. He might be hiding somewhere you haven’t thought of so you would have to know everything, and have thought of everywhere he might be, and every form he might take. (That’s omniscient)
3. He might go some where you can’t go or be doing something you can’t do, so you would have to be able to do everything, preferably at once (that’s omnipotent)
In order to prove god does not exist, you would have to be God.
It's not my research. You claimed the photos were an integral part of the study; I'm claiming that the study would have been the same if it had not been illustrated. Since the actual study had to do with the numbers of light and dark moths that were eaten, I really don't see what the picture had to do with anything, other than to give the reader an idea of what the predatory birds saw.
And there is nothing fake about the photos. They simply show the light/dark moths on a light/dark bark background.
Give it up already, your obsession with the “No one who is for evolution would ever lie” line shows you for what you are, a believer, not a scientist. (Not that being a believer is bad, if you are willing to admit it.)
But I never said that. What I did way was that in 150 years there has been one hoax or fraud (Piltdown) and one case of exaggerated drawings (Haeckel). The first was pretty much ignored for 30 years until the definite proof of fraud was produced; the latter has been superseded by modern photographs (that, incidentally, show recapitulation; - there are a lot more examples of it known to us than there were to Haeckel).
Meanwhile, just in the last 50-odd years, how many frauds have anti-evolution activists committed? Well, there's
"Dr" Carl Baugh's fake human/dinosaur footprints - exposed by scientists, not by anti-evolution activists
Gary Parker's dishonest claims that protein analysis shows humans to be more closely related to chickens and bullfrogs than to chimps.
Don Patton's false claims about "Malachite Man" (ne "Moab Man")
Talk Origins exhaustive listing of fake "anomalous fossils"
The fake account of Darwin renouncinghis theory on his deathbed, pushed by the self-serving preacherwoman "Lady Hope".
Kent Hovind's notorious $250,000 challenge to "prove" the Theory of Evolution, where, in order to win, you'd also have to "prove" that "1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves." (When the IRS gets through with him, he won't have the 250K; but that's another kind of fraud, tax fraud)
Lies about what astronomers have found
The thousands of fraudulent quotations mined from legitimate scientists by anti-evolution activists with no more respect for the scientists than they have for that mother lode of mined quotes, the Bible.
So one or two in 150 years doesn't look at all bad in context, does it?