Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the "moth theory" that is used to buttress evolution, a hoax?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is the "moth theory" that is used to buttress evolution, a hoax?

    I was always taught this in biology class, and I've always heard banter about it in circles, but it appears it might have been a hoax?


    Supposedly there are holes in the story. . All kinds of holes?


    I hope to hear from Piggy, Russian, and many others who usually have good input (whether or not I agree) on these issues.

  • #2
    Me and Pugs had a heated debate over this and I won. He quit on his stool.

    The photographs are a hoax and the theory has been proven false. Even if the findings were true, it doesn't prove anything. It's obvious if the (white) moths are being eaten more frequently than the (black) moths, then the (white) moth population would decrease while the (black) moth population would increase.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by UglyPug View Post
      I was always taught this in biology class, and I've always heard banter about it in circles, but it appears it might have been a hoax?


      Supposedly there are holes in the story. . All kinds of holes?


      I hope to hear from Piggy, Russian, and many others who usually have good input (whether or not I agree) on these issues.
      Some creationists surprisingly made the boneheaded accusation that the pictures of the moths on dark and light coloured backgrounds was HOAXED! Yes, those photographs used for illustrative purposes were indeed hoaxed. The dead moths were pinned in place.

      The photographs were not the research. The research was the frequency of the trait, not a couple of text book photos.

      Originally posted by ShaunRoberts View Post
      Me and Pugs had a heated debate over this and I won. He quit on his stool.

      The photographs are a hoax and the theory has been proven false. Even if the findings were true, it doesn't prove anything. It's obvious if the (white) moths are being eaten more frequently than the (black) moths, then the (white) moth population would decrease while the (black) moth population would increase.
      Yes, that would be natural selection acting on the frequency of an allele in the gene pool. So... you know... evolution. In action.

      Comment


      • #4
        pug, what are the redeeming qualities of the girl in your avatar?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by squealpiggy View Post
          Some creationists surprisingly made the boneheaded accusation that the pictures of the moths on dark and light coloured backgrounds was HOAXED! Yes, those photographs used for illustrative purposes were indeed hoaxed. The dead moths were pinned in place.

          The photographs were not the research. The research was the frequency of the trait, not a couple of text book photos.
          The whole theory has no substance. Moths don't rest on tree trunks during the day. Which is what the theory depends on.

          What about in areas with no pollution? You would expect the moths to mostly be (white) when in fact there were 4 times as many (black) moths.

          Originally posted by squealpiggy View Post
          Yes, that would be natural selection acting on the frequency of an allele in the gene pool. So... you know... evolution. In action.
          You seem to be confusing natural selection with evolution.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by New England View Post
            pug, what are the redeeming qualities of the girl in your avatar?

            She squeals like a pig while ridding a dildo.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ShaunRoberts View Post
              The whole theory has no substance. Moths don't rest on tree trunks during the day. Which is what the theory depends on.

              What about in areas with no pollution? You would expect the moths to mostly be (white) when in fact there were 4 times as many (black) moths.


              You seem to be confusing natural selection with evolution.
              Natural selection is the mechanism that drives evolution. The two are directly related. Evolution is the direct result of natural selection, you cannot have natural selection without evolution. They're inseparable.
              Last edited by deliveryman; 10-14-2012, 09:43 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by squealpiggy View Post
                Some creationists surprisingly made the boneheaded accusation that the pictures of the moths on dark and light coloured backgrounds was HOAXED! Yes, those photographs used for illustrative purposes were indeed hoaxed. The dead moths were pinned in place.

                The photographs were not the research. The research was the frequency of the trait, not a couple of text book photos.



                Yes, that would be natural selection acting on the frequency of an allele in the gene pool. So... you know... evolution. In action.

                That's what I said too! lol, literally exactly what I tried explaining to Flabbers!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by New England View Post
                  pug, what are the redeeming qualities of the girl in your avatar?

                  Hahaha what Shaun'ster said. . . She has the cutest, sexiest voice ever. . And she squels, and shrieks so sexy whenn riding a dildo. . . it's so feminine, high-pitched, and timid and innocent sounding.

                  She has a nice ass too. . And I think she has a cute face. . .

                  I understand my taste in girls isn't the same as others, though.

                  I sometimes think girls who just have that average cute look about them are sexier than these super model type girls. Not in all cases, though.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It was "faked" to the extent that the peppered moth used in the photographs were dead moths pinned or glued to the tree just to make the photographs easier to take. In that case I guess all those insect collections at museums are evidence against evolution as well.

                    One side has almost the entire realm of science in agreement, submits articles to peer-reviewed scientific journals, and is studied in every major university on the planet.

                    The other side sells tapes in church basements and submits no literature to scientific journals while conducting no research.
                    Last edited by DeadLikeMe; 10-14-2012, 12:01 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP