You missed the point. You can no longer say that evolutionism just relies on evidence. Mothman showed us that the belief of the evolutionist doing the experiments is what determines their conclusions. That's because he had so much faith in evolutionism that he changed the evidence.
Again with the evolutionism, NOT AN -ISM
And again it was with the scientific method that the flaws were caught and are being worked to be corrected. So yes I can say it's not based on faith but evidence.
With the Kettlewell experiments he had them artificially on tree trunks. Current research has since show there true resting place not to be on the trunks but on the branches of the trees.
âWhen Rory Howlett and Michael Majerus studied the natural resting sites of peppered moths in various parts of England, they concluded that âexposed areas of tree trunks are not an important resting site for any form of B. betularia.â In 1987, British biologists Tony Liebert and Paul Brakefield confirmed Mikkolaâs observations that âthe species rests predominantly on branches.... Many moths will rest underneath, or on the side of, narrow branches in the canopy.â
Cyril Clarke research only turned up one of these moths resting on trunks naturally, however later studies indicate they do rest on trunks showing as much as 25-37% of them doing this.
So while we could dismiss Kettlewells experiments as evidence for it's flaws, further research still is pointing to the findings to basically be correct.
Observation: the peppered moths changed color as the trees were darkened. There was an overwhelming number who did this in the areas that were effected.
Hypothesis: they did this as an evolutionary response to there environment.
Test Hypothesis: tests turns out that this is correct.
Further testing finds flaws in original conclusions that the change in tree color should not have had effect on the moths.
Even further testing finds while the trunk change was not necessarily a heavy influence,they do have a common resting place in trees.
Anyway as Avorne said this is really getting bogged down with plenty of other examples that can be used. So for the sake of argument lets just say your right and non of the peppered moth evidence is valid.
We can still point the the nylonase which wouldn't have even been able to exist before the invention of nylon.
Avornes example of bears.
On a more practical level, the fact we have to keep developing new flu vaccines. If it wasn't for the viruses ability to adapt and change we wouldn't need new vaccines.
Changes needed to be made in pesticides. Many insect become immune to pesticide mixes over time through the processes indicated by evolution.
Since I have gotten on the subject and have shown practical applications for evolution, what practical application does creationism have?
