Dead MothsGlued To The Trees![And More Evolution Frauds Exposed!]

GEM Genesis Evidence Ministry ^ | 2004 | Teno Groppi

[Full Court]

Dead Moths Glued To The Trees!

One of the main examples trotted out by evolutionists has just been blown to the moon (Luna in moth talk). Chicago evolutionist Jerry Coyne called the peppered moth story "the  prize horse in our stable.” He commented that realizing this evidence was invalid was much like when he found out Santa Claus was also a phony.      Evolutionists have long used the example of the ratio of black and white moths in England as proof of evolution by natural selection. It was claimed that when the trees were covered with lichens and light, the moths were light. When pollution made the trees become dark with soot, the moths also became dark. Then when pollution controls cleaned things up and the trees turned light again, so did the moths.      In the first place, that didn't prove evolution anyway, only variation within the genetic code of the same kind of creature. They never changed from moths to something else, not even from peppered moths to another moth. But even so, the peppered moth example is more crooked than our past President.     Anyone interested in the creation-evolution debate surely has seen the pictures of the moths on tree trunks. But it turns out that the moths (Biston betularia) don't even rest on tree trunks during the day - only at night. British scientist Cyril Clarke investigated the peppered moths for 25 years, and saw only two in their natural habitat by day - no other researchers have seen any. H. B. Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing female pheromones - in each case, they only flew in at night.      How did they get on the trees for the photos and films? Two ways, both more dishonest than the Piltdown man hoax:      1) They were LABORATORY-BRED. The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on the hood of his car.      2) DEAD moths were GLUED to the trees! U-Mass biologist Theodore Sargent confessed to the dirty deed for a NOVA documentary. He also admitted that textbooks and films have featured “a lot of fraudulent photographs”.     And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones - the opposite of textbook predictions!      This “prize horse” will never make it to the Kentucky Derby. ******* Calgary Herald, March 21, 1999, p. D3. D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, 'Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation', Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67–83, 1975. J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36. Creation Ex Nihilo 21(3):56, “Goodbye peppered moths”, June–August 1999

[Dimensio]

Science must fake evidence sometimes.

No evidence was faked here. The only fraud is on the part of the creationists who claim that there was a fraud.

[Stultis]

Correction to my previous... I've recently learned that not just horses but dogs also apparently have differing chromosome numbers among species.

[dangus]

On many threads, I have asserted that there was no "gotcha" gained by creationists by various stories. THIS, on the other hand, is significant.

[Dimensio]

On many threads, I have asserted that there was no "gotcha" gained by creationists by various stories. THIS, on the other hand, is significant.

What, creationists crying "FRAUD!" over a common practice in any insect study because they don't have a legitimate argument to their name? That is significant?

Seems fairly mundane to me.

[RunningWolf]

Evo cannot stand on its own, so its prognosticators (demented nutcase on this thread) must turn quickly to an attack on 'creationists'

Wolf

[Stultis]

must turn quickly to an attack on 'creationists'

So those claiming fraud, lies, etc, where there are none, should be left alone?

Would this include Congressional Democrats too?

[beaver fever]

'm sorry Beaver. I didn't work when I previewed so I thought I did something wrong and it wouldn't show up. :-)

I was only kidding. I should have ended LOL

[YHAOS]

"Yes, of course. We understand. Science must fake evidence sometimes."

You mean this was not so much a case of peppered moths as it was a case of salted moths?

[bornacatholic]

"Dear viewe, we glued these damn moths to the trees to prove a point about naturally occuring events" as a caption to these photos would deprive mean Creationists of their ammunition.

[bornacatholic]

Creationists crying fraud is a naturally occuring event.

[bornacatholic]

Nature documentaries ought be labelled fiction then, right?

Y'all appear quite panicked about transparency, brother.

[Stultis]

Nature documentaries ought be labelled fiction then, right?

*I* don't think so. But you should, by the standards you're applying, and if you think our response to this ludicrous overreaction and faux outrage re Peppered Moths is "panicked". It would be hypocritical on your part to insist that pictures merely illustrating color and crypsis can't be in any way staged, but ones that ARE intended to illustrate much more, e.g. authentic natural behavior in nature documentaries, could be. Don't you think?

BTW, maybe you can answer the question Full Court has chosen to ignore. Why would creationists make a big stink about moths changing color, and not even changing species, at the same time most creationists allow that whole Families containing dozens of species, many with differing chromosome numbers (e.g. horse, dogs) can evolve from a single "created kind"?

[Dimensio]

"Dear viewe, we glued these damn moths to the trees to prove a point about naturally occuring events"

That would be an inaccurate caption. A proper caption would be "Attention viewers: in order to properly highlight the physical features of this organism, we have glued it in place so that it cannot move around and spoil the aim of the camera".

[bornacatholic]

. It would be hypocritical on your part to insist that pictures merely illustrating color and crypsis can't be in any way staged,

*Stage all you want. Fake all you want. I just ask for the information to be labelled as what it is.