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

GEM Genesis Evidence Ministry ^ | 2004 | Teno Groppi

[Full Court]

This thread is for evolution frauds and scams and the discussion of such. If you are not interested, please find another thread to inhabit.

[Oztrich Boy]

Old lies for new placemarker

[coconutt2000]

I remember this from my biology classes.

It was never used as proof of evolution. It was used as an example of natural selection.

As for the validity of the study, my only question is whether or not the population statistics were real or faked. The pictures don't mean much.

[x5452]

If their gluing lab bred moths to trees it seems they have something to hide.

It seemed a logical example of natural selection, but if so why the fakes?

[coconutt2000]

No excuse for not correcting the record earlier. While the original intent may or may not have been intended to deceive, and I think it is likely that it was not intended as a deception, but the photographs should've been identified as being a model for visual demonstration.

It is the validity of the actual moth population statistics that really matters.

[TheCrusader]

Evolutionists are a dishonest bunch to begin with, they even decieve themselves. It's very easy to see that these folks are driven more by agenda than by facts. When there are insufficient facts to support their theories they simply invent them. Their atheist friends in the media are only too happy to publish their nonsense.

[Dimensio]

While the original intent may or may not have been intended to deceive, and I think it is likely that it was not intended as a deception, but the photographs should've been identified as being a model for visual demonstration.

Is there any indication that the photographs were presented as of moths in a completely natural setting?

Many "nature" photographs are deliberately posed because it's hard to find organisms in just the right position for a good illustration. That doesn't make it fraud.

[Dimensio]

Talkorigins has a good response to a number of objections raised regarding the peppered moth study. Not that I expect any creationist to actually do anything more than dismiss anything at TO as "propaganda". Creationists can't analyze the counterclaims objectively for fear of being in a position where they might have to actually admit a mistake.

[Dimensio]

Here is another TO link regarding the peppered moth study. Again, I don't expect any of the hardcore antievolutionists to actually objectively consider the discussion. As far as they are concerned, dead moths were glued in place and that proves that evolution is false. They are beyond reason and logic. I post to inform lurkers.

[coconutt2000]

If you read what I wrote, I don't think that the photographs were frauds. What I'm saying is that the circumstances in which the photographs were taken should've been noted openly before this.

The problem stemming now from this revelation is that it completely draws attention away from the only part that mattered, which is the validity of the data.

[Dimensio]

What I'm saying is that the circumstances in which the photographs were taken should've been noted openly before this.

Except that this kind of thing happens all the time. Unless the photograph is presented an if it is supposed to be of an event occuring within nature, without interference, then it's a fairly common practice because of the problem of making non-human subjects stay still and in any optimal posing. The photographers in this situation had no way of knowing that creationists would leap upon an occurance of an extremely common practice as "proof" of fraud.

The problem stemming now from this revelation is that it completely draws attention away from the only part that mattered, which is the validity of the data.

Trust me, rabid antievolutionists always find an excuse to ignore the validity of the data.

[jennyp]

This is devastating! Because as we all know, MOTHS IMMEDIATELY CHANGE THEIR COLOR WHEN THEY DIE.

[bornacatholic]

Yes, of course. We understand. Science must fake evidence sometimes. And when the fraud is exposed it is only natural to select for criticism those who uncovered the fraud. I credit that sort of behavior to evolving standards of truth.

[beaver fever]

I am reporting you to the Epileptic Foundation for your abuse of the blink tag.

[Ichneumon]

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

This wasn't "faked evidence", since it wasn't used for or presented *as* evidence. It was just a demonstration of how the different moths have different visibility on sooty surfaces.

And when the fraud is exposed it is only natural to select for criticism those who uncovered the fraud.

It wasn't "fraud". Did you not understand the articles in the links, or did you not even bother to read them?

[Ichneumon]

More discussions of the science behind the Peppered Moth research, and why the creationist version (and creationist accusations of "fraud") are a great example of fraud and misrepresentation *by* creationists, not by scientists:

The story of the peppered moth

FINE TUNING THE PEPPERED MOTH PARADIGM

Moonshine: Why the Peppered Moth Remains an Icon of Evolution

LETTER: Charges of fraud misleading

I invite readers to learn the full story, and then compare it against the gross misrepresentations and omissions of creationist "Full Court"'s version above...

Trying to "learn" about science from anti-evolution creationists is like trying to "learn" about conservatism from Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan -- and for exactly the same reasons.

[Ichneumon]

This thread is for evolution frauds and scams and the discussion of such

If you mean "frauds and scams *about* evolution" by creationists, you're off to a great start.

[Stultis]

This thread is for evolution frauds and scams and the discussion of such.

Well, you failed with the first one. Perfectly normal photographs, the only point of which was to illustrate crypsis. But why the ludicrous over reaction to this in the first place? I thought this was exactly the kind of "micro-evolution" that creationists readily agree with? (Indeed creationists generally get upset when they are stereotyped as holding to absolute fixed species.) I thought creationists agreed that natural selection is behind changes just like this?

How do you guys wave your arms and say that ALL dogs, i.e. the entire family canidae, or ALL horses, i.e. the entire family equidae (in the later case with many species having different numbers of chromosomes!) represent single "created kinds," and then throw a hissing fit over a month changing color?

It's just bizarre!

[Stultis]

Yes, of course. We understand. Science must fake evidence sometimes. And when the fraud is exposed

Boy, you really feel strongly about this! I'm sure you've blocked The Discovery Channel on your cable box, complained to your provider, and called all your neighbors to explain that your children are NEVER to watch nature documentaries, since they virtually always include such "fraudulent" "staged" photography or film sequences.

As if... C'mon. NO ONE takes this faux outrage seriously. It only makes you look desperate, or silly.

[Full Court]

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