I found sites that talked about the theory and reasonings, and also ones that showed why it was not a hoax.
What are you talking about yielee, where did you find a site proving it to be a hoax? Or even hinting at it? I didn't find one.... and I googled it just like you said.
Conclusion School children need to learn that the peppered moth story provides evidence for changes of frequencies of different types within a population, but does not show that large scale evolution can occur. They should also understand that the original experiments behind the peppered moth story have widely acknowledged flaws, and some of these issues have been addressed in more recent experiments.
Why don't you check good links? Coloration: rnPEPPERED MOTHS ARE NOCTURNAL AND THEIR CHIEF PREDATORS ARE BATS. rn
While admitting flaws in the initial studies further studies as stated in one of Mavericks links has confirmed initial findings of Kettlewell's with using better methods.
These criticisms have led some critics of evolution to charge that the peppered moth story is "faked," or is "known to be wrong."
Neither is true. In fact, the basic elements of the peppered moth story are quite correct. The population of dark moths rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution, and the percentage of dark moths in the population was clearly highest in regions of the countryside that were most polluted. As Majerus, the principal scientific critic of Kettlewell's work wrote, "My view of the rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarily responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors." (p. 155). So, what's going on here?
Well, the best way to put it is that what we are seeing is the scientific process at its best. Majerus and other ecologists have carefully examined the details of Kettlewell's work and found them to be lacking. As Majerus explains, to be absolutely certain of exactly how natural selection produced the rise and fall of the carbonaria form, we need better experiments to show that birds (in a natural environment) really do respond to camouflage in the ways we have presumed, that the primary reason the dark moths did better in polluted areas was because of camouflage (and not other factors like behavior), and that migration rates of moths from the surrounding countryside are not so great that they overwhelm the influence of selection in local regions by birds. Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story will be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete.
But even if the Peppered Moth can't be used we have plenty of other examples to work with.
This is what the encyclopedia says is all that the peppered moth hoax has to teach us:
When scientists have an uncritical acceptance of a certain theory there is a real danger of seeing what one believes and turning science into dogma. Dogmatic knowledge, teaching what is only an opinion as absolute fact, is the antithesis of science's basic tenet of observation and questioning.
Quit believing that scientists don't make stuff up, cause this proves it!
I think it just shows that scientists know they can be wrong and if new evidence comes up we accept the change and are just trying to find out the "truth" or what really happens.
I think it just shows that scientists know they can be wrong and if new evidence comes up we accept the change and are just trying to find out the "truth" or what really happens.
Yep. Basically, first experiment shows one thing. Second experiment shows another and flaws in first experiment. Third experiment works out flaws in first experiment and the results end up that the findings of the first experiment are correct but incomplete.
Science will check and recheck itself for errors through further experimentation. Religion does not do this. It takes one conclusion and stays with it. I'm thinking this mind set of just going with one conclusion may be where your getting hung up here.
Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story will be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete.
Even your own link says the Peppered moth shows nothing. It's a non-example.
You guys just spent so much of time defending something that you said supported evolutionism, but it doesn't. Even your own evolutionists admit it shows nothing.
You guys just spent so much of time defending something that you said supported evolutionism, but it doesn't.
First off, evolutionism is an archaic term. That's why I've mentioned a name change for this topic a few times.
Second, they aren't saying it's a non-example just incomplete. There is a difference.
Finally, even if we were to completely throw this out as an example this still doesn't effect the validity of evolution since we have plenty of other examples to work with.
Evolutionism is a belief, and it's what happens when it becomes dogma. When the belief in evolution is so strong that so-called scientists are willing to alter their experiments or ignore information just to prove their opinions, that's what makes it evolutionism. That guy did just that.
That example shows that scientists who believe in evolutionism aren't so objective. This is just one case cause it got put under scrutiny. The other scientists even said, some of this stuff is false, but some of it is true --- but we don't know what the true part means. It means nothing. Incomplete in science means no conclusion can be drawn. It's just nonsense to say otherwise.
So that's just one example. You say there's more, but how do you know the other guys aren't just as guilty as this guy was? I doubt he was the only one, and since we don't know how many others are out there, we just have to conclude that they are all guilty of counterfitting their data to support their belief in evolutionism.
Evolutionism is a belief, and it's what happens when it becomes dogma. When the belief in evolution is so strong that so-called scientists are willing to alter their experiments or ignore information just to prove their opinions, that's what makes it evolutionism. That guy did just that.
And further experiments found the flaws and even further ones have made corrections.
Again evolutionism is an archaic term. The theory of evolution isn't just based on belief.
That example shows that scientists who believe in evolutionism aren't so objective. This is just one case cause it got put under scrutiny.
Of course it got put under scrutiny that's how good science works.
Also if you see mere belief as being so flawed then why do you hold to something based completely on belief that does what it can to avoid being scrutinized?
So that's just one example. You say there's more, but how do you know the other guys aren't just as guilty as this guy was?
Same way we know there were flaws in the initial peppered moth experiments. We don't just come to a conclusion and stop it get checked and rechecked.
I doubt he was the only one, and since we don't know how many others are out there, we just have to conclude that they are all guilty of counterfitting their data to support their belief in evolutionism.
Person in the 300s said to get people to convert to Christianity he was going to basically make up what ever he felt was needed to get people to convert. By your line of thinking you should then apply this same logic to your own beliefs. Since one person was willing to lie for a belief then you don't know how many were and you shouldn't trust that belief right?
Nice thing is the evidence for evolution can be presented objectively. That means if someone is wrong or lies it can be found out and corrected.
Seeing as this topic is suppose to be about Creationism as well. Let's just say for the sale of argument evolution is proven false, this still doesn't prove creationism. You would still have to provide evidence for it's validity.
